44 replies to this topic

[1dmf]

Well as you have no control over links pointing to you , how can google penalise you for them?

That means unscrupulous people can do a deliberate detremental SEO campaigns against you specifically to get you droped from the index or at least a +30/+70 etc penalty.

That can't be right surely?

[piskie]

Right or not, that appears to be the unintended consequentials that go with this new Algo Tweak.

Maybe they will throttle it back a bit while they attempt to build in some sort of intelligence that strives to differentiate.
However that seems to be a tall order.

[Jill]

Well as you have no control over links pointing to you , how can google penalise you for them?

That's the million dollar question.

[1dmf]

well you used to teach us it was all about linking to bad neighbourhoods, selling links for PR and ensuring you used rel='nofollow' for adverts, if you the 'SEO Queen' no longer knows, we are all up sh*t creek without a paddle!

Edited by 1dmf, 20 April 2012 - 10:29 AM.

[piskie]

I think if the impact is as bad as it appears to be, Google may (in the short term) go back to ignoring the low quality links rather than impose a penalty on the receiving site.

[AriM]

Yeah, I don't know anymore. After I posted the above I saw a lot of stuff that has me wondering. See this thread on negative SEO. http://www.highranki...seo-is-working/

That's a great post, Jill. Thanks for the link. It's exactly what I'm concerned about, and why I'm really perplexed as to why Google would choose to issue a penalty to the site the links are pointing to, rather than simply ignore links that it considered "unnatural" or otherwise unsavory. It almost seems as if Google is out for revenge against those who may have disobeyed its rules, and revenge is not a productive thing to be busy with, nor is it a good business strategy. They could simply remove the offending link farms/sites/blogs, which will make all the links from them disappear, and then just ignore (or value as zero/nofollow) all other links that they don't think very highly of. It's easily within their capabilities and it would achieve their goal without the "revenge" part, no?

[chrishirst]

and can definitely be harmed by an unscrupulous competitor signing him up on link farms.

Nobody can sign somebody else's website to a link farm without their knowledge. Being part of a link farm involves adding code to the website and without access to the site that cannot be done.

The local roofing contractor isn't busy piling on the "nice" weight over time,

Sure, but Billy Bob's Roofing website probably isn't on a URI of "roof-repairs-ohio.com along with several dozen other indicators that some "adjustments" have been made to give the appearance of a "useful" site.

[ChuckFinley]

@chrishirst

What flavor is that Kool-Aid you drink? LOL!!!

Here's the real world from Aaron Wall at SEO Book --> http://www.seobook.c...tive-seo-outing

Laws regarding restraint of trade, I think.

Yes that's correct.

Here's an example --

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/business/13search.html?pagewanted=all

Is it possible that Google was willing to countenance an extensive black-hat campaign because it helped one of its larger advertisers? It’s the sort of question that European Union officials are now studying in an investigation of possible antitrust abuses by Google.

Investigators have been asking advertisers in Europe questions like this: “Please explain whether and, if yes, to what extent your advertising spending with Google has ever had an influence on your ranking in Google’s natural search.” And: “Has Google ever mentioned to you that increasing your advertising spending could improve your ranking in Google’s natural search?”

Edited by Jill, 21 April 2012 - 01:40 PM.

[chrishirst]

Here's the real world from Aaron Wall at SEO Book

I don't believe that Aaron Wall is in the real world when it comes to Search, he seems to be in a hinterland where all businesses are equal and everybody plays fairly and there are no need for rules.

Oh but! where there are rules to "play by" they should only apply to some sections of the populace.

In his world the big fish do not get to eat the smaller fishes,

[Michael Martinez]

I don't normally beat up on Aaron Wall but I have to say that if you're judging "the real world" by his wild rantings, you're in a different universe from a lot of other people. There's no arguing with Aaron's success in marketing his stuff to SEOs.

[chrishirst]

There's no arguing with Aaron's success in marketing his stuff to SEOs.

That's probably because the vast majority of SEOs prefer to believe what they already know (or think they know) so anything that corresponds or agrees with their ideas must be 100% on the mark.
Let's face it, if you are going to preach to anyone you may as well preach to the converted with something they already know is right. You get a much better RoI that way!

Me, I prefer to believe what I can see or demonstrate for myself, I question everything and take absolutely nothing and absolutely nobody on "faith", and that includes any deity that people wish to believe in.

[Say Yebo]

If Google drops a site for have unnatural inbound links, do they always send the warning letter? One of my clients has suffered a sudden loss of traffic from Google that we believe is related to this, but no warnings.

We uploaded some changes to the site three weeks ago, but all good stuff designed to help customers figure out the products more easily and channel through the shopping cart. And the sudden drop of traffic has all happened since yesterday.

[Jill]

I read something recently, oh it was that post by Patrick Altoft explaining Google's linking penalty which I linked to previously in this thread, which I think said that the unnatural link message can sometimes come later from GWMT.

So who knows?

[Say Yebo]

...the unnatural link message can sometimes come later from GWMT.

So who knows?

Thanks Jill, I guess we all have to wade though this crisis in the dark as always

[ChuckFinley]

Thanks Jill, I guess we all have to wade though this crisis in the dark as always

So true.

I agree that Google doesn't provide much helpful guidance as to what they agree with or not. They do offer some guidance, though. John Mu is one of the rare "Good Guys" at Google and works overtime on the help forums to try to help small businesses. He's only one guy, though, and I think he has as much trouble getting guidance from Google as we do.

Having said that, John Mu did address your situation --

Getting A Notification Now Doesn't Mean It Is A New Penalty -- http://www.seroundta...inks-14968.html

Google stepped up their notifications, so if you get a notification today, it doesn't mean it is a new penalty. Google is sending notifications out for old penalties. John explained, "while we have just recently started sending out these messages, they may apply to issues that were already known (and affecting your site's standing in our search results) for a while."