What are the chances of an infographic penalty?
-
Suppose that you created a great infographic and the embed code included an exact match link. For example: This infographic was created by Shoestore, a leading provider of speed boosting shoes. If the infographic is embedded on 100 domains with an anchor text link (and say you previously had 100 linking domains) is there a risk of penalty for too many exact match links in a short period?
-
I would use "brand +Broad Keyword" as anchor text and in my opinion you should be safe but seo is a art not a science so do what you feel comfortable with.
-
Yes, I agree.
Unfortunately, google helped to create almost all of the problems in SEO.
Hopefully, some of this stuff can be rolled back without destroying everything and everyone.
-
Yes, I agree. Some great responses here from EGOL, Click2Rank and Alan. You could essentially use your brand as the safest approach.
-
Matt Cutts has been talking about cracking down on overoptimized websites. In my opinion, a good way to attack that is to eliminate the value of anchor text.
-
I agree with Click2Rank and EGOL
- Now that we know what we think we know about google.
It used to make perfect sense to use the keywords that match what you want to be known for, but the game has changed a lot in the past year.
For the case of providing something that others will use, hopefully in large numbers, the domain name seems like a better option.
Some webmasters may have a standard they use, and they will stick to it whatever you do, but you are probably better off using the domain name, with or without the www. - whichever way you do it on your site, and any variations from that will be out of your control.
If you have an exact match domain name, here is where it will help you.
Another option could be the name of your site. For example a shoe store whose domain name is easyfitshoes.com could use "Easyfit Shoes." I don't see how google could have a problem with that. Anyone else got ideas about this?
-
I would not add a link with an exact match anchor text. My domain would be the anchor text.
-
while only 100 links is unlikely to generate a keyword specific penalty, using an exact match that way is definitely not best practices SEO, as it's so blatant. Its this exact kind of abuse of the reason for having anchors that has caused such a mess in our industry and forced Google to find new and continually ever increasing ways to punish sites.
So it's best to avoid this tactic altogether.
- Alan Bleiweiss
C2R Director of Search Services
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
-
Is There Value in Disavowing Links if you there is No Google Penalty?
I have just started using Link Detox to determine if our clients have links/domains pointing to their sites that could be harming them in organic search. In a few cases 7%-9% of links have been flagged as a high priority to be disavowed. I would be interested in your opinion on the following: If your site does not have a Google penalty is there an advantage to disavowing pages that have been flagged as high risk? When I go to those pages they look spammy and have no real value other than an inbound link. If a client acquires another website/company and that website is now 301 redirected to the client's site, would "high risk" inbound links from the acquired company cause a problem for my client? A client has taken down content from their site that was completely unrelated to their current business. Is there a benefit in disavowing those links to the old content that are deemed by Link Detox as being high risk? Thank you, Rosemary
Link Building | | RosemaryB2 -
Google Penalty due to external links
On Sep 3, we got a Manual Action by Google: unnatural links to your site Immediately we arranged to have all those links the rel="nofollow" atttributes, these were links set by our customers since we are hosting providers. We sent a reconsideration request to Google on Sep 8 and this is their answer:
Link Building | | netbuilder
We’ve reviewed the reconsideration requestfor xxxx and modified its status, but we still believe that content on your site or links to your site are outside our quality guidelines. No more info provided. - We double checked everything but could not find anything else that could harm us so we asked Google (in a new reconsideration request sent on Sep 11 to provide us some samples. On Sep 24 Google answers with a sample of 3 sites which contains links to us. After verification, all the external links to us have the rel="nofollow" attribute !! Today the manual action is not anymore a side-wide one but a partial one and applies to unnatural links--impact links. So it seems that we need to physically have those links removed? As well I checked https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604772?ctx=MAC and he does not refer at all about setting the rel="nofollow" attribute, Looks like Google wants the full monopoly on text links.0 -
Infographic embed code: Yah or Nah?
Friends, am ready to launch an infographic campaign for a client and received an email from a resource I consider very reliable that said, "don't include an embed code on the webpage that is hosting the graphic. That's being seen as bad practice by Google these days." I responded with, "Say what?" Can anyone confirm or deny that affixing embed code to an "infographic page" is indeed vile? Thanks!
Link Building | | Wayne761 -
Should you do a disavow even if you don't have a manual penalty?
If you are working on a website which has a history spammy links, but no manual penalty by Google... is it still worthwhile to still go through the link removal and disavow process? Thoughts appreciated.
Link Building | | Gavo0 -
Backlinks from archived content? SEO penalty?
I'm curious, if I go to webmasters and suggest a change to an article in their archives (convincing them that the new link offers more value to their readers), how would Google look at that? It seems to me that if a two-year-old article all of a sudden gets a new link, it might look fishy, and might even bring penalties with it. Thoughts?
Link Building | | JABacchetta0 -
What are your best tactics for promoting an infographic?
What tactics have you found to be effective in promoting an interesting infographic that you have created?
Link Building | | ProjectLabs0 -
Got Google Warning But No Penalty - Should I Ask for Reconsideration?
I got the following warning from Google yesterday: "Google Webmaster Tools notice of detected unnatural links to [...] We encourage you to make changes to your site so that it meets our quality guidelines. Once you've made these changes, please submit your site for reconsideration in Google's search results. " But my website didn't lose any traffic or ranking so far. Anyway, I'm currently cleaning up my link profile. My question is, since the website didn't seem to have a penalty, should I still submit the website for reconsideration once the clean up is done? If I clean up my link profile, would that warning just go away? Should I avoid a manual review of my website? Thanks for your help.
Link Building | | sbrault740 -
Launching an infographic as linkbait- best practices.
Hey guys. I created my first infographic and I'm hoping it's something that will attract a lot of links. I just have some questions about the best ways to present the infographic. Should I post it on a page on my site that has no ads? no branding? Or should I go ahead and put it on my site as a regular piece of content (with ads in the sidebars.) I wondered about doing this: -Post the infographic as a regular page on my site (with regular ads), but if someone clicks on the infographic it would go to a second page where there is limited branding (or no branding) and no ads. The embed code (that other webmasters can grab) would link to this page. But, this page would have a rel-canonical pointing to the original page. The idea is that my page on the subject will end up getting a lot of links (albeit processed through a rel-canonical) and webmasters will be more likely to embed or link to my content because it is not littered with ads. Thoughts?
Link Building | | MarieHaynes0