Can a "Trusted Retailer" badge scheme affect us in the SERPs?
-
Hi Guys,
In the last week our website saw a drop on some of our biggest and best converting keywords and we think it might be down to us rolling out a “Trusted Retailer” badge scheme.
We sell our products directly to consumers via our website, but we also sell our products to other online resellers. We think badges are a good to show the consumer that we trust a site.
On the 17th September we sent out badges to about 39 of our best retailers, two of whom have already put them on their sites.
Instead of sending them a flat jpeg, we sent them HTML files containing code that pulled in the image from our servers. We wanted to host the image to make sure that we always had some leverage. So if a company stopped selling our products, or the quality of their site went down, we could just remove the badge.
Whilst at it, we stuck a link in there pointing to an FAQ on our website all about trusted retailers and what people need to look out for. We chose the anchor text “(brand name) Trusted Retailer”, because that seemed to be the most relevant.
The code looks like this:
You might notice that there is a div just before the link. This is there to stop the user from clicking on the top 65% of the badge (because this contains the shop name and ID number), and we also used a negative text-indent to move the anchor text out of the way. But right underneath this is our Logo, so it’s almost a hidden link, but you can still click it.
So far the badge has been put in on two sites, one of which isn’t so great and maybe looks a tiny bit spammy. (They sell mostly through ebay as opposed to on their main site). Also, these sites seem to have put it on most of their pages!
So my questions are;
- Is this seen as black or grey hat?
- Is it the fact we put in anchor text with our brand?
- Or is it the fact the url is transparent in the coding?
- Or is it the fact the sites are using sitewide links?
- In any case would Google react so quickly as to penalise us in two days?
- If this is the issue, do you think there’s anything we can do to stop getting penalised? (Other than having to e-mail 39 retailers back and getting them to take the badges down).
Thoughts much appreciated – we do our SEO in-house and are still learning every day…
Thank you
James
-
Would putting nofollow and noindex on the FAQ itself make a difference? That should make it obvious to Google that we don't want any of the link juice.
I think that is a good idea. That should eliminate risk with google and ease concerns of affiliates who think like me.
-
In our case we don't usually stock the reseller, we rely on a number of wholesalers to distribute our products. This is why we need the leverage, because the normal methods aren't available to us.
I'm also not convinced by the assumption that we're really aiming to suck linkjuice and get clickthroughs. Firstly, we would have pointed it to a more important page, and secondly we would have pointed it to a page that converted into sales for us. And thirdly, if the reseller even suspected that we tried to that, they would stop selling our products. That's just not something we would risk doing. The combined sales of our resellers easily beats our own sales.
Despite that, if you think that our resellers are going lose ranking because they've put up sitewide links, then that's worrying and that's something we need to address.
Yes, in hindsight we probably should have made the link nofollow.
Would putting nofollow and noindex on the FAQ itself make a difference? That should make it obvious to Google that we don't want any of the link juice.
Thanks,
James -
Why do you think it's black-/grey-hat?
You decided that the badge needed a link. "Needing leverage" is BS. If you don't like the retailer don't restock him. The image would have been fine.
You decided that the link would be followed.... "Whilst at it, we stuck a link in there"... uh huh.
You are in competition against your retailers yet you want to suck their linkjuice and get clickthroughs to your website.
You still are not thinking of the possible rankings loss of your retailers if 39 of them toss up site-wide links to you.
-
Why do you think it's black-/grey-hat? I would not see the badge any different than the many affiliate-/referral programmes out there (or comparable to security-/trust-icons).
For me it would only be grey-hat if the intention was to improve page-rank or creating a large link-network. In Jame's case (the distributor) endorses resellers with their badge.
-
(Other than having to e-mail 39 retailers back and getting them to take the badges down)
This is what I would do.
I would not want to have site-wide links pointing to me from 39 reseller sites... and if one of my suppliers wants me to put up a sitewide badge on my site pointing back at him I will not do it.
Maybe some of your retailers think like me and if pressed to put up that badge they will find a different supplier.
Is this seen as black or grey hat?
To me, yes..
-
If you only rolled it out to two of your retailers, I wouldn't think this is the reason for it. There could be various reasons for the drop of keywords such as new competition on paid ads. I would look at a competitive analysis of those keywords first.
In my mind, displaying a badge is no different to any legitimate affiliate scheme. I would perhaps evaluate the reputation of the domains linking to you and would perhaps also check your own domains reputation (via Google Safe browsing / WOT / Siteadvisor etc).
