Black Hat? Is it really possible my new client paid someone to SEO the word "here"?
-
I just took on a client and first thing I saw in Webmaster Tools was the dreaded "Unnatural Link Patterns" message dated Apr 7th, 2012. MajesticSEO is reporting 212 backlinks, OSE is reporting 251. Nothing out of the ordinary, in fact they only anchor text is their brand.
However, we then ran an SEO PowerSuite Crawl and found 429 backlinks with 78.1% of links use the anchor text "here" and 77.9% of all links point to the same URL. If this is indeed true I can see why they got the message from Google.
The company has admitted they hired a service to do SEO for $299/mo for several months but when they saw no results they quit. Could this company really have gone after "here".
It not, I can't find anything that would give them the message they got from Google Webmaster Tools.
-
Right on. I'll take the additional wait for increased accuracy any day.
-
It can literally take 8-10 hours for SEO PS to crawl 1site, for that reason it does appear more thorough. That being said, SEOPS identified the word "here" as did Google WMT, but G WMT points to a completely different aritcle (different URL) than SEOPS.
As I said I was confused b/c the G WMT links are from a "here" post June 28th and the WMT message was 4/7/2012. So I think...maybe...just perhaps....SEO PS was pulling the "Here" for the actual URL that got the letter where for some reason the links in G WMT are from a later date.
Bottom line. SEO PS was the only tool that found this information. SEOMoz and MajesticSEO failed.
-
Domenic,
Sounds like you've figured out the issue. I recently had to request removal from several blogs because of undifferentiated, site-wide links in their blogroll to our site. Very tiresome and required lots of followup emails. Good luck!
On a side note, how do you like SEO PowerSuite? Lately I've been frustrated by the disparity between MajesticSEO and OSE for backlink analysis. I'm looking for another tool and would like to hear what you have to say about PowerSuite.
Thanks
-
EGOL, there are 163 links in Google webmaster tools. Looking back I see over 8 instances of the link "here" on the blog roll, each pointing to 8 different blog posts (specific URLs) multiplied by the 163 pages...give us 1304 links with "Here" when OSE is showing 251 links from 50+ domains.
So I can see where this is a direct +60% Penguin violation, the issue is why is Google counting obvious duplicate content for every single one.
-
We have sites that have never received linkbuilding and "here" is one of the top anchors for each of the sites.
-
Thank Kyle, we figured that, we just weren't sure why/how, but we're getting there.
-
Stephen, thank you,
The message is the less I think, never seen worse: Google Webmaster Tools notice of detected unnatural links...[fix it and resubmit.]
I looked over the links in WMT and 163 pointing from one site, using "here" linking to one particular blog article.
The issue is a technical one. The site in question is their Web 2.0 Community Site, powered by Ning Software, where they answer all sorts of questions on the topic. They have a blog roll and every single member automatically displays the currently blog roll in their profile.
Google is counting every single member profile and every single page with the blog roll as a link with the word "here". Full sentence is "Great article on blah blah, find it here." B/c it's appearing on 163 pages, they have 163 "here"s linking to one page.
This get's slightly more confusing. There are a lot more than one "here" because the guy who says "check it out here" has multiple posts saying that however linked to URL in question is the same for all 163 and that post was made on June 28th while the WMT message was on Apr 7th.
So I'm still a bit stumped
I'm going to get them to remove the blog roll or maybe we can put a nofollow tag on the blog roll link. I've never seen blog roll links count for full link value.
-
I highly doubt they intentionally tried to target the word "here". More likely is the links they produced was something like (to see blah blah blah, click here) and “here” was the link to the site. Probably a bunch of spam.
-
Hi Domenic
How many are sitewides? What is the ratio of single domain to domain links vs sitewide to domain
Which of the two letters did you get? the crap links links discounted message or the you are penalised message for crap links message?
What links are Google Webmaster Tools reporting? That should be your best indicator of what Google thinks
S
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
-
New Customer spammy markup warning
I just won a new customer, yippie. Bad news after i got the full story it seems they have a google penalty against them. It could be an old malicious employee with back links. The error in GSC is spammy markup, would anyone else care to take a quick look and see what the main issues are, im not sure of the tags or all the additional info and alternate names, they are relevant but maybe too much in rich snippets. the site is aipctshop.com. Thank you in advance.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | bendh0 -
Would this be duplicate content or bad SEO?
