#31
  1. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    52
    The only links you EVER need to be concern with (with Google) are ONLY the ones in Google WMT. Google will not devalue your domain in any way UNLESS it shows you PRECISELY what caused the problem. You'll still need to weed your Google WMT garden to find such manipulative links but they are 100% included in Google WMT and public checker can have 100s of times more weeds.
    I agree with Fathom. Google has stated publicly through John Mueller that you only need to analyze the links provided by GWT to properly investigate a penguin problem. However - Google does not volunteer which links are problematic and expects you to work that out for yourself. Majestic may give you some indications as to which links to look at first, but as Fathom says:

    A tool is only as good as the equation running it... and because Google's secret sauce isn't plugged-in as a constant to start with... the tool merely GUESSES and guessing for an expert that has 10 years of link development and penalty recovery background or more might be enough to use the data straight up that the tool pumps out but the tool isn't being sold to an experience level class... it's being sold to amateurs that don't know the tool WILL LIE simply because it wasn't designed to spec. To Google Webspam Team specs.
    A tool is only as good as the equation running it. Indeed. Further more - Majestic does not try to emulate Google's index. It creates its own and that makes it quite different. That said - we do have some metrics which can help you to choose which links to look at first if you have hundreds of thousands of links. (Google let's you download and see up to 100,000 I believe - so help in seeing which ones to look at first can be a help. In terms of choosing that order to look at links, you asked this question:

    Originally Posted by bluewaves1
    I am trying to make some decisions about which links to use in the Google disavow tools. I assume that in most instances if a link has zero trust, then it wouldn't hurt to disavow it. Is there a range of trust, like from zero to 4 or zero to 15 that I could use to filter out bad links?
    I do not think this is a safe assumption. Links with zero trust are not necessarily bad. Disavowing these "just because they have no trust" would be a bad mistake. The links that are BAD are the ones you paid for or used a mechanism which - usually quite blatantly - only existed to try to manipulate Google rankings and have no other purpose. Examples I have seen that have been explicitly volunteering as examples by Google had (on the same page a s the link) something on the site like "Pay for a premium listing" or some other clear violation of Google's guidelines. Where I (Personally) get concerned is where there are links on pages which have significant Citation Flow but very low Trust Flow. The way these two metrics are calculated is the similar, but begin form different starting points. In a natural world, these numbers would converge (at scale), but often they don't. Where they don't - this is still no more than a RED FLAG. You still need to look at the link and see whether it is there to manipulate Google or there for a more noble purpose.

    I'll disagree that Majestic SEO is
    being sold to amateurs that don't know the tool WILL LIE simply because it wasn't designed to spec
    . We market at SES, SMX, eMetrics and Pubcon primarily - which is as professional as we can find. It does not seek to emulate Google and certainly has a learning curve to use it effectively. We have not (to date) ever promoted Majestic at a non-professional event and we would recommend that if you do not have a good understanding of link building or SEO (to a professional standard) then you should work through someone that does.
  2. #32
  3. 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 DixonJones
    I'll disagree that Majestic SEO is
    ...which was based on a comment I made about amateur.

    Google clearly states in their opening remarks 14 months ago:

    Sites affected by this change might not be easily recognizable as spamming without deep analysis or expertise, but the common thread is that these sites are doing much more than white hat SEO; we believe they are engaging in webspam tactics to manipulate search engine rankings.
    Getting people to recognize "bad links" from good links when they don't have the wherewithal to understand that they created their own webspam is a conflict of interest. (Not for Majestic but for the subscriber).

    One example only - someone told this guy to:

    1. hire a writer and write an article ( or just write one yourself)
    2. buy Spinner Chief for $127
    3. created 999 original versions of your original copy for free
    4. add those originals to 1000 websites and
    5. that's SEO and you don't need to spend 10's of thousands of dollars on professionals

    Obviously those 1000 links are "GOOD LINKS" not "BAD LINKS" right? ...because they are all original content and on original domains and if you are lucky enough to fool the domain owner of say SEOMoz for something about link building and get published there because your literary work is solid and copyscape doesn't find any copies... how much of a trust score would you get from Majestic for the single link?

    But Google has access to all 1000 pages and its version of scrutiny is far superior over the uninformed DIY SEO and these are the BAD LINKS... but not according to the tool - right?

    It would be best to avoid this discussion here.

    We market at SES, SMX, eMetrics and Pubcon primarily - which is as professional as we can find.
    Not really... what matrix is used at the door to screen for "professional ability"?

    If you pay $1500 for one or $600 for other that the maximum market screening done to prevent SEO morons from damaging themselves or others.
    Last edited by fathom; Jun 1st, 2013 at 06:58 PM.
  4. #33
  5. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    I have the majestic extension for chrome and I tested it out. I have also been trying out majestic SEO and so far am pretty impressed.

