Penalized for "Unnatural Links" on Webmaster Tools
-
Has anyone ever logged in to Google Webmaster tools and seen a message about them seeing unnatural links (as a warning)
Our homepage lost all its rankings. I will submit a reconsideration request. We don't engage in link buying practices (some directories, thats all.)
Any feedback, please?
Thanks
-
Thanks Robert. Yes, I believe we have a good link profile and work hard at it. This is really a shame. I don't see any reason to really waste more time and not submit a rec request to Google in the next few hours.
I will keep everyone posted and thanks for contributing.
-
I have just had the same issue on 9 of my blogs, deindexed, hardly any outgoing links, no interlinking at all. Google is getting ridiculous, it's the fact you don't know where you stand that's the worst of it.
-
Paul,
I am at a loss on this. The reason being that i don't see anything all that "unnaturaly:"You have some great high quality links to begin with.
Your anchor text is fairly diverse (Shopping cart software is what you do so..., and then the others around it are also fairly well used, etc.)TLD distribution is 74% .com with the rest spread out, about 1% .edu, etc.
Your first 20 linking root domains are ubiquitous, high DA sites.
So, I have a big, big, hmmmmm. IF yours is unnatural, then GoDaddy is the spawn of satan's links.....?????
I would still move slowly on the resubmission give yourself at least 24 hours to really survey all and then go for it with your ducks in a row.
Good luck, please let us know how it goes.
-
Yeah, I agree Paul, it is standard practice, but unfortunately that doesn't mean Google approves it. I haven't heard of Google penalizing shopping cart software footer links, however, I do know that Google has penalized sites who put their link in blog gadgets that they give away. And, really, there's not a lot of difference in the two. And if you've worked with Google much you'll know that Google isn't fair. It may be that you had a manual review and that manual reviewer gave you the ax, while another manual reviewer would not.
-
I am pretty new to SEO (or at least new to being serious about it), so use my advice at your own risk.
My guess is that this stems from situations like this:
Powered by FORTUNE3 • shopping cart software or the other keyword perfect variations of it at the bottom of your customer's sites. Would they have put that there if you didn't pre-code it into the software and charge them money to remove it?
The sites are also all unrelated. You might think they are related because they are your customers, but is ray bans, jeep parts, car covers, and homeowners rights manuals, gun lasers, and all the other sites related to shopping cart software? None of them has any other mention of shopping cart software on their whole site, except for the forced link.
Also, these are effectively paid links, since you put them into the software by default, and you charge people $50 to remove them. Thinking in reverse (sort of), you are paying $50 to them to keep the link. It's a forced, or paid link.
Think of it this way, if you offered to your customers to remove it for free, or gave them a way to do it easily and told them how (even for non-techies, like a check box in the admin panel they use for processing orders), what percentage would remove it.
I used to have a store on Big Commerce. They did the same thing, except I could remove it in the accessible code, and it is one of the first things I did right away. I really did not want to be forced to advertise for them.
Anyway, I am curious to see how this plays out, as I suspect you are not the only shopping cart provider with this situation.
By the way, here is another example of it, and it is sure to catch them too. Go Daddy Spammy Link Building
-
Hi Brian,
Thanks for your input. The fact of the matter is that THAT is standard practice with all shopping cart software companies. You can look through millions of websites and at the bottom you'll see Powered by or Ecommerce by...etc.
Design firms do this, etc. I don't believe that's the issue but that's something we may need to ask in our reconsideration request.
-
Hi Brian,
Thanks for your input. The fact of the matter is that THAT is standard practice with all shopping cart software companies. You can look through millions of websites and at the bottom you'll see Powered by or Ecommerce by...etc.
Design firms do this, etc. I don't believe that's the issue but that's something we may need to ask in our reconsideration request.
-
Pablo might it be the dofollow text links you're placing on your client's websites pointing back to you? Like the one in the footer of this page? http://www.belljewels.com/
-
this is for www.fortune3.com
we're a shopping cart software company so our link building comes from:
-Customer Websites
-Directories (Business.com and other authoritative directories)
-Blogs (our own mostly.)
-Press Releases
I did find www.aolstalker.com linking. ....what do you think?
-
Pablo, Wait. Do not submit for reconsideration yet. If you are missing something, you could create more problems than you solve. So,
Go through the site and see what is going on. If Google is questioning "unnatural links" look at all and see where they may be right. You want to try to fix this before you submit for reconsideration.
Is there any way for you to give us a domain name so that we can see what is there, that would really help with helping you. What % nofollow, how fast have you garnered the links, what directories? What paid directories, any link wheels or reciprocal links that you know of? Etc.
Hope this helps, be patient for a minute, it will help.
Best
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Unnatural Links Warning, but nowhere to submit a reconsideration request.
