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
-
Sitename in Mobile SERPS is Incorrect
Our site is being presented in mobile SERPS with a completely wrong sitename. Screenshot is attached. Despite confirming multiple times that "HYPR Biometrics" does not actually appear anywhere in the back-end, schema markup, or webmaster tools settings - Google still _decides _that this is the site name. It makes no sense at all and is driving us crazy. What can be done to correct this? I imagine this can be a major issue for companies who are completely misrepresented in SERPs. Our URL is https://www.hypr.com/ Thanks in advance for any advice. djNlfkt
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | gray_jedi0 -
"Google chose different canonical than user" Issue Can Anyone help?
Our site https://www.travelyaari.com/ , some page are showing this error ("Google chose different canonical than user") on google webmasters. status message "Excluded from search results". Affected on our route page urls mainly. https://www.travelyaari.com/popular-routes-listing Our canonical tags are fine, rel alternate tags are fine. Can anyone help us regarding why it is happening?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RobinJA0 -
Question about "sneaky" vs. non-sneaky redirects?
One of my client's biggest keyword competitors is using, what I believe to be, sneaky redirects. The company is a large, international corporation that has a local office. They use a totally unrelated domain name for local press and advertising, but there is no website. The anchor text in the backlinks automatically redirects to the corporate website. Is this sneaky or not?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | JCon7110 -
Does type of hosting affect SEO rankings?
Hello, I was wondering if hosting on shared, versus VPS, versus dedicated ... matter at all in terms of the rankings of Web sites ... given that all other factors would be exactly equal. I know this is a big question with many variables, but mainly I am wondering if, for example, it is more the risk of resource usage which may take a site down if too much traffic and therefore make it un-crawlable if it happens at the moment that a bot is trying to index the site (factoring out the UX of a downed site). Any and all comments are greatly appreciated! Best regards,
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | uworlds
Mark0 -
Can H1 and Meta title be exactly the same ?
I've heard from some SEO's that H1 and Meta Title shouldn't be exactly the same, why ? Both of them describe what is ON the page right ? Why is it Spammy? Is it ?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Tintanus2 -
Can anyone explain some below SEO questions ?
Can we do link building like directory, article, press releases, classifieds, business listing, social bookmarking etc. We need to check DA, Alexa, Page Rank, cBlock IP before publishing any kind of Link but how much Max or Min. no. should be for consider any website like DA should be min 20-30-40 etc.. How can consider a natural links? Which type anchor text should be in any kind of links may be directory etc. In website interlinking we should put Exact Links or no need to put any links For.ex.my website is abc.com.au then we can put link for Website Design keywords or Should be long tail keyword. How can we do content marketing means we should post blog in internal website or need to create External Blog like BlogSpot, WordPress. In blog we should put any keyword link OR should be post without links. We can put link on no follow website. Why more website coming on Google first page but they are doing Spammy links like exact keywords links, unnatural links etc.. Thanks, Akhilesh
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | dotlineseo0 -
Where can i see ejemple of disavow files to adapt mine in order to send to google
Can i send a disavow file to google as CSV file. Where can i see ejemple of disavow files to adapt mine in order to send to google
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | maestrosonrisas0 -
Hidden links in badges using javascript?
I have been looking at a strategy used by a division of Tripadvisor called Flipkey. They specialize in vacation home rentals and have been zooming up in the rankings over the past few months. One of the main off-page tactics that they have been using is providing a badge to property managers to display on their site which links back. The issue I have is that it seem to me that they are hiding a link which has keyword specific anchor text by using javascript. The site I'm looking at offers vacation rentals in Tamarindo (Costa Rica). http://www.mariasabatorentals.com/ Scroll down and you'll see a Reviews badge which shows reviews and a link back to the managers profile on Flipkey. **However, **when you look at the source code for the badge, this is what I see: Find Tamarindo Vacation Rentals on FlipKey Notice that there is a link for "tamarindo vacation rentals" in the code which only appears when JS is turned off in the browser. I am relatively new to SEO so to me this looks like a black hat tactic. But because this is Tripadvisor, I have to think that that I am wrong. Is this tactic allowed by Google since the anchor text is highly relevant to the content? And can they justify this on the basis that they are servicing users with JS turned off? I would love to hear from folks in the Moz community on this. Certainly I don't want to implement a similar strategy only to find out later that Google will view it as cloaking. Sure seems to be driving results for Flipkey! Thanks all. For the record, the Moz community is awesome. (Can't wait to start contributing once I actually know what I'm doing!)
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | mario330