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
-
Penguin: Is there a "safe threshold" for commercial links?
Hello everyone, Here I am with a question about Penguin. I am asking to all Penguin experts on these forums to help me understand if there is a "safe" threshold of unnatural links under which we can have peace of mind. I really have no idea about that, I am not an expert on Penguin nor an expert of unnatural back link profiles. I have a website with about 84% natural links and 16% affiliate/commercial links. Should I be concerned about possibly being penalized by an upcoming Penguin update? So far, I have never been hit by any previous Penguin released, but... just in case, you experts, do you know what's the "threshold" of unnatural links that shouldn't be exceeded? Or, in your experience, what's the classic threshold over which Google can penalize a website for unnatural back link profile? Thank you in advance to anyone helping me on this research!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | fablau0 -
Site Footer Links Used for Keyword Spam
I was on the phone with a proposed web relaunch firm for one of my clients listening to them talk about their deep SEO knowledge. I cannot believe that this wouldn’t be considered black-hat or at least very Spammy in which case a client could be in trouble. On this vendor’s site I notice that they stack the footer site map with about 50 links that are basically keywords they are trying to rank for. But here’s the kicker shown by way of example from one of the themes in the footer: 9 footer links:
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RosemaryB
Top PR Firms
Best PR Firms
Leading PR Firms
CyberSecurity PR Firms
Cyber Security PR Firms
Technology PR Firms
PR Firm
Government PR Firms
Public Sector PR Firms Each link goes to a unique URL that is basically a knock-off of the homepage with a few words or at the most one sentences swapped out to include this footer link keyword phrase, sometimes there is a different title attribute but generally they are a close match to each other. The canonical for each page links back to itself. I simply can’t believe Google doesn’t consider this Spammy. Interested in your view.
Rosemary0 -
Thousands of links - Am I being sabatoged?!
It seems that I am being sabatoged. I have been disavowing links every month because there seems to be more and more spam links that are popping up on my site and I'm not doing ANYTHING to allow that to happen. Does anyone have any insight? A. do you think I am being sabatoged? B. Is there a way to find out who is doing it?!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Veebs0 -
How do you check if a website has a link network (From the same C Class)
Hello Mozzers, I'm conducting a link audit and I see a red flag for one of my guest blogs i did in 2012. let's say the IP of the website was 62.658.62.9 Little did I know that the blogging website is a link network with the same content on each IP via it's specific C class: 62.658.62.9 62.658.62.10 62.658.62.11 ETC... How does one find a website to blog on and check to see if they have a blog network or better yet, see if there is a similar distinction of duplicate sites based on its C-class?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Shawn1240 -
Can a hidden menu damage a website page?
Website (A) - has a landing page offering courses Website (B) - ( A different organisation) has a link to Website A. The goal landing page when you click on he link takes you to Website A's Courses page which is already a popular page with visitors who search for or come directly into Website A. Owners of Website A want to ADD an Extra Menu Item to the MENU BAR on their Courses page to offer some specific courses to visitors who come from Website (B) to Website (A) - BUT the additional MENU ITEM is ONLY TO BE DISPLAYED if you come from having clicked on the link at Website (B). This link both parties are intending to track However, if you come to the Courses landing page on Website (A) directly from a search engine or directly typing in the URL address of the landing page - you will not see this EXTRA Menu Item with its link to courses, it only appears should you visit Website (A) having come from Website (B). The above approach is making me twitch as to what the programmer wants to do as to me this looks like a form of 'cloaking'. What I am not understanding that Website (A) URL ADDRESS landing page is demonstrating outwardly to Google a Menu Bar that appears normal, but I come to the same URL ADDRESS from Website (B) and I end up seeing an ADDITIONAL MENU ITEM How will Google look at this LANDING PAGE? Surely it must see the CODING INSTRUCTIONS sitting there behind this page to assist it in serving up in effect TWO VERSIONS of the page when actually the URL itself does not change. What should I advise the developer as I don't want the landing page of Website (A) which is doing fine right now, end up with some sort of penalty from the search engines through this exercise. Many thanks in advance of answers from the community.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ICTADVIS0 -
Are Links from blogs with person using keyword anchor text a Penguin 2.0 issue?
Hello, I am continuing a complete clean up of a clients link profile and would like to know if Penguin is against links from blogs with the user including keywords as anchor text? So far I have been attempting to get them removed before I go for a disavow. An example would be the work clothing comment at the bottom of: http://www.fashionstyleyou.co.uk/beat-the-caffeine-rush.html/comment-page-1 I am also questioning if we should keep any link directories, so far I have been ruthless, but worry I will be losing a hell of a lot of links. For example I have kept the following: http://www.business-directory-uk.co.uk//clothing.htm Your comments are welcomed!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MarzVentures0 -
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 -
Whatever Happened to Text Link Ads?
I've searched the web for any objective articles, good or bad, written about Text Link Ads or Text Link Brokers written in the past two years. Other than the occasional discussion board question, SEOs are silent about these services. I know back in 2006, Rand looked upon them almost favorably. But what has happened since then? Is there any legitimate use for these services anymore (as a link builder)?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | 1000Bulbs0