    With the extension I found that it doesnt tell you if your citation/trust flows are historic or fresh - this is an important feature for me. I also found that the extensions flow metric numbers do not correlate to historic or fresh when I ran the same site through the site explorer at majesticseo.com. I am curious to understand what the extension flow metric numbers represent?

    When using site explorer on majesticseo.com there are options choose http://domain www.domain and domain. When choosing each option I get a different trust flow metric - does this have to do with how the backlinks refer back to the domain? How do you get the most accurate numbers then?
  6. #34
  7. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    52
    I haven't heard of Spinner Chief. But I can guess which forums recommend that!

    Comments on this post

    • fathom agrees : I just randomly search for a paid version in Google
  8. #35
  9. 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 DixonJones
    I haven't heard of Spinner Chief. But I can guess which forums recommend that!
    Not to lose sight of the real point. Everyone's that does SEO (whether DIY for themselves, moonlighting to make a few bucks on the side or doing it to make a bona fide living) are so-called experts. They will never suggest to you they are incompetent... and that's a confirmation that they have the necessary ability to "use their head" when interpreting data from your tools. (that was sarcasm)

    They are "Legends in their own mind".

    Everyone including you & me are attempting to tap into that free will to develop market share and I don't begrudge anyone from earning a keep.

    But keeping honest people honest is 'fair play'.

    If your products or services are "that good"... it can stand up to anything I say and not lose an ounce of leverage because everyone believes "I am legend!"

    The average person that signs up with Majestic doesn't have the experience or the ability I do... and that means they can be easily swayed by marketing propaganda.

    The same argument is all over the web e.g. http://www.webmasterworld.com/link_d...nt/4577016.htm and a vote for any 3rd party tool that can aid PENGUIN recovery is merely exploiting the situation.

    Reference (disavow) http://support.google.com/webmasters...answer=2648487

    Excerpt:
    If you’ve done as much work as you can to remove spammy or low-quality links from the web, and are unable to make further progress on getting the links taken down, you can disavow the remaining links. In other words, you can ask Google not to take certain links into account when assessing your site.
    This is a pre-empted development not post-mortem actions. Once PENGUIN hits... Google has already assessed the links and you can't get them to "un-assess them"... thus the quotes made about recovery from PENGUIN using the disavow and Majestic tools are bogus.

    I rest my case.
    Last edited by fathom; Jun 3rd, 2013 at 01:56 PM.
  10. #36
  11. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    52
    GuyGuy:
    With the extension I found that it doesnt tell you if your citation/trust flows are historic or fresh - this is an important feature for me. I also found that the extensions flow metric numbers do not correlate to historic or fresh when I ran the same site through the site explorer at majesticseo.com. I am curious to understand what the extension flow metric numbers represent?

    When using site explorer on majesticseo.com there are options choose http://domain www.domain and domain. When choosing each option I get a different trust flow metric - does this have to do with how the backlinks refer back to the domain? How do you get the most accurate numbers then?
    Sorry Guy Guy - nearly missed that!

    The Extension data is all Fresh Index. It uses the same API call / data as the main site so it should correlate. I suspect that the differences you see relate to the second part of your question. The Extension reports on the Flow metrics at the URL level (so should always by the far left radial number on those three options in Site Explorer. The Flow Metrics are calculated at the URL level, then rolled up to give metrics at the subdomain level (www.domain.tld) and also to the ROOT domain level (*.domain.TLD). The subdomain level is most relevent for blogs on sites like Blogspot.com.

    As the Extension works as you wonder around the while web, the URL level reporting makes most sense to display. This also, though, means that you will not see data for plenty of paces - particualrly Dark Web URLs - like ones where you need yo be logged in. If you see a difference between the Extension and the main site that isn't explained by this reply, set up a support ticket and ideally give us an example and we will look into it.

    Dixon.

    Comments on this post

    • Ann Smarty agrees
  12. #37
  13. No Profile Picture
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7
    Rep Power
    0
    I use it couple of time. It is good for searching backlinks
  14. #38
  15. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    46
    Rep Power
    13
    Hello

    I hope this is the right place to pose this question.

    I have just created a report for one of my webpages.

    In the report overview it says 218 external backlinks, from 2 refering domains.

    But when I go to the Url/backlinks view, I see there are only two backlinks listed.

    Can someone tell me what these 218 backlinks might refer to?

    Thank you

    Richard
  16. #39
  17. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    52
    Originally Posted by edenworkshops
    Hello

    In the report overview it says 218 external backlinks, from 2 refering domains.

    But when I go to the Url/backlinks view, I see there are only two backlinks listed.

    Can someone tell me what these 218 backlinks might refer to?

    Thank you

    Richard
    Hi Richard,
    Thanks for asking. The most likely cause in this instance is that the 216 other links are all from one of those domains using different variations of urls. They will ultimately be from the same root "cause". To see these, do the following:

    1: Get an ADVANCED report. Instead of interrogating the strongest links like Site Explorer does, the Advanced report analyzes EVERY link.
    2: This probably STILL will not return every link, because even in an advanced report we assume you do not REALLY want links that we know are deleted or links that are only Mentions or in Alt text - so now in the advanced report go >Analysis OPtions > Analysis Options
    3: Click the "Source" tab and scroll down. Make sure ALL the boxes are unchecked.
    4: Update and Force New analysis.

