Competitor using "unatural inbound links" not penalized??!
-
Since Google's latest updates, I think it would be safe to say that building links is harder. But i also read that Google applies their latest guidelines retro-actively. In other words, if you have built your ilnking profile on a lot of unnatural links, with spammy anchor text, you will get noticed and penalized.
In the past, I used to use SEO friendly directories and "suggest URL's" to build back links, with keyword/phrase anchor text. But I thought that this technique was frowned upon by Google these days.
So, what is safe to do? Why is Google not penalizing the competitor?
And bottom line what is considered to be "unnatural link building" ?
-
Here's a pretty comprehensive ideas of various link building tactics you can try:
-
Thanks Mike!
Would love to fill out that spam report - but I think I'm gonna go with the solution below - the domain in question has a lot of natural links, but no keyword specific links in directories - whilst the other site is built solely on directory links -
Hopefully a few directory links will push the balance in our favour!
-
Thanks Takeshi!
I guess my next question is how do I obtain authoritative links? Thanks!
-
With Penguin, you want to keep keyword anchor text links to below 30-40% of your total link profile, or you might get hit with an unnatural link warning. Directory links are still fine, as long as you use them in moderation.
In general, the stronger your link profile, the more tolerance Google will have for spammy links. Every large site is going to end up with thousands of spammy links pointing to them, through no fault of their own. The question is whether you have enough authoritative links to counteract these negative links.
-
I know that it gets aggravating when you're doing the right thing and your competitors are cheating with seemingly no repercussions, but trust me when I say that they will get swept up eventually. Here is a list of unnatural link building tactics.
If they are doing any of these, they will get sodomized by Google (probably sooner than later).
If you want to be proactive there is a Spam Report Form that submits websites to the Google Web Spam Team. I can't say how well your Karma will do afterwords, but go for it if you want.
<a>https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/spamreport</a>
Sickem!!!
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
-
Inbound Links - Redirect, Leave Alone, etc
Hi, I recently download the inbound links report for my client to look for some opportunities. When they switched to our platform a couple years ago, the format of some of their webpages change, so a number of these inbound links are going to an error page and should be redirected. However, some of these are spammy. In that case, someone recommended to me to disavow them but still redirect anyway. In other cases, some were "last seen" a year or two ago, so when I try to go to the URL the link is coming from, I also get an error page. Should I bother to redirect in these cases? Should I disavow in both cases? Or leave them alone? Thanks for any input!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AliMac261 -
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 -
Can I Use Meta NoIndex to Block Unwanted Links?
I have a forum thread on my site that is completely user generated, not spammy at all, but it is attracting about 45 backlinks from really spammy sites. Usually when this happens, the thread is created by a spammer and I just 404 it. But in this instance, the thread is completely legit, and I wouldn't want to 404 it because users could find it useful. If I add a meta noindex, nofollow tag to the header, will the spammy pagerank still be passed? How best can I protect myself from these low quality backlinks? I don't want to get slapped by Penguin! **Note: I cannot find contact information from the spam sites and it's in a foreign language.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TMI.com0 -
WP Datar site shady linking to my site
Hello, I have done some research on this but cannot find a solid answer to my question. After recently reviewing my "not found" errors in webmaster tools, I see that a site called "WP Datar" has linked to a number of our pages that actually do not exist. I am wondering first, if this will harm our site, and second, what is the best way to get those links from their site taken down? I tried emailing, but of course, the email address listed on the site did not work. 🙂 Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | lfrazer0 -
Should I disavow this Link?
I am trying to clean up my link profile to get rid of a partial penalty and am not sure to do with one of the links to my site http://www.seoco.co.uk The link is 100% organic and has come from a foreign language site that published an infographic that I did: http://www.clasesdeperiodismo.com/2012/12/23/la-evolucion-de-las-redes-sociales-este-ano-en-una-infografia/ The thing is that in the link to my homepage they have used the anchor text SEO as opposed to my company name. I have already sent them an email and asked them to change the anchor text but they haven't responded so I am guessing they probably wouldn't respond to a removal request either. Should I disavow it?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Eavesy0 -
Avoiding the "sorry we have no imagery here" G-maps error
Hi there, we recently did a redesign on a big site and added Gmaps locations to almost every page since we are related to Real State, Listings, Details, search results all have a map embedded. While looking at GWT I found that the top keywords on our site (which is in spanish) are the following. have here imagery sorry After a quick search I found out this is a Gmaps bug, when Google Bot accesses the Pages it throws an error out with this text repeated several times. If you do a search for "sorry we have no imagery here" you will see lots of sites with this issue. My question is, Is this affecting the overall SEO since Bots are actually crawling and indexing this hence its being reported by GWT, Should I cloak this to robots? Has anyone noticed this or has been able to fix it? Thanks in advance!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | makote0 -
External links without unnatural without my control
What should I do with links that Google considers link unnatural, but I have no control over them?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | soulmktpro0 -
What to do when majority of results have shady links?
So I am doing my back link research for the hosting industry and I am running across two different types of link schemes that make it hard to compete with straight white hat techniques. I am determined to keep our efforts white hat to retain long term value, but at the same time I am constantly tempted to slowly add links in the more grey ways. So here are some of the common practices I see a lot of (e.g. 8 of the top 10 sites for top terms use these). Link Buying/Article Links - You know this one well, their link profile has a 10:1 ratio of keyword links compared to brand name links, and the majority of those keyword links are on nonsensical blogs, or on related "tech" sites but obviously labeled as paid links. - I don't like this much, and have even reported some of these. "Hosted by" - So the majority of hosting companies out there have pre-built collections of templates for wordpress, joomla, and other CMS systems, and they have taken the extra step of putting "Server Hosting by XXXXXX" in the footer of those templates. This leads to thousands of small sites being hosted with the keyword backlinks. While I understand this, at the same time I would hope they wouldn't get credit for links all coming back from IPs that they own. While they aren't creating these sites they know the majority of users won't change the template (or know how to). Lastly there are some "Link to us and get discounts" programs going on with customers as well. So, seeing the linking setup this way, would you try to report each instance you see to Google? If so do you think they would really change anything considering how rampant it is among the results? Lets hear some opinions! In the mean time I am going to go work on my awesome content, press releases, and cross-company promotional campaigns ;).
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SL_SEM0
