|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
| |
||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| |
||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
SEO Chat Forums Sponsor:
|
|
|
|
#61
October 16th, 2009, 05:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have seen an email saying it is so from Matt Cutts.
But I think its the exception rather than the rule and you have to do something really stupid to get one. There are filters on anchor text and link profile that are similar in effect to penalties, but these are a little different to penalties. Quote:
|
|
#62
October 16th, 2009, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with Noj here not because of anything Matt said, but due to my own empirical data (do you see a trend here - I enjoy testing stuff)...
Off-site SEO can cause a problem for a specific keyword SERP. I don't know if you call this a penalty or not. I usually see people talking about penalties impacting the entire site in the SE. But over-doing it on a single anchor text in off-site link building can certainly cause the SERP to fall. Had not thought about it until just now, but this generally violates my belief that there is not much you can do off-site to hurt a site. The thought process being that it would be too easy to hurt a competitor if it were that easy. But that being said, I have seen a specific SERP for a specific keyword dropped out completely when too many links are built with that anchor... I believe this was on a crappy site with a very poor link profile. So I believe that any legitimate business with a "normal" link profile has nothing to fear here. P.S. I agree. This is a rockin' thread. Good, open discussion going on here. Last edited by purdue512 : October 16th, 2009 at 05:38 PM. Reason: Changed "hear" to "here"... What was I thinking?
|
|
#63
October 16th, 2009, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ive thoroughly enjoyed reading this. In years of membership here, its the first time I have heard some of the big guns actually accept that not every website and business is based in a mega bucks world. Some of us here do have websites with low pr that exist in a niche where backlinks are low quality and few and far between.
__________________
All The Fun Of The Fair !!!
|
|
#64
October 16th, 2009, 06:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Then great news you have found a way to rank. I would however draw you attention to a number of posts that you yourself have posted saying there are some sites that out rank you that have less links. Why do you think that is?
|
|
#65
October 16th, 2009, 06:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This is something that I have give a great amount of thought. Unable to find the answer I tested it on a couple of sites and the stats that I have would (possibly rubbish your conclusions) One example, I manage a niche site that has to compete with some heavy weight competition. Until recently I fully subscribed to the "too many links with the same anchor can hurt you" school of thought , and so always mixed up the anchor text. We struggled to rank using this method and I was at a complete loss as what to do. I suspected that my problem was failing to utilize anchor text to it's full potential. The site had nothing to lose (not ranking or getting much traffic) so I agreed with the site owner that we would go for broke. I spent the next 2 months adding links with the exact sane anchor text, no other anchor at all including the domain. Did we get dropped my the big G? Nope Did we improve rank? Yes, we got where we needed to be within 3 weeks. Admittedly the links are real high value but that does nothing to detract from my point, using the same anchor didn't trip any filters and we have not been banned. My point here is that it's very easy in SEO to add two to two and come up with five. I don't doubt any of you witnessed a drop but what I do doubt is what caused it. I have lost count of the number of times I have spoken to people that bang on about a google penalty, all 100% sure that this was the case, only to find on later investigation that something else was to blame. IMHO there are occasions where sites get dumped as a result of shady tactics but I would hazard a guess that 95% of the time that's not the case. What people are seeing is the result of something else, the majority of the time. I even read a post on this thread earlier (not sure who it was right now) claiming that social bookmarking can get you burned. Think about this logically for a moment. These sites are designed for others to share information, a lot of the time web based. So it's perfectly possible that a site may get thousands of links in a short period of time. Will that cause a problem? Over doing things massively could cause you a problem, but is less likely to be as a result of some low value link building and more to do with something that you have done to deserve it! Last edited by lewisdb : October 17th, 2009 at 08:11 AM.
|
|
#66
October 16th, 2009, 07:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have just read through this and it has definatly showed me I am in the right place.
With regard to the person saying about too much of the same anchor text, ill tell you a story. My first try at 'seo' I got a blog about 'sony ericsson mobile phones'. I did all the best content, loads of it, one page for each phone, hundereds of posts, titles in place, descriptions in place, all unique. I then started to add links, all 1300 of them. blog posts, forums, articles, more blogs, bit of social bookmarking, ALL WITH THE SAME KEYWORD. Now 'sony ericsson mobile phones' is pretty hard for a first time and the best position I was holding was about 30/34, but holding it well!! Then my site disapeared totally! Gone, its still is up there for crappy keywords but gone for 'sony ericsson mobile phones' This is why I now do ALLOT of research and only implement the 100%, but I implement abit of everything  Everything also depends on your competition. there are some industries that with the correct things in place whether it only be 500 directory submissions will work beyond your wildest dreams or whether its thousands of authority links chucked in with some sound articles will have the desired effect. I am still out on whether its better to stick to only adding your sites to SOME bookmarking sites but I think I know what the answer is anyway now. Thank you for this enlightening post and thanks for all the free seo guides but I am kind of thinking that once your read a few, youve read them all, just need to keep adding subscriptions to all those clever people out there and ill get kept up-to-date. My 2 pence
|
|
#67
October 17th, 2009, 03:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Maybe because they have the odd better link, or maybe its related to site maturity. Whatever it is the gap isnt that big. I suspect that something like the cheap low level links from directories and social bookmarks could be a way to tip the balance in my favour which is why I am quite pleased this has been mentioned as the high value links dont seem to be around in my niche.
|
|
#68
October 17th, 2009, 07:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lewisdb - I am in agreement with you on this. For 99% of websites, anchor text issues will not come up. So it is almost a non-issue.
