Organic Links and Skimlinks Affiliate Program
-
Hi All,
If you're not familiar with Skimlinks, what they do is turn organic links into affiliates links so that publishers can earn commission through our affiliate program. Pretty much every SEO's nightmare.
myfashionlife.com/archives/2013/07/16/get-anne-hathaways-paper-denim-and-cloth-look/ anchor text "Floppy straw hat"
Looking at the source code the link looks clean, but as soon you click on it you get redirected via a 302 to our site. My questions is; is it just users that get redirect or is it the same for search engines?
Screaming frog recognises the link as a 200.
Are we losing all the link juice, or is it fine? I've have half a mind to kick them out of the program.
Cheers
-
The selling point makes sense and I could see how that would be true. But if you are not seeing an increase then it is not worth it, especially if your focus is on the organic traffic.
-
You are right, when I used screaming frog with Googlebot as the agent it didn't pick the link
-
Their selling point was that because bloggers would be rewarded for their links they'd feature our brand and products more often in their posts..... I don't think it is the case. We are just losing organic links and paying for traffic that used to be free.
I'll make sure they are taken out of the program.
Thanks for your help!
-
I think that Googlebot's going to recognize that this is a 302 and not a straight link.
-
Here is what I am seeing. When I view source and look at the link for Floppy Straw Hats I see the URL
http://www.surfdome.com/baku_hats_-baku_congo_hat-_volcano-108584?i
and this link shows me a 200 when I run through it directly. This is probably what Screaming Frog is doing. I would re-run the frog and set the user agent to Google Bot just to see what happens there.
Now when I view that link in the browser and I hover over it and right click the URL and copy I get
When you run this, you get the 302 redirect to the target page
If you scroll down to the bottom, you see the skimlinks JavaScript that is doing this manipulation. FYI it is also adding redirect a link to "Surfdome" at the end of that same line. This is not linked at all in the source code. You have a simple JS rewirte action going on there.
So the bot sees the regular URL and the human sees a redirect via JavaScript.
Depending on if you wear a white or grey hat, this could be considered "cloaking"
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355?hl=en
"Cloaking refers to the practice of presenting different content or URLs to human users and search engines."
This is not the traditional use of the redirect. You would often see a completely different page shown to the bot vs the human using JS versus your example of just showing a 2 different links on a page. That said, Google is reading more and more JS these days http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/11/get-post-and-safely-surfacing-more-of.html
Your issue is not about the 302 passing link equity, but if you want to get penalized for cloaking or not.
The other point that comes up is that since you are paying these bloggers to have this link on the site, I would call these paid links
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en
I know you said, "these are organic links" we are now just paying for the referrals. Well, if Google finds that this is worth penalizing, then you have no one to argue with but yourself.
As I see it, you have 2 choices
-
No follow the links and do not use them for link juice but to pay for traffic.
-
Lose the redirects and use the links for ranking benefit (plus you can still get some traffic).
Honestly, seems like you were already getting organic links and traffic for free, so not sure why you would pay people for what you already had. I am sure this helped to get additional links, but you just need to consider the points above to see what is more important for your site.
Hope this helps!
-
-
It looks like it's turning them into 302's, so they're not the straight links you would like.
-
Chris, thanks for your advice, but I think we are going into a completely different subject.
-
Some of those links were created years ago. Created by the bloggers because they simply wanted to. We didn't request them or had any input on what that anchor text would be.
-
I suppose that when I wrote "That link, and hundreds just like that" could have been misinterpreted. There are hundreds of bloggers, linking to hundreds of different pages from our site, all with different anchor text. Again, 100% organic.
We didn't build those links or tell them what the anchor text should be (there are not two with the same anchor text). They were 100% organic links for years, but once Skimlinks joined our affiliate programs, SKIMLINKS changed all those links into affiliate links.
-
-
referral or affiliate, you set yourself up to be penalized if the links and anchor text aren't natural. You're actually better off with the 302'd skimlinks than hundreds of straight links with the same anchor text. I know this isn't what you're looking for but read through this from Yoast: http://yoast.com/cloak-affiliate-links/
-
Ok, maybe if I give some background it will be easier to understand.
That link, and hundreds just like that one used to be organic links, that bloggers created because they wanted to link to an specific product from our site. As soon as Skimlinks joined our affiliate program all those links became affiliate links.
As a result; sales that used to be attributed to the referral channel, are now attributed to the affiliate channel. But what worries me the most is whether those links are still SEO-friendly or not. In the source code they still look SEO-friendly.
-
What is it that you want get out of the non skimlink and what is it that the skimlinks are doing that you think you don't like?
-
They are not affiliate links, they are organic links. What happens is that the blogger uses a tool called Skimlinks (they are the affiliate) that turns organic links into affiliates.
Skimlinks gets paid by us and then they pay part of the comission to the blogger.
If I were to kick Skimlinks out of the program, the organic links would stop redirecting to our site via a 302.