I doubt that you would notice a drop so quickly (especially if it was sudden and not gradual). To me it looks like competitors targeting the same keywords (via content or paid search).
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
-
"Via this intermediate Link" how do I stop the madness?
Hi, -1- I have an old site which had a manual spam action placed against it several years ago, this is the corporate site and unfortunately has its name placed on all business cards etc, therefore I am unable to get rid of this site entirely.. -2- I created a brand new site with a new domain name for which white hat SEO marketing has been done and very little of it... everything was doing well up until last week when I dropped from bottom of page one to top of page 11 for my keyword in question. -3- I changed the old sites ( the one with the manual spam action ) to mimic the look of the FIRST PAGE of the new domain I am using, and I have the main menu items on this first page linked to the appropriate sections within the new domain site, i.e About US etc. On this page I'm the following: <link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="[http://www.mynewsite.com](view-source:http://www.norsteelbuildings.ca/)" /> and am linking as such: <li><a href="http://www.mynewsite.com/about/" class="" rel="<a class="attribute-value">nofollow</a>">ABOUT USa>li> using this approach I was hoping that I was doing the correct and not passing along any link juice good or bad however when I view the "Webmaster Tools->Links to your site" I find 1000+ links from my old site and then when I click on it I see all the spammy links that my old site got banned for pointing to my old site and accompanied by a header "Via this imtermediate Link>myoldSite.com". Can someone please sehd some light on what I should e doing or if even these link are effecting my new site, something is telling me there are but how do I resolve this issue.. Thanks in advance.. ```
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | robdob120 -
Partial Sitemaps Impact on SERP
I have a website having 20 different categories. But have the sitemap for only 1 category and rest 19 categories will not have the sitemaps will this have an impact on the search results on not
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | seosogo0 -
Can you disavow a spamy link that is not pointing to your website?
We have submitted several really spammy websites to the Google spam team. We noticed they take a very long time to react to submissions. Do you know if it is possible to disavow a link that is not pointing to your website but rather to a very spammy website? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Carla_Dawson0 -
Will two numbers on a local listing affect me?
The reason I'm asking this question is. I was on the phone with a Google Rep yesterday for one of my google places. It was in reference to map maker and the fact that I only wanted one number on the listing. About a month ago I had it, so I deleted the listing's local number and than had an 877 number. The problem is when I checked on Friday the Local number was then added back by a Google moderator in Map Maker. So, now there's two numbers on the listing. He told me that would not affect my NAP info, which I don't believe.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | PeterRota
He also went on to say that Google goes through listings and if they have an 800 number they may delete it and replace place it with a local number. Has anyone delt with this and can Verify what he says to be true? Additionally, will my NAP be affected if this is the case? Thanks.0 -
Links from automated translations can damage the source?
I've a website dataprix.net composed by automated translations in diferent languages from original contents from another website, dataprix.com. Is good for dataprix.com to be linked by the contents of dataprix.net as the source of translated content, or could be considered by Google as a lot of low quality links and result on penalties for dataprix.com?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | xiruca0 -
Will cleaning up old pr articles help serps?
For a few years we published articles with anchor text backlinks to about 10 different article submission sites. Each article was modified to create similar different articles. We have about 50 completely unique articles. This worked really well for our serps until google panda & penguin updates. I am looking for advice on whether I should have a major clean up of the published articles and if so should I be deleting them, removing or renaming anchor text backlinks? Any advice on what strategy would work best would be appreciated as I don't want to start deleting backlinks and making it worse. We used to enjoy position 1 but are now at 12-15 so have least most of our traffic.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | devoted2vintage0 -
Can a Page Title be all UPPER CASE?
My clients wants to use UPPER CASE for all his page titles. Is this okay? Does Google react badly to this?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | petewinter0 -
Big loss in Google traffic recently, but can't work out what the problem is
Since about May 17 my site - http://lowcostmarketingstrategies.com - has suffered a big drop in traffic from Google, presumed from the dreaded Penguin update. I am at a loss why I have been hit when I don't engage in any black hat SEO tactics or do any link building. The site is high quality, provides a good experience for the user and I make sure that all of the content is unique and not published elsewhere. The common checklist of potential problems from Penguin (such as keyword stuffing, web spam and over optimisation in general) don't seem relevant to my site. I'm wondering if someone could take a quick look at my site to see any obvious things that need to be removed to get back in Google's good books. I was receiving around 200 - 250 hits per day, but that has now dropped down to 50 - 100 and I fee that I have been penalised incorrectly. Any input would be fantastic Thanks 🙂
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ScottDudley0