    Now - in the advanced report - you will see ALL your links. Apart from the two you already saw, the rest will be REALLY low quality - but that's why we hid them by default k:

    Don't make the mistake that some people are doing, though, and assuming these are hurting you in Penguin. Every site has links that are weird variations of the same link. Google is not trying to penalize things that happen naturally on the internet. They are trying to penalize links that were purposely paid for to manipulate search or could reasonably be expected to have been intentionally put there to manipulate search.
  18. #40
  19. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    46
    Rep Power
    13

    Thank you


    Thanks, that was very clear.

    Richard
  20. #41
  21. No Profile Picture
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    Hey Ann

    Just wandering what determines the seed set of trusted sites to a given url/domain ?

    I have a client/project all of whom's MajSEO metrics (& other metrics like DA etc) are up across the board but TF seems to be plummeting, almost halving from 9 to 5 in the last 4 weeks. Whilst as mentioned all other metrics are on the rise and quite healthily so.

    What should i be looking into to try and find out why TF is plummeting and what tools in MajSEO (or others) can help with identifying the cause ?

    I am a MajSEO silver subscriber.

    Many Thanks
    Dan
  22. #42
  23. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    52
    Hi Dan,
    I'll jump in here. We never revealed the initial seed set, just in case in created an effort to pollute the set with spam. However - most sites are not plummeting. What MAY be happening (and unless you set up a support ticket with specifics we could not say for sure) is that we recently made our crawl dramatically better at new link discovery. It may have found a network of otherwise low quality links that it did not know existed before. The newly found links should be popping up in the New/Lost llinks tab in Site Explorer if that's the case.
    Make sure you are running a "Tracking Report" for the site - as this will keep an audit for you.
    Dixon.
  24. #43
  25. No Profile Picture
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally Posted by DixonJones
    Hi Dan,
    I'll jump in here. We never revealed the initial seed set, just in case in created an effort to pollute the set with spam. However - most sites are not plummeting. What MAY be happening (and unless you set up a support ticket with specifics we could not say for sure) is that we recently made our crawl dramatically better at new link discovery. It may have found a network of otherwise low quality links that it did not know existed before. The newly found links should be popping up in the New/Lost llinks tab in Site Explorer if that's the case.
    Make sure you are running a "Tracking Report" for the site - as this will keep an audit for you.
    Dixon.
    Hi Dixon

    Hope your well - we once met briefly whilst on the pints at SEO London, in pub Nr Trafalger Sq, after SES London 09 i think it was

    Thanks for taking time to comment

    The project in question has actually lost more links than it has gained over last week a/c to New/Lost comparison (although all metrics apart from TF reporting rises in my tracking reports)

    Generally the links won and lost are from 'webname list' & 'type of domain type' websites

    I am using tracking report although cant see new & lost within those and have to revert to checking domain on home page.

    Shall i pop this in a support ticket ?

    Cheers
    Dan
  26. #44
  27. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    17
    Rep Power
    0
    I figured I'd chime in here since the owners or employees of Majestic may be here and I'd love to have my $0.02 heard.

    The usability of Majestic is unnecessarily difficult. What I mean by that is when I'm creating an advanced backlink report it takes somewhere around to 8 - 12 actions before I can download and open the report.

    Ahrefs requires two clicks and I can download my backlinks. However with Majestic I need to do a bunch of things before I can download the report. Why is that? Simplicity is beautiful. Please consider reducing the actions needed to get the data I'm looking for. It will help you retain more clients as you've reduced the confusion and help me want to promote Majestic.
  28. #45
  29. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    52
    Hi Activedecision,

    Thanks for the message - recieved loud and clear. We are working on making this easier, but there is a technical scaling issue in that downloading ALL links is not an "on-the-fly" operation. This is the same for Ahrefs if you tried to download all the links to a large site. However - we CAN make this less troublesome and I'll bring it back to the task development task list.

    More generally - we are now actively working on making Majestic more user friendly in general, and I hope that you will gradually but surely start seeing improvements in this area.

Similar Threads

  1. MajesticSEO, OSE, AHrefs or ???
    By giggity in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Aug 11th, 2014, 09:58 PM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: Jan 23rd, 2013, 09:27 AM
  3. Help please, majesticseo trust ranking dropped
    By JaneSmitt in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Aug 9th, 2012, 05:53 PM
  4. MajesticSEO.com - Useful?
    By giggity in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jan 12th, 2011, 11:07 AM
  5. Seo reviews
    By lilralph in forum SEO Help (General Chat)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Feb 16th, 2009, 09:25 PM

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo