Is widgetbait no longer valid at all according to the new quality guidelines?

[MarieHaynes]

Google recently updated their quality guidelines.  I found this example of something that was against the guidelines very interesting:

"Links embedded in widgets that are distributed across various sites, for example:
Visitors to this page: 1,472
car insurance"

So, what do you think?  Are the links against the guidelines?  Or the fact that the link is using an anchor texted keyword?

I personally don't see the problem with producing a great widget and putting a link on the bottom saying, "Provided by example.com", but then again it's sort of a self made link.  On the other hand it's not completely self made because a webmaster has to like the widget enough to embed it.

Thoughts?

[RyanKent]

How likely is it that someone who runs a spammy site will freely link to your site? Even if one or two site owners take such an action, it is unlikely to spread.

It is good that you are improving your awareness related to links to your site. If you are a legitimate site owner earning natural links, you have nothing to fear from Penguin or Google.

[JustDucky]

Ryan - Thanks for the quick reply.   Soooo, I am overly concerned about strangers who own "spammy" sites taking the widget and putting it site wide on their spammy mortgage sites ?   After what some of the developers went through, I'm concerned about Penguin or its future mutations.

[RyanKent]

I don't feel you need to go to this extreme. The concern Google has is whether links are being authentically offered, or whether the target site owner is manipulating the process.

If a webmaster decides on their own to add your widget to their site, and they freely add anchor text of their choosing, then if it had an appropriate reason for being added site wide, it would not be a concern. For example, if you created a mortgage calculator widget which displayed on every page of a real estate site which showed a listing to a home, that should be fine. Even if the site operator placed a link such as "Mortgage calculator by abc.com" that should be absolutely fine as well. There is no manipulation from the target site.

[JustDucky]

Marie & All - Excellent Discussion.  I've been very concerned about site wide use of widgets and inbound links from penalized sites.  I've been considering developing widgets and licensing them out to particular sites with the restrictions that :  the widget appear only on one page (such as a blog post).  Since the underlying data would require periodic  updates, I could build in an "out of date" statement in case someone hijacks it to a spammy site or an authorized user doesn't listen and installs it site wide.   I view this implementation of widgets as more analogous to guest blogging than developer's site wide footer links.  Providing people I've had contact with a plug in for their specific locales should result in links without much asking.  So long as the anchor text is selected by the site owners (who are even encouraged to use the URL if they ask), I view this as less risky than the web developer's site wide footer links.   Am I still missing something important  / risky?   Thoughts ?

[Fatwallet]

There's a lot of gray area in the widget scene.

Not all of the widget links will be considered bad - it's all about relevancy and noise.

If the site is about cars, and the widget is a car insurance comparison calculator, a link forced in the widget will likely still carry value (or at least, not bring negative value) if it's a 'car insurance' link and leading to a trusted source.

If the site is about cars and the widget is about car insurance but the link is a graphic design link, it's going to get scrapped.

[RyanKent]

EXACTLY!

And as an extra measure, your widget will need updates, right? Whenever someone installs your widget or it updates, your software should capture the URL of the hosting site. That enables you to view the widget on the site and examine the provided link.

If someone is using your widget but did not provide a link, you can politely make a second request to the site owner.

[MarieHaynes]

Oh...I like that idea.  So, produce the widget, make it available to webmasters and then say, "If you like this widget please consider linking to our site."  That way the text of those linking is likely to be slightly different (i.e. some may say, "Via example.com" and others may say "Thanks to example.com for this tool" etc.

[RyanKent]

You used the perfect example Simon. One of the first things SEOs recognized after Penguin is many sites were affected for having the site wide footer link from the web designer / seo.

Once again, editorial links are desired. You are welcome to add other links with the "nofollow" attribute as you deem fit.

[William.Lau]

It is uses 'powered by example.com', although actual URL is extremely natural, if your anchor text is not proportionate and lets say sitewide widget links are 80-95% of your links, Google will penalize you.

