Does changing Anchor text of old built links raise a red flag in Google?
-
I have lot of links (10000+) built against Exact match anchor text so what is solution to that now?
Other than disavowing them all, May I change the anchor text of those links (From Exact Match To Brand Name or naked URL)?
Does Google have algorithms to detect anchor text changes and if so, do those algorithms detect these sorts of changes and raise a red flag on sites doing it.
I respect your opinions but please only comment if you are sure about it because I am already facing a penalty so can't afford to get another.
-
If you have a lot of links that you can control the anchor text on, that's a pretty sure sign that you should remove them. These aren't the links that Google is going to reward or ignore in the long term. Whether you're currently being hurt by them would require a very thorough review on an expert's part, but I'm sure that links you place manually are links Google doesn't want to count.
There are thoughts that Google is using its "link churn" patents to use the rate at which anchor text or links change as a part of rankings, but it's not known exactly how the mechanism works. Regardless, if the links are spammy and you're subtracting spammy links rather than adding, you won't get hit by any mechanisms designed to flag artificial rank manipulation.
Do try to remove links before you disavow them. Disavow is a last-ditch option, and Google still won't accept it if no effort has been made at removal.
-
first of all: you won
t get an answer here that you can rely on like a guarantee! The only thing youll get are opinions and maybe experiences... that might sounds a little bit frustrating but that`s it.What I can tell you from my experience is that changing the anchor text of such a high amount has a very big chance to raise a red flag. Officially it
s not known that google has an algorithm to detect that BUT I wont rely on that!If Google has already marked those links as "bad" the only way to overcome this issue is nofollow or to disavow them... if they were just a few ones this wouldn`t be such a problem but according to your numbers I would not recommend to rename them
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
-
Anchor Test (do follow link)
Hi, I am new to SEO, may I know how many anchor text with a do-follow link I should aim for a 500-1000 words guest post? also, what is the percentage of different type of anchor text per post, e.g. ( 20% Branded, 20% Exact-match, 20% Naked link and more? I know that quality is more important, but is there any magic number and the percentage I should really aim for? Kind regards CHRIS
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KINSHUN0 -
Switched to HTTPS, now Google ALWAYS changes Page Title & Meta in SERPs
Wordpress website using Yoast. Website switched over from HTTP to HTTPS successfully about 6 months ago. Noticed after the fact that Google almost never displays the Page Title or Meta Description I've created in Yoast. Yoast is the only SEO plug-in enabled. Yoast is set to Force Rewrite the Page TItles. The Page titles & Meta Descriptions are always within the character limit. They also contain either an exact or partial match the queries in which Google shows a different Page Title & Meta Description. For some Queries, Google will display the URL as the Page Title for certain queries. Concrete example, search for: public administration jobs Screenshot of results attached. First time working with HTTPS. The redirects appear to be have done correctly. I'm not sure what the issue is. uOnFjNt
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 2uinc0 -
Google Manual Penalties:Different Types of Unnatural Link Penalties?
Hello Guys, I have a few questions regarding google manual penalties for unnatural link building. They are "partial site" penalties, not site wide. I have two sites to discuss. 1. this site used black hat tactics and bought 1000's of unnatural backlinks. This site doesn't rank for the main focus keywords and traffic has dropped. 2. this site has the same penalty, but has been all white hat, never bought any links or hired any seo company. It's all organic. This sites organic traffic doesn't seem to have taken any hit or been affected by any google updates. Based on the research we've done, Matt Cutts has stated that sometimes they know the links are organic so they don't penalize a website, but they still show us a penalty in the WMT. "Google doesn't want to put any trust in links that are artificial or unnatural. However, because we realize that some links may be outside of your control, we are not taking action on your site's overall ranking. Instead, we have applied a targeted action to the unnatural links pointing to your site." "If you don't control the links pointing to your site, no action is required on your part. From Google's perspective, the links already won't count in ranking. However, if possible, you may wish to remove any artificial links to your site and, if you're able to get the artificial links removed, submit areconsideration request. If we determine that the links to your site are no longer in violation of our guidelines, we’ll revoke the manual action." Check that info above at this link: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604772?ctx=MAC Recap: Does anyone have any experience like with site #2? We are worried that this site has this penalty but we don't know if google is stopping us from ranking or not, so we aren't sure what to do here. Since we know 100% the links are organic, do we need to remove them and submit a reconsideration request? Is it possible that this penalty can expire on its own? Are they just telling us we have an issue but not hurting our site b/c they know it's organic?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
Google lost 9,000 inbound links
I logged into GWT today. It typically reports that our page has about 9,000 inbound links, but today it said we have 225. There are no warnings or messages about any manual action. In fact, this site has never received any penalties or warnings. Since November I have used the disavow tool to remove porn links that a competitor has pointed at my site. Typically I go through Google's "new" links list and add any of the obviously bad links to the disavow list. That effort seemed to be going ok, and my site does not seem to be penalized for this negative seo. The 225 links that remain are scattered back through 2010. This site has been online since 2005 and has accumulated lots of links over the years. Some great, some not so great. Queries are down about 1500 per day since last week, about a 15% drop. There is a slight drop in some keyword rankings, but nothing huge, and most of the SERPS I track do not seem to be impacted. The PR is steady at 4, where it's been for years. So... what do you think I should do? Just watch it for a week and see if they come back? Try removing the "disavow" list just in case it some how messed things up (looks ok on the surface to me). Has this ever happened to anyone else?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DarrenX0 -
Can use of the id attribute to anchor t text down a page cause page duplication issues?
I am producing a long glossary of terms and want to make it easier to jump down to various terms. I am using the<a id="anchor-text" ="" attribute="" so="" am="" appending="" #anchor-text="" to="" a="" url="" reach="" the="" correct="" spot<="" p=""></a> <a id="anchor-text" ="" attribute="" so="" am="" appending="" #anchor-text="" to="" a="" url="" reach="" the="" correct="" spot<="" p="">Does anyone know whether Google will pick this up as separate duplicate pages?</a> <a id="anchor-text" ="" attribute="" so="" am="" appending="" #anchor-text="" to="" a="" url="" reach="" the="" correct="" spot<="" p="">If so any ideas on what I can do? Apart from not do it to start with? I am thinking 301s won't work as I want the URL to work. And rel=canonical won't work as there is no actual page code to add it to. Many thanks for your help Wendy</a>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Chammy0 -
301 redirects from old to new pages whit a lot of changes
Hello all, We are going to restyle and change CMS so all the urls will change. We are also updating content, adding much more content to the old pages trying to be more user and SEO friendly. My doubt is about doing 301 redirects from old to new pages when the content has changed a lot. Does it will mantain the ranking of the page or will crawlers thought that is a total diferent page. For example: one page new page will change from the old one the url, title, headers, meta description, content text and images. Should i maintain old content and do the CMS change with the 301 redirects and later change the content, that means a lot of work, or do it all at once? Thanks in advance Tomas
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tomas.guemes0 -
7 years old domain sandboxed for 8 months, wait or make a domain change?
Hello folks The questions is, if a domain, 7 years old being sandboxed due to "notice of unnatural links to website" does it make sense to make a domain change (301 permanent redirect and make a "domain change" under google webmaster tools) to another, aged(!) domain name?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ferray
Website being sandboxed for over 8 months already and there is no chance to do anything with those "unnatural" links to website... Any suggestions?0 -
Anchor text
What will I need to make amormensagens.com.br is in position 1 in Google to the word "mensagens"? Only anchor text will?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tibtos0