I suspect that the key to your findings, however, were A) your links were of good quality. B) the site was already established with prior anchor text diversity. But again. I agree with you. There are so many different things going on in SEO it is very hard to make specific attributions on specific variables. And yes, 95% of the time people think they know what is happening and it is something else entirely. Similar to you, I have had some sites where I have realized I have under-utilized anchor text as a tool. On a high-quality site, it is quite powerful.
|
|
#69
October 17th, 2009, 07:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
OK ill put one lot my hard evidence out there and see what you think,
At a customers request I was asked to run a high risk, high reward campaign using the digitalpoint ad network to generate 120,000+ very low quality automated back links in the space of a couple of weeks. We has seen this technique work in a different market sector very well 3 months before when we reverse engineered some other peoples stuff. We rolled the campaign out against 8 different keywords and 8 different landing pages, I was stupid and direct and went 8 different anchor texts one for each keyword. 2 months later no effect, and I was about to can the campaign because the 'domain was to young' for this kinda thing, and it was a spammy technique anyway. But had a chat with a couple of the guys and we decided try it one last time with a more natural keyword pattern. So doubled the amount of links to the home page. Had 4 anchor text variation for each keyword. Introduced a pecentage of domain www.XXXXXX.co.uk to the home page. Within 48 hours we were making serious process, within 2 weeks we were top 10 for 5 or 6 serious phrases. My conclusion to this is not that digitalpoint is the way to go (I have never used it since), but that we hit an automated flag the disallowed all the automatically generated link, and the adjustments we made got us apst that flag. This flag was one of 1) Too high a percentage of deep links (like 90% +). 2) Inner Pages with thousands of back links but only one anchor text. 3) Not enough none keyword rich anchor texts I think what we hit was a mixture of 1 and 2, im also convinced it was an automated filter not a man intervention band. My second piece of evidence is the email I read from Matt Cutts to a site owner which said to the effect. We will remove the penalty (50 pts) from siteX when you remove the 400 paid blog posts placed over the last month. The post were moved and so was the penalty a few weeks later. I am 100% sure that was a manual intervention penalty imposed by the abuse team brought about due to complaints and reports from a very big PPC customer. Quote:
Last edited by Noj : October 17th, 2009 at 07:53 AM.
|
|
#70
October 17th, 2009, 08:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Thanks for sharing this and please don't take what I am about to say as me being a smart a**, but all your example shows is that you are much more likely to rank when you have rich diversity of anchor text in your back link profile. Not that you somehow got penalized for using the same anchor. Also it seems unlikely that google discounted the links based on them being automatically generated. After all the second wave of links were also automatically generated but still drove rank. For me the jury is still out on this subject. It would make perfect sense that too many links with the same anchor could cause you a problem. The trouble is I have yet to see this for myself!
|
|
#71
October 17th, 2009, 04:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I hear you dude. I was in the same boat myself and finally decided to run a very controlled test. I highly suggest you do the same yourself. I was able to get a site to bounce out of the SERP using completely for the target term when 95% of links where with the same anchor text (the target). No big surprise. This is a highly inappropriate / unnatural link pattern. I'm sure it was an automated control in the SE. When I started varying the anchor text the target SERP came back after a while.
Like I said, I suggest you don't take my word for it but try something. It's a great little test and it is helpful to know where the limits are (or the general region they are in). Time for a drink mates!
|
|
#72
October 17th, 2009, 05:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
So would you say that it's the total number of links that gets you into trouble or the % links with the target anchor? I can see your point if you are only targeting 1 term. In the real world however we tend to target 2-3 terms per page over a number of pages. In those circumstanced I feel it very very unlikely that you will get burned.
|
|
#73
October 17th, 2009, 06:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
How is reused target term inappropriate or unnatural? If I have a site for "Acme Gadgets" that everyone wants to link to, seems to me that the anchor text "Acme Gadgets" would be the most natural and appropriate text there could be...
__________________
SEO Sparky PosiTracker Search Engine Monitoring *New and Improved!* FlexPortal CMS / Newspaper Software Classic Board Games
|
|
#74
October 18th, 2009, 02:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The emperor has no clothes!
To the new SEOers be careful what you take away from this thread. There appears to be a general consensus forming here that buying links is ok if you figure out the best way to do it.
It's not good practice. <- period Perhaps some have figured out how to not get caught and even raise their positions some, but IMO to use this as ANY part of an SEO campaign is just plain bad strategy. I could give a flip that the link purchasers are going to disagree with me. BUYING LINKS IS BLACKHAT. Buying thousands of links is just plain stupid. Through the years Google has found a way to take away every form of artificial manipulation of their ranks. They will do the same here. You will eventually pay a price. Focus instead on quality. Quality content, quality site architecture, quality links. That's what a professional does.
|
|
#75
October 18th, 2009, 03:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lmao
Are the links you clients get 'off the site you control' editorial or bought off you as part of your SEO services? You sell links (in a form), but says its a blackhat technique! Talk about being a hypocrite. Anyway the issue in hand, I did take the stance you did about about the digital point technique with a clients and refused to run it with millions of links. As they would receive a penalty at some point in the future. They did not listen they ran it with someone else, they have 6,000,000 crappy digital point created back links, they have ranked top 5 for 20 plus big financial terms for the past 3 years, they have built a multi million pound business on the back of this. Who is the stupid one here ? I don't think its the guys who made millions out of using this technique. Again I found your tone to insinuate that people who don't do it YOUR way are unprofessional and blackhat. You need to learn respect for other people on the forum who may use different techniques than you. If so you may be able to learn something from data and paste experiences they share. Quote:
|
|
| Viewing: SEO Chat Forums > Search Engine Strategies > Link Popularity > Link building campaign |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Del.icio.us
Digg
Google
Spurl
Blink
Furl
Simpy
Y! MyWeb
Linear Mode