Problem with widgets are they are sitewide, so lots of time it will create LOTS and LOTS of links.

Refer to: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-wpmuorg-recovered-from-the-penguin-update

[RyanKent]

I agree with eyepaq. You can still create the great widgets and ASK for a link from those who use your widget. You can even track those who use your widget and reach out and contact those who do not provide a link and make a personal link request.

[William.Lau]

I agree, this is probably the best option to get referral.

As in generating link juice, it is probably not a good idea. If a bulk of your links are from these links, it is highly possible that you will get penalized.

If you can get sites to put the widget on a dedicated page, that would be good...but most widgets probably don't have that option.

[SEOAndy]

I'm interested to know more now. The thing is though, if the person did embed this widget to their site, it is not fair that the creator of the widget can let people know that he created it? Just as with a web design company putting "Designed by X" on the bottom of the website?

Or do I have the wrong end of the stick on this one?

[eyepaq]

But you can still develop and use them - it can still bring a lot of referral traffic if the item is really good.

[MarieHaynes]

Thanks Marcus.  I see your points.

It's getting so hard to get good links these days!

[MarieHaynes]

I think subconsciously this is what I feared.

Darn.  I have so many ideas for widgetbait.

[eyepaq]

Widgets are still fine as long as you put a nofollow on the link

You still can get referral traffic from it but the idea, and that is more then ok in my opinion, is that there is no longer room for link building using widgets.

[Marcus_Miller]

It is not an editorial link, it is a hijacked link, so it won't count and is a bad strategy. Sure, you may want some credit for the plugin or some such but any credit links should be nofollow.

Likewise, from a smart linking perspective, you have no idea what kind of sites will use your widget. Porn sites, low quality scraper sites etc so you may end up driving lots of links from undesirable sites so again, if you want credit then drop that link in but make sure is is nofollow.

This is no different to what happened to WPMU - they had sites that had pirated their wordpress themes and then they got smacked due to the inbound anchor text from a myriad of external sites. They were lucky that one huge WordPressMU network was under their control but often, you may not be so lucky if you are a small developer.

The golden rule is does the person that owns the site like your site enough to grant a link to you or your content and if so, then that counts. Anything else you do to stealth a link on the site should not count.

Now, if only it worked as well they would like!

[RyanKent]

There are few definites in SEO but, in my experience, there is absolutely no question on this topic. Google is exceptionally clear and I agree with their reasonings. It comes down to the basic definition of a link.

A link is supposed to be an independent vote for the target web page / site. When the link text is forced, it is a clear violation of Google's Guidelines and a manipulative link.

I personally don't see the problem with producing a great widget and putting a link on the bottom saying, "Provided by example.com", but then again it's sort of a self made link.  On the other hand it's not completely self made because a webmaster has to like the widget enough to embed it.

The webmaster may have liked the widget enough to embed it, but they did not choose to place the link or the text. Consider the following example:

You would like to have a widget on your travel site which allows a visitor to enter in a location and then you provide the currency exchange rate, weather, time, news, etc. for that location. You find the best widget on the internet and place it on your site. The widget has a link at the bottom "provided by badcompany.com". You do not know that company. You are not endorsing that company. You have not necessarily made a purchase from that company nor are aware of their products or services. All you know is you like the widget, period.

Even if there was a text box option for the widget to place a link back to the company page, it would STILL be a definite violation of Google's Guidelines. The text must be naturally provided by the linking site.

[irvingw]

the repetitive anchor text along with the fact that it is usually a sidewide thing, means that anchor text keyword phrase will get suppressed eventually if the widget is used a lot because Google will see them as not being natural.

[SEOAndy]

I'd imagine it was more from an anchor text point of view. If you are using branded terms such as powered by example.com I don't think it would penalise you, ok you might not get anything from it or not as lot but it should be fine.

It's kind of the same deal with web design companies who use links on client's websites to say they designed / built it. They might not bring you a huge amount of link juice but they don't seem to have any negative effects.