Link profile heavy with press release syndication links caused drop at Penguin 2.0
-
I'm wrestling with something that I'm hoping members of the community can provide input on....
I've working with an enterprise level client that is in the business of data capture and distribution.
I've diagnosed a clear drop of traffic on May 22nd, i.e a loss of search visibility post Penguin 2.0.
Their link profile is big! Discussions with internal stakeholders who have been with the company 10's of years confirm that no "link building" service providers have ever been hired and no over-zealous employee is ever likely to have tried to "do" link building internally. They are just one of those lucky companies that by their nature publish information that people want to link to and share.
As a first port of call I've grouped links by anchor text and can see groups of hundreds of matching anchors based on their brand URL and specific page titles. The matching anchors have resulted from big take up of interesting data that they have marketed via press releases. NOT for link purposes.
My question is this....
Does the community think or have evidence (or can point me toward any case studies) that show that Press release syndication alone could result in:
a) a penguin penalty or...
b) a devaluing of press release type links during Penguin 2.0 that could have resulted in a loss of search visibility and give the impression of a penaltyYour thoughts are much appreciated!
-
I hate to make it more complicated. But any website that scrapes content is surely looked down upon by Google. So, I would disavow links from those scraper websites as well just in case.
As you wrote, something surely happened to you after that Penguin 2.0 update. So, I would disavow anything that could even remotely raise a red flag. (Note: You can write a note to Google explaining the situation directly in the disavow file -- as in, it was not your fault.)
Still, I'm curious by the fact that you got hit despite the links being nofollow and/or having mainly brand-name anchor text. It might just be the sheer volume of links from release-distribution sites and scraper sites that caused it (if it was a LOT). Google's not always good at understanding context.
-
I don't think anyone will be able to say definitively whether press release links can cause Penguin trouble, but I can tell you that they are often flagged on a manual review as examples of unnatural links. When I'm doing backlink audits I usually remove any press releases with keyword anchors. I'll generally keep the brand anchors unless the brand is really similar to a keyword.
-
Good point David. I will be digging into things further rather than taking things on face value!
-
Hey Scott,
Thanks for taking the time out for a comprehensive response.
Because my clients press releases have contained interesting and insightful data the volume of the links have come from lazy publishers that have taken/scraped the press releases from newswires and then re-published them verbatim.... including the brand links that have been included in the bio sections. This has resulted in lots of brand links.
I think i've been looking at it from the point of view that a press release with a branded link rather than an exact match link is OK but as you say "press releases are meant to get coverage and not _to get links directly". _Maybe Google's problem is with the fact that my client included a brand link in their press releases where it wasn't necessary or providing any value. If the links had been to 'find out more' type info perhaps this is a different matter.
I've been reading a couple of posts by the guys at Branded3 (here and here. Thanks for sharing Stephen Kenwright) that touch on how brand links in press releases were flagged as problematic by Google. Which helps to confirm suspicions that it is the press releases that have brought the penalty.
-
Regardless of what these long-time employees say, try to get in touch with whoever was in this position before you and find out for sure if link building was done. If the company's that big, it wouldn't be surprising if link building was going on and most people had no clue.
-
First, as I'm sure you know but others at your company may not know, press releases are meant to get coverage and not to get links directly. (The best, earned links come indirectly as a result of the coverage.) Having exact-match anchor text only makes it worse.
Google itself states here that "links with optimized anchor text in articles or press releases distributed on other sites" are a violation of its guidelines. As a result, Google suggests making them "nofollow" whenever possible. As a result, many press release distribution sites now automatically add "nofollow" to links in releases. Nofollow links with exact-match anchor text are less likely to hurt you, but I would not still risk it.
Matt Cutts, Google's head of web spam, says this (in a comment): "I’m not against doing press releases; press releases can be a useful part of getting traffic and building a brand. For ranking in Google, however, the main benefit of a press release is not direct links or PageRank from the press release directly; it’s primarily the people who decide to write an article and link because of that."
What I would do:
1. Collect a list of all the backlinks directly from press-release distribution sites. Disavow all of them -- especially those that have exact-match anchor text and/or are dofollow.
2. In the future, put out press releases on such websites only when you have something legitimately newsworthy to announce (i.e., you're not doing it just to get links). And make sure that all links on those sites are nofollow and use natural language (no exact-match anchor text).
3. Ideally, I'd skip release-distribution websites altogether -- how much coverage have you actually gotten as a result? I'd use a PR strategy of pitching actual reporters at actual publications directly instead. Good luck!
