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!)
-
Thanks Carson. I would tend to agree were it not for the fact that Tripadvisor is so adept at SEO. Not sure how to rationalize this behavior alongside their reputation. Assumed that I was missing something...
-
It's cloaking, plain and simple - showing one thing to the search engines and another to the user. The people embedding these widgets may think they're just promoting their own profiles, but unwittingly they're telling Google that they endorse a search page.
Don't tell me it's for (the .1% of) users with their JavaScript turned off. If that were the case, either the widget would also include the commercial link or the JS-disabled version would include the profile link.
While Google's algorithm tends to take it easier on sites with established link profiles, this sort of thing may justify manual action. Not only is it a risky tactic, but the intent-swapping implementation show very bad faith.
I'd advise any site owner not to use the badge, as a manual quality reviewer might mistake it for cloaking on the part of the publisher. Eventually, these links will either be devalued or outright penalized, as they're in direct and blatant violation of Google's terms of service.
-
I haven't looked at flipkey yet, if you looked at my badges though you can see a different anchor text is created each time and points to internal pages, which may not work for all businesses, we are all long tail. That being said, the way they were generated (silly search process) was not was was asked for and a perfect example of dev delivering something completely different, as a result of the generation process they have not been very successful, but the final code that is generated is good SEO.
I would use different anchor texts for each badge and not point to the homepage, point to a LP instead so you can 404 the page (which drops the links pointing to your site automatically by changing the URL) if you point to the homepage you'll need to contact webmasters and request takedowns prior to reconsideration request if you get hit.
-
Check out the "How much is my site worth?" sites - They usually give you a widget to embed once you "evaluate" your site worth.
-
Thanks Oleg! I too don't see it as a bad thing, but all that really matters of course is how G sees it.
Do you know of any other examples in which badges are used in this manner?
-
Thanks Irving! Are you implying that a small number of badges (ie. <10) with the same anchor text won't hurt them? In almost all cases, the anchor text will be long tail and not be overdone.
I took a look at Vitals and how you generate badges using the doctors name as anchor text. This is also very long tail. Do you see this as analogous to how Flipkey is using badges?
-
since badges often go globally on sites they're probably going to hurt themselves and get penalized for that anchor text since it will be overdone.
-
Embedding links into widgets (especially keyword rich, hidden links) is considered a link scheme by Google. TripAdvisor will not be penalized (at least algorithmically) because they have a very strong link profile. A small site may be hit with penguin for these actions.
Manually, G may or may not decide to penalize them. Personally, I don't think its a bad thing. They are providing a service and show a link that would allow someone to get more info in case their JS is off (as you mentioned).
If you were to make a widget, I would link back with your brand name. It can be an excellent way to build links as long as you do it right.
Cheers,
Oleg
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
-
Subtle line of asking links for money/service/benefits
Hello here, I am putting down a link building strategy according to the latest "good practices" and Google recommendations, but I find myself often confused. For example, I'd like to implement the technique suggested by Rand on his article below: https://moz.com/blog/headsmacking-tip-1-link-requests-in-order-confirmation-emails But if you look at the comments, a user suggests to "ask for links in exchange of discounts", and everyone there applaud him for the idea (Rand included). But, wait a second... am I the only one realizing that now days Google discourage to ask for links for "money, services, or any other kind of 'offered' benefit"? So.. where to draw the line here? Here are other examples that I am not sure are "safe" in link building: 1. Ask for links in exchange of a free Membership on a site (where usually a Membership is sold for a price) 2. Ask for links in exchange of exposure (isn't this a sort of "link exchange"?) 3. Ask for link in exchange of "anything else you can think of", even if necessarily doesn't involve money (i.e. for a "certified site badge", for a free e-book, or anything else) I'd really like to know your thoughts on this very sensitive issue. Thank you in advance to anyone for helping me to understand.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | fablau1 -
Negative SEO impacting client rankings - How to combat negative linking?