More than a year ago (August 2013) I got an "Unnatural Links Warning," I ignored it because I thought it was erroneously sent and that it was odd that there was no place for me to submit a reconsideration request in the Manual Actions section of Webmaster Tools. This happened for several of my domains. I am now noticing a lost in ranking (but not a loss in "ability" to rank). It led me to post this question in the Webmaster Help Forum, I really didn't get an answer though. Here is a link to the Google Export of my links from zachrussell.net and protechig.com. Any idea of what I can do related to this? Even If I did disavow/remove any questionable links, there is no place for me to submit a reconsideration request.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Zachary_Russell0 -
Using rel="nofollow" when link has an exact match anchor but the link does add value for the user
Hi all, I am wondering what peoples thoughts are on using rel="nofollow" for a link on a page like this http://askgramps.org/9203/a-bushel-of-wheat-great-value-than-bushel-of-goldThe anchor text is "Brigham Young" and the page it's pointing to's title is Brigham Young and it goes into more detail on who he is. So it is exact match. And as we know if this page has too much exact match anchor text it is likely to be considered "over-optimized". I guess one of my questions is how much is too much exact match or partial match anchor text? I have heard ratios tossed around like for every 10 links; 7 of them should not be targeted at all while 3 out of the 10 would be okay. I know it's all about being natural and creating value but using exact match or partial match anchors can definitely create value as they are almost always highly relevant. One reason that prompted my question is I have heard that this is something Penguin 3.0 is really going look at.On the example URL I gave I want to keep that particular link as is because I think it does add value to the user experience but then I used rel="nofollow" so it doesn't pass PageRank. Anyone see a problem with doing this and/or have a different idea? An important detail is that both sites are owned by the same organization. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThridHour0 -
Alternative Link Detox tools?
My company is conducting a link detox for a client, and it seems like every tool we utilize is giving us a different answer on how many links we actually have. the numbers range anywhere from 4,000 to 200,000. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what tools will give us an accurate count, and will also email the webmasters on your behalf requesting the links removal? We are trying to have this process be as automated as possible to save time on our end.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lightwurx0 -
Google WMT Turning 1 Link into 4,000+ Links
We operate 2 ecommerce sites. The About Us page of our main site links to the homepage of our second site. It's been this way since the second site launched about 5 years ago. The sites sell completely different products and aren't related besides both being owned by us. In Webmaster Tools for site 2, it's picking up ~4,100 links coming to the home page from site 1. But we only link to the home page 1 time in the entire site and that's from the About Us page. I've used Screaming Frog, IT has looked at source, JavaScript, etc., and we're stumped. It doesn't look like WMT has a function to show you on what pages of a domain it finds the links and we're not seeing anything by checking the site itself. Does anyone have experience with a situation like this? Anyone know an easy way to find exactly where Google sees these links coming from?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingof50 -
Www vs. non-www differences in crawl errors in Webmaster tools...
Hey All, I have been working on an eCommerce site for a while that to no avail, continues to make me want to hang myself. To make things worth the developers just do not understand SEO and it seems every change they make just messes up work we've already done. Job security I guess. Anywho,most recently we realized they had some major sitemap issues as almost 3000 pages were submitted by only 20 or so were indexed. Well, they updated the sitemap and although all the pages are properly indexing, I now have 5000+ "not found" crawl errors in the non-www version of WMT and almost none in the www version of the WMT account. Anyone have insight as to why this would be?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RossFruin0 -
Duplicate content in Webmaster tools, is this bad?
We launched a new site, and we did a 301 redirect to every page. I have over 5k duplicate meta tags and title tags. It shows the old page and the new page as having the same title tag and meta description. This isn't true, we changed the titles and meta description, but it still shows up like that. What would cause that?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
Proper use and coding of rel = "canonical" tag
I'm working on a site that has pages for many wedding vendors. There are essentially 3 variations of the page for each vendor with only slightly different content, so they're showing up as "duplicate content" in my SEOmoz Campaign. Here's an example of the 3 variations: http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161 http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=messageWrite http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=writeReview Because of this, we placed a rel="canoncial" tag in the second 2 pages to try to fix the problem. However, the coding does not seem to validate in the w3 html validator. I can't say I understand html well enough to understand the error the validator is pointing out. We also added a the following to the second 2 types of pages <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> Am I employing this tag correctly in this case? Here is a snippet of the code below. <html> <head> <title>Reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MAtitle> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="[/includes/style.css](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/includes/style.css)"> <link href="[http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161)" rel="canonical" /> <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jeffreytrull1
<meta name="keywords" content="Astonishing Event, Inc, Somerset Massachusetts, Massachusetts Wedding Wedding Planners Directory, Massachusetts weddings, wedding Massachusetts ">
<meta name="description" content="Get information and read reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MA. Astonishing Event, Inc appears in the directory of Somerset MA wedding Wedding Planners on WeddingReportsMA.com."> <script src="[http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js](view-source:http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js)" type="text/javascript">script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-173959-2"; urchinTracker(); script> head>0 -
ECommerce products duplicate content issues - is rel="canonical" the answer?
Howdy, I work on a fairly large eCommerce site, shop.confetti.co.uk. Our CMS doesn't allow us to have 1 product with multiple colour and size options so we created individual product pages for each product variation. This of course means that we have duplicate content issues. The layout of the shop works like this; there is a product group page (here is our disposable camera group) and individual product pages are below. We also use a Google shopping feed. I'm sure we're being penalised as so many of the products on our site are duplicated so, my question is this - is rel="canonical" the best way to stop being penalised and how can I implement it? If not, are there any better suggestions? Also, we have targeted some long-tail keywords in some of the product descriptions so will using rel-canonical effect this or the Google shopping feed? I'd love to hear experiences from people who have been through similar things and what the outcome was in terms of ranking/ROI. Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Confetti_Wedding0