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
-
Question RE: Links in Headers, Footers, Content, and Navigation
This question is regarding this Whiteboard Friday from October 2017 (https://moz.com/blog/links-headers-footers-navigation-impact-seo). Sorry that I am a little late to the party, but I wanted to see if someone could help out. So, in theory, if header links matter less than in-content links, and links lower on the page have their anchor text value stripped from them, is there any point of linking to an asset in the content that is also in the header other than for user experience (which I understand should be paramount)? Just want to be clear.Also, if in-content links are better than header links, than hypothetically an industry would want to find ways to organically link to landing pages rather than including that landing page in the header, no? Again, this is just for a Google link equity perspective, not a user experience perspective, just trying to wrap my head around the lesson. links-headers-footers-navigation-impact-seo
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | 3VE0 -
Link Getting Deleted for Few Days
If a link gets deleted for few days and re-appears... Will Google treat it as a "new link" or give it the same old link-age.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Akshayshr0 -
Links Identified in WMT not on Webpages
Hi, We're currently reviewing one of our clients backlinks in Google Webmaster Tools, Majestic & OSE as we can see many toxic links. However we cannot find the links on the webpages that are listed on Google WMT. We have searched through the website along with checking through the source code. Should we still disavow the domain? Thanks, Edd
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | tomcraig860 -
Deep Link Ratio
Hi there, What ratio links should be to a homepage compared to deep links? I'm aware there probably isn't a fixed ratio, and it may depend on niche, but i've heard Penguin is on the look out for people that link to heavily to content deep in their sites (product pages etc.) Any thoughts?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | jennie.evans0 -
Rank drop ecommerce site
Hello, We're going to get an audit, but I would like to hear some ideas on what could cause our ranking drop. There's no warnings in GWT. We deleted 17 or so blogs (that had no backlinks pointing to these blogs and were simply for easy links) last summer thinking that they weren't white hat so we had to start eliminating them. At the same time, we eliminated a few sitewide paid links that were really strong. With all of this deletion, our keywords started to drop. For example, our main keyword went from first to third/fourth. With the deletions, our keywords dropped immediately a couple of spots, then with no more deletions, all of our keywords have been slowly dropping over the last seven months or so. Right now we are at the bottom of the first page for that same main keyword, and other keywords look similar. We have 70 linking root domains, of which: 15 are blogs with no backlinks that were created simply for the purpose of easy links. We didn't delete them all yet because of the immediate ranking drop when we deleted the last ones. One PR5 site has links to our home page scattered throughout it's lists of resources for people in different states in the US. It doesn't look like a standard paid link site, but it has many paid links in it's different pages. One PR4 site has our logo with another paid link logo at the bottom of one of it's pages. There are 2 other paid links from two PR4 sites that look editorial. There are other links on the sites to other websites that are paid. All links for these 2 sites look editorial. That's all the bad stuff. Other things that could be causing drop in rank - > Our bread crumbs are kind of messed up. We have a lot of subcategory pages that rel=cononical to main categories in the menu. We did this because we had categories that were exactly the same. So you'll drill down on a category page and you'll end up on a main category. To the average user, it seems perfectly fine. Our on-site SEO still has a few pages that repeat words in the titles and h1 tags several times (especially our #1 main keyword), titles similar to something like: running shoes | walking shoes | cross-training shoes where a word is repeated 2 or 3 times. Also, there are a few pages that are more keyword stuffed than we would like in the content. Just a couple of paragraphs but 2 keywords are dispersed in them three times each. The keywords in this content is not in different variations, it's exactly the keyword. We've still got a few URLs that are keywords stuffed with like 3 different keywords. We may have many 404 errors (due to some mistakes we made with the URLs in our cart) - if Google hasn't deindexed them all then we could have dozens of 404s on important category pages. But nothing is showing up in GWT. Our sitemap does not include any broken links. Google is confused about our branding it seems. I'm adding branding to the on-site SEO but right now Google often shows keywords as our branding when Google changes the way the title tag is displayed sometimes in the search engines. We don't link out to anyone. We have lots of content, almost no duplicate content, and some authoritative very comprehensive articles. Your thoughts on what to do to get our rankings back up?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobGW0 -
What are some of the worst links that you have come across?
I'm talking the least relevant and incredibly spammy. We've all done site audits and stumbled across some ridiculous ones. The funnier the better. I'm compiling a list of hilarious links that sites have gotten. Any input would be great!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | KevinBloom0 -
How fast should I make links
I have an eCommerce site. I like to review 100 of my products on Squidoo. There will be 50 lenses each lens will review 2-4 products. Each lens will link to each product review and one link to website URL. at the end of the project I would make around 200-250 links to my site. How should I extent the work. Should I do it within a month? of course I will do my other link buildings along with this task Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | giftbasket4kids0 -
Link-Building - Directories
Hello, The SEO world is a bit confuse in the last months with the Google Antartic updates. Its normal since Google is trying to kill SEO to have more Adwords publicity results. My most recent doubt is about directories. I heard Matt Cutts from Google in a recent Google Hangout saying that registering a website in directorys was ok, but not the ideal method to become relevant in the internet world. However it seems that this procedure is not against the Google policies. Now, here in the forums, I already saw someone writing about adding your site to directories and how dangerous that situacion is. So, whats your opinion about adding your site to free and pay directories as first link-building strategy? If directories are out of the question, why SEOmoz as a huge list of paid directorys? Is SEOmoz outdate?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | PedroM1