I have a client which have been losing rankings for the key term "sell gold" in Google AU. However, while doing some investigating I realized that we have been receiving links from bad neighborhoods such as porn, bogus .edu sites as well as some pharmaceutical sites. We have identified this as negative SEO and have moved forward to disavow the links in Google. However, I would like to know what other measures can be taken to combat this type of negative SEO linking? Any suggestions would be appreciated!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | dancape0 -
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 -
Unnatural Link Notification - Third Go Round, specific questions
Hi all, I'm posting what is sure to be a common question, but I can't seem to find much information by searching Q&A over the last month so thought I'd throw this out there. There's a lot of 'what do I do??' questions about 'unnatural link notification', but most of them are from first timers. We're pretty far along in the process and it feels like we're going nowhere, so I was hoping to pick the brains of anyone else who's 'been there'. We have a client that we inherited with an unnatural link profile; they were warned shortly after we took them on (around March was the first warning). We compiled an apologetic letter, specifically identified a previous agency who >was< doing bad things, mentioned things would be different from now on, and provided a list of links we were working on to remove based on WMT and OSE and some other sources. This was submitted in early June. Traffic on the main keyword plummeted; ranking went from top 5 to about mid-page 4. We got hit with that same rash of Unnatural Link warnings on July 23 that everyone else did and after looking around I decided not to respond to those. We got a response to the reinclusion request submitted in June above, saying the site was still violating guidelines. This time I went all out, and provided a Google docs spreadsheet of the over 1,500 links we had removed, listed the other links that had no contact info (not even in WHOIS), listed the links we had emailed/contact formed but got no response, everything. So they responded to that recently, simply saying 'site still violates guidelines' with no other details, and I'm not sure what else I can do. The campaign above was quite an investment of resources and time, but I'm not sure how to most efficiently continue. I promised specific questions, so here they are: Are the link removal services (rmoov, removeem, linkdelete, et al) worth investigating? To remove the 1,500 links I mentioned above I had a full time (low paid) person working for a week. Does Google even reconsider after long engagements like this? Most of what I've read has said that inclusion gets cleared up on the first/second request, and we're at bat for the third now. Due to the lack of feedback I don't know if their opinion is "nope, you just missed some" or "you are so blackhat you shouldn't even bother asking anymore". One of the main link holders is this shady guy who runs literally thousands of directories the client appears in thanks to previous SEO agency, and wants $5 per link he removes. Should I mention this to Google, do they even care? Or is it solely our responsibility? Thanks in advance for any advice;
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | icecarats0 -
Pages higher than my website in Google have fewer links and a lower page authority
Hi there I've been optimising my website pureinkcreative.com based on advice from SEOMoz and at first this was working as in a few weeks the site had gone from nowhere to the top of page three in Google for our main search term 'copywriting'. Today though I've just checked and the website is now near the bottom of page four and competitors I've never heard of are above my site in the rankings. I checked them out on Open Site Explorer and many of these 'newbies' have less links (on average about 200 less links) and a poorer page authority. My page authority is 42/100 and the newly higher ranking websites are between 20 and 38. One of these pages which is ranking higher than my website only has internal links and every link has the anchor text of 'copywriting' which I've learnt is a bad idea. I'm determined to do whiter than white hat SEO but if competitors are ranking higher than my site because of 'gimmicks' like these, is it worth it? I add around two blog posts a week of approx 600 - 1000 words of well researched, original and useful content with a mix of keywords (copywriting, copywriter, copywriters) and some long tail keywords and guest blog around 2 - 3 times a month. I've been working on a link building campaign through guest blogging and comment marketing (only adding relevant, worthwhile comments) and have added around 15 links a week this way. Could this be why the website has dropped in the rankings? Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks very much. Andrew
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | andrewstewpot0 -
Using Redirects To Avoid Penalties
A quick question, born out of frustration! If a webpage has been penalised for unnatural links, what would be the effects of moving that page to a new URL and setting up a 301 redirect from the old penalised page to the new page? Will Google treat the new page as ‘non-penalised’ and restore your rankings? It really shouldn’t work, but I’m convinced (although not certain) that our clients competitor has done this, with great effect! I suppose you could also achieve this using canonicalisation too! Many thanks in advance, Lee.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Webpresence0 -
Does SEOMOZ provide any help regarding to Link Buildiing and directory submission?
Hi Everybody, I am trying to work out how off-site SEO works and I am facing some troubles when it comes to link building. Does SEOMOZ provide any solution to this? Regards, Guido.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SilbertAd0 -
Anchor text for internal links
there has been a lof of discussion on this forum and elsewhere about over optimized anchor text, partial match anchor text vs exact anchor text match, etc. I am wondering iwhether or not exact anchor text matches are good or bad for internal links? Does anyone have anythoughts, or better, any studies? Paul
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | diogenes0