Thread: Link Detox

Page 2 of 2 First 12
  • Jump to page:
    #16
  1. SEO Since 97
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    8,129
    Rep Power
    5202
    I use spyglass, but it's still a shotgun affect. you need to see why the program is calling a link toxic and make the determination yourself. But it'll give you a good list to work off of...along with the information why it thinks it's toxic, and you don't need to buy credits.

    Comments on this post

    • KernelPanic agrees
    Last edited by Test-ok; Jul 18th, 2014 at 02:33 PM.
  2. #17
  3. Digital Marketing
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    7,739
    Rep Power
    5491
    Thanks Tom, I'll check it out
  4. #18
  5. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    16,980
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally Posted by KernelPanic
    Has anyone come up with a more affordable solution than Link Detox? I would honestly use it every day if I could just buy it and not have to continuously buy credits
    WMT.

    If you use it correctly you don't need anything else.
  6. #19
  7. Digital Marketing
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    7,739
    Rep Power
    5491
    Originally Posted by fathom
    WMT.

    If you use it correctly you don't need anything else.
    I understand your opinion is you don't have to disavow or remove any links that have not been identified by Google as being spam links. So I don't need a tool to find them, is that right Rod?

    (I need Detox's reporting capabilities for client's reports also)
  8. #20
  9. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally Posted by KernelPanic
    Has anyone come up with a more affordable solution than Link Detox? I would honestly use it every day if I could just buy it and not have to continuously buy credits
    Although I'm newbie on this forum so I can't place links I recommend tool that we're working right now with team.
    It's beta and it's free WebDNA (dot) io
  10. #21
  11. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    16,980
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally Posted by KernelPanic
    I understand your opinion is you don't have to disavow or remove any links that have not been identified by Google as being spam links. So I don't need a tool to find them, is that right Rod?

    (I need Detox's reporting capabilities for client's reports also)
    Sorry I haven't been back to this thread.

    My opinion is based on not knowing what algorithm the tool developer used to replace the algorithm of the source creator (Google) when they are not disclosing their details.

    My understanding of Google's ranking philosophy is that all unnatural links are problematic - but these are also not 100% detectable. So you can just as easily disavow or request an edit with rel="nofollow" or request a link deletion for links that are still aiding ranks and not harming the website.

    3rd party tools don't really help you they simply allow you to turn off your brain. When they say drink acid you will. You won't question the logic you will just do it because they believe they know precisely what bad links are (and good links).

    Everything you need is in WMT and it works.
  12. #22
  13. SEO Since 97
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    8,129
    Rep Power
    5202
    3rd party tools don't really help you they simply allow you to turn off your brain. When they say drink acid you will. You won't question the logic you will just do it because they believe they know precisely what bad links are (and good links).
    I beg to differ on this. as I stated you don't just do what the software suggests, you evaluate the data it retrieves. when they say drink acid so you do is a crock. Does WMT give any information..like anchor text, or how many of your links come from the same IP, or if the linking site is indexed or not? This is just some valuable information when analyzing your link data that one can get from a 3rd party tool.

    Everything you need is in WMT and it works.
    If you use it correctly you don't need anything else.
    can you elaborate as to the correct way to use WMT to find your toxic links?
    I find WMT link section show much of nothing but just the link it's discovered.
  14. #23
  15. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    16,980
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally Posted by Test-ok
    I beg to differ on this. as I stated you don't just do what the software suggests, you evaluate the data it retrieves. when they say drink acid so you do is a crock. Does WMT give any information..like anchor text, or how many of your links come from the same IP, or if the linking site is indexed or not? This is just some valuable information when analyzing your link data that one can get from a 3rd party tool.
    Evaluating data requires expertise. The tool developer does not care about expert levels of knowledge they care about earning a living.

    The tool isn't targeted towards experts and the different packages are not scaled towards different expertise levels but quantities of sites to detox. Mom & Pop that didn't understand what unnatural links were will drink the acid - you probably would not.

    can you elaborate as to the correct way to use WMT to find your toxic links?
    I find WMT link section show much of nothing but just the link it's discovered.
    That's simple you know what links you developed and how you developed them ... surely you can identify your own tactics. Obviously if you don't have the necessary skill-sets to understand that this tool isn't going to help you.