Hi Guys, We have a blog for our e-commerce store. We have a full-time in-house writer producing content. As part of our process, we do content briefs, and as part of the brief we analyze competing pieces of content existing on the web. Most of the time, the sources are large publications (i.e HGTV, elledecor, apartmenttherapy, Housebeautiful, NY Times, etc.). The analysis is basically a summary/breakdown of the article, and is sometimes 2-3 paragraphs long for longer pieces of content. The competing content analysis is used to create an outline of our article, and incorporates most important details/facts from competing pieces, but not all. Most of our articles run 1500-3000 words. Here are the questions: Would it be considered duplicate content, or bad SEO practice, if we list sources/links we used at the bottom of our blog post, with the summary from our content brief? Could this be beneficial as far as SEO? If we do this, should be nofollow the links, or use regular dofollow links? For example: For your convenience, here are some articles we found helpful, along with brief summaries: <summary>I want to use as much of the content that we have spent time on. TIA</summary>
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | kekepeche1 -
Is toggle Good For seo
Hi there, I have Client Who dont want to show his content to publicly, So team decided to use toggle, So Google can also See Content, But i want bu sure. Does Google will really cache that Content?? Does it down my website Ranking?? Please any one can Help, I need urgent basis Thnx in advance Falguni
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | iepl20010 -
Disappearing Links Black Hat ?
I have seen reports of Black hat spamming with dodgy links but we have another issue with a clients site. The site had a small number of solid following links about 60 which had been in place for years and in the past few weeks all but those directly under their control have ceased to link. At the same time a very aggressive competitor has entered their market which is owned by the officers of an SEO company. Could it be that they have somehow disavowed the links to the site to damage it how do we find out? there are now just 10 following links?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Eff-Commerce0 -
What is your opinion on link farm risks and how do I explain this to a client?
Hi All, I have a new monthly retainer client who still has a $600/month "linkbuilding" contract with a large national advertising/directory organization (I won't name them but I'm sure you can guess). I just got a "linking" report and it's filled with garbage: Comment spam (on huffington post). Fake G+ Account Links from multiple sites with Domain Authority of 1 (http://encirclehealth.net/, http://livingstreamhealth.co/ , etc). These have no "about" sections, no ads, no products - just blatant link farms. I've told the client that these links pose a danger in Google, that he should get them to remove them, and that he should request a refund. Their rep is pushing back hard and saying there's absolutely nothing to worry about. Am I overestimating how bad/dangerous these are? How would you explain to the client the risks? I've already shared a report and my recommendations with the client but am really just looking for some affirmation of my position that these MUST get removed. Any advice much appreciated!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | PlusROI0 -
Is Yahoo! Directory still a beneficial SEO tactic
For obvious reasons, we have submitted our clients to high authority directories such as Yahoo! Directory and Business.com. However, with all of the algorithm updates lately, we've tried to cut back on the paid directories that we submit our clients to. Having said that, my question is, is Yahoo! Directory still a beneficial SEO tactic? Or are paid directories, with the exception of BBB.com, a bad SEO tactic?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MountainMedia0 -
Understanding competitors link building tactics (possibly black hat stuff that seems to work)
So checking out the backlinks on a competitor’s page for a term I’m looking to work on, a page they rank pretty well for, I can’t but happen to note the kinds of sites that grant this company – who are well known in their field – its successes. Many of the links to this page I’m interested in appear within short articles on blogs, really bad Wordpress blogs that are certainly just for SEO use. My questions are: Where do people usually source these blogs which typically contain material on a range of different topics? Are these probably paid links? How do they get so much content out there, albeit similar content, to so many of the hastily cobbled efforts? Would that be an agency with connections or a blogging community site? How can any search engine lend credibility to my competitor’s links when the article below has nonsense for penis enlargement stuff. Seriously?!? How are they not being penalised? It’s frustrating because these aren’t the tactics I want to employ but they seems to offer success, but also, if your link is in an article that followed by another on penis pills, how I can take Google seriously in its stated aim of making things this prone to manipulation.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Martin_S0