In the source code there is no affiliate tagging in the links, it looks clean. I'm guessing the redirect is done using JavaScript. My questions is: does Google see a clean link, or do they also get redirected via 302 when they try to follow it?
-
You won't be getting any link juice through those links but you shouldn't be looking for any from your affiliates either, as best practice for aff links is that they are not followed links.
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
-
So many links from single site?
this guy is ranking on all high volume keywords and has low quality content, he has 1600 ref domains check the attachment how did he get so many links from single site is he gonna be penalized YD2BvQ0
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SIMON-CULL0 -
Is Link equity / Link Juice lost to a blocked URL in the same way that it is lost to nofollow link
Hi If there is a link on a page that goes to a URL that is blocked in robots txt - is the link juice lost in the same way as when you add nofollow to a link on a page. Any help would be most appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Andrew-SEO0 -
Can one back-link fluctuates ranking of website with thousands of back-links?
It happend to our website. We have seen major ranking fluctuations for our website because of one back-link. What kind of links those can be? Why Google is not stopping them even though they claim that such back-links will be taken care of?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vtmoz0 -
Internal Links - Different URLs
Hey so, In my product page, I have recommended products at the bottom. The issue is that those recommended products have long parameters such as sitename.com/product-xy-z/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co&srcType=dp_recs The reason why it has that long parameter is due to tracking purposes (internally with the dev and UX team). My question is, should I replace it with the clean URL or as long as it has the canonical tag, it should be okay to have such a long parameter? I would think clean URL would help with internal links and what not...but if it already has a canonical tag would it help? Another issue is that the URL is different and not just the parameter. For instance..the canonical URL is sitename.com/productname-xyz/ and so the internal link used on the product page (same exact page just different URL with parameter) sitename.com/xyz/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co&srcType=dp_recs (missing product name), BUT still has the canonical tag!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ggpaul5620 -
Can links be hidden?
I was wondering if anyone can help me with some advice on agency work. We have just employed a new SEO agency to conduct work on one of our websites. I took a look on OSE and GWT to see if we had any new links since the agency started working (1 month ago) but there's was nothing new. When l asked for an update as to what link building efforts had been completed last month, l was told they don't give out a list of links as it could compromise the agencies techniques. They told me that they use software to hide links form link aggregators so that our competitors don't know what we are doing. Can anybody confirm that such software exists or is this agency just taking us for a ride? If there is such a software, could this not hinder what links the search engines could see? Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RobSchofield0 -
Http, https and link juice
I'm working on a site that is built on DNN. For some reason the client has set all pages to convert to HTTPS (although this is not perfect as some don't when landing on them). All pages indexed in Google are straight HTTP, but when you click on the Google result a temp 302 header response to the corresponding HTTPS page for many. I want it changed to a 301 but unfortunately is an issue for DNN. Is there another way around this in IIS that won't break DNN as it seems to be a bit flaky? I want to have the homepage link juice pass through for all links made to non HTTPS homepage. Removing HTTPS does not seem to be an option for them.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MickEdwards0 -
Not sure if I should disavow these links or not
I am on the marketing team for CandyGalaxy.com we are an online candy store that specializes in bulk candy for events. Were just about a year and a half old and i'm running into some SEO strategy road blocks lately. When we started the company we used an oversee's seo company. For the first few months results were great then things took a massive dive as google began rolling out updates early and mid last year. After that point we started taking things in house and have been trying to create content and begin content marketing. We launched a blog @ blog.candygalaxy.com and also launched and educational resource at candybuffet101.com - However the question i'm up against now is what to do with those bad old links? Are they actually hurting us? Or just neutral? I'm also trying to decided what to do about the links in my footer? We put those there because those are truly our most popular products and we wanted customers to have easy access, but are those links potentially harmful? I'm questioning these issues because I feel like there is something holding back some of my pages from ranking. For example "blue candy" is a very popular section of our website. We have worked on a lot of content for the blog related to blue candy, made videos, photo shoots ect. We have customer reviews on page and unique category content. According to open site explorer our DA and PA are around the range of most of the sites in the 8-12 serp position. But we have more social activity then all but the top 2-3 spots. However the page almost impossible to find via search. Its not in the first 300 results and surely the page is more relevant then an entry about quilts.. Similar situations like this have led me to think that maybe there is a technical underlying issues that I have not addressed. ? The content is definitely there because if i type in a line from the content directly to google it is the first result. So the site seems indexed properly.. Would love to hear any feedback from similar experiences or ideas. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jonathan_Murrell0 -
Natural Link Profile, low and high value links, really?
I cant really get my head around this one. I've read a few times when building links make sure you pick up so low value links as well. So here is an example (and lets say each link takes half hour to get): I got 5 hours of link building and this is what I have managed to get with the time. 1. 10 high value links all with PA/DA 50-60+ 2. 5 high value links with PA/DA 50-60+ AND another 5 low value links with PA/DA 10-. Surely #1 beats #2 hands down?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | activitysuper0