    The old standby of some unknown competitor that hire a Negative SEO doesn't match the website's performance. If you got ranked because of Negative SEO (which must occur first) the ranks were not your to begin with. That does not mean you don't have a problem but it does mean the average person this tool is targeted to does not have the skillset to fix with or without this tool.

    But to educate the worse domains for toxic links are found in the first left hand column. If you got 50,000 links from a single domain (at the top of the list) - toxic or not that domain is the most likely to cause the greatest impact whether a positive effect or a negative effect.

    As you go down the list of domains in the first left hand column the potential impact of a positive effect or a negative effect gets smaller.

    So all you need to do is understand what link you created and how... and if that isn't in your capacity this tool is a very dangerous addition to your lack of knowledge.

    If you didn't create it - it isn't toxic.

    A domain will survive with unnatural links those tend to be at the bottom of Google's 1000 domains e.g. 1 or 2 links at a time is a very small problem unless large scale comment spamming that is but you still have knowledge of what you did.

    As a service provider fixing these problem need full disclosure from their client and with that comes the same understanding of what was done.

    While it is possible that someone with major blackhat experience did something all link profile can prove that wasn't the case with the right hand column data. If your toxic links were not place 8-10 weeks prior to a decline you didn't get hit by Negative SEO. No reasonable blackhatter would invest years on a campaign that wasn't funded by someone else and no reasonable competitor would fund this for an extended period without seeing results.

    There is a finite window to Negative SEO and links you don't recognize are commonly called natural links.

    They may not help but they certainly don't hurt.
    Last edited by fathom; Mar 27th, 2015 at 08:13 AM.
  16. #24
  17. SEO Since 97
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    8,129
    Rep Power
    5202
    If you didn't create it - it isn't toxic.
    That's all understandable, however if it's a new client as KP asked about in the first post you're at ground zero, because you haven't created any links so you don't have a clue just looking at links with such a broad brush stroke as WMT offers (link and the day it was discovered along with how many from that domain). So a tool that offers you more information on these links (as stated in my last post) is a plus plus.

    WMT can work for someone like you, I can even make it work for me, but I won't... I have a program that checks for a bunch of different information about the links. Your statement "WMT is all you need" is not true for the normal Joe or even for someone with limited knowledge. Which is who this forum is accommodating.
    Last edited by Test-ok; Mar 27th, 2015 at 04:30 PM.
  18. #25
  19. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    16,980
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally Posted by Test-ok
    That's all understandable, however if it's a new client as KP asked about in the first post you're at ground zero, because you haven't created any links so you don't have a clue just looking at links with such a broad brush stroke as WMT offers (link and the day it was discovered along with how many from that domain). So a tool that offers you more information on these links (as stated in my last post) is a plus plus.

    WMT can work for someone like you, I can even make it work for me, but I won't... I have a program that checks for a bunch of different information about the links. Your statement "WMT is all you need" is not true for the normal Joe or even for someone with limited knowledge. Which is who this forum is accommodating.
    Disclosure of information is needed no matter how you move forward whether Mom or Pop specifically developed the links, hired a cheap layman to do the work, or a professional that schemed their way. If KernelPanic had access to the information that is the difference. If the owner's are indifferent to ease of fixing you can't solve that with any tool. Pretending any program can replace human intelligence even at a basic level just makes the problem bigger.

    More information isn't better... Very specific information is what is needed.

    Who posted the link - the tool cannot tell you that. The website owner has that information 99.9% of the time.

    When the link was posted (the tool can certainly tell you this but so does WMT) if there is any discrepancy between the two my bet go to WMT

    The context of how the link was posted (the tool doesn't tell you that) visual inspection of the link does but the tool makes you think you don't need to inspect each link. This is often where things fall apart not because of the tool but because the user is dependent on the tool decision-making abilities which are a reflection of the programmer's abilities. The tools visual inspection for its own purposes may be extremely thorough but those are the trade secrets of the programmer which is a replacement for the trade secrets of Google that never disclosed the genuine trade secrets to implement.

    You don't need anything else, all the fluff these programmer add to make a detected unnatural link sound worse or make their detection method sound better is simply crap. While lots of people suggest Google's sample of data is incomplete... I will pay them for the proof of that.

    Difficult to do this for PENGUIN but any manual review action will work. Prior to any actions you take download all 3 speadsheets and if Google returns a failed attempt and notes any link that wasn't in the original sample I will pay for my arrogance.

    More info clouds your picture... Less info provides you the best success.

    I'm extremely good at link schemes but have no comprehension of the exact difference between Google's idea of natural links and unnatural links and neither do you which means KernelPanic at ground zero is even worse off still because the tool wasn't built by the creator of unnatural link detection software called PENGUIN nor part of the Webspam Team.

    It was built by one of us with an imperfect knowledge of Google, Google's PENGUIN and no facts of the website's actual developments... That generally does not sound like a recipe for success. It can be and it cannot be.

    As much as Dr. Marie has poured her heart into PENGUIN fixes the fix does not guarantee recovery only more SEO will. If a domain has no internal BACKPATH (What I call internal relevancy) that offsets the lost of link juice seeing visable recovery is impossible without doing SEO (onpage, onsite and replacement offsite).

    KernelPanic how'd things turn out?

    I realize persistence will eventually prevail, soon or later.

    The inherent overall issue is recovery is a two and often three step process not a single step recovery fix. It is fix, then do SEO, then recovery.

    You can sometimes see a certain amount of recovery after only the fix but that isn't practical since editing links, deleting links or disavowing links are not common practices for building ranks. Why would anyone add links at all if doing the reverse works!
    Last edited by fathom; Mar 28th, 2015 at 12:19 PM.
  20. #26
  21. SEO Since 97
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    8,129
    Rep Power
    5202
    More information isn't better... Very specific information is what is needed.
    I can't believe you said that. what makes you think the additional information isn't specific? as I'm about to show.

    Who posted the link - the tool cannot tell you that.
    WMT can't either.

    When the link was posted (the tool can certainly tell you this but so does WMT) if there is any discrepancy between the two my bet go to WMT
    This might be where your thinking is different. I will generally get the list from WMT and then run that list through Spyglass. After which I get all kinds of specific information. For example:
    WMT will show when it was found and the link.
    where as Spyglass will show additional information that WMT does not. :
    1. IP address the link is coming from
    2. anchor text
    3. whether or not the site is indexed in google
    4. what % of the links are coming from the same C-Class Block
    5. if it's a sitewide link
    6. if the link is coming from a link directory

    and the best part is you can sort them by the different criteria.

    with that said, WMT is very limited with their link information and I understand why. The more info they put out the easier it is to figure their algos out to a degree. There's no way you'll ever convince me that WMT is all you need and the above information isn't helpful or specifically important when looking for toxic links.
  22. #27
  23. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    16,980
    Rep Power
    0
    If you have vast expertise you can do/use whatever you want and I'm sure you'll do find but if you aren't doing fine then my cautions are valid concerns.

    My oldest daughter failed grade 8 four times. At the end of the 3rd year attempt her math teacher wanted to push her forward because calculators will be with her for life. I forced the school to keep her at grade 8 for another year.

    Anyone that uses a calulator would know mulitpling a number by 5 will result is an answer ending in 5 or 0 only but if my daughter accidentially hit 7 instead of 5 the answer would not end in 5 or 0 but simething else. She would be powerless to understand the calculator was lying to her.

    This is SEO for the layman and thus recovering for a devaluation is beyond their potential scope. Link Detox (by your own admission) will lie where someone with expertise can discern the truth from errors but the layman cannot.

    I cannot begin to appreciate where KernelPanic is in the picture but when someone says they need the reports from link detox that suggest their abilities to guess if the answer is likely correct is compromised.

    IMHO
Page 2 of 2 First 12
  • Jump to page:

Similar Threads

  1. Link detox - should I disavow?
    By crislowis in forum New User SEO Questions and Answers
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Dec 30th, 2013, 08:43 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2011, 10:01 AM
  3. Detox clinic set for video game addicts (AP)
    By RSS_News_User in forum Technology News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Jun 9th, 2006, 07:06 AM
  4. Hotel offers BlackBerry detox (Reuters)
    By RSS_News_User in forum Technology News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Jun 7th, 2006, 04:06 PM

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo