We just can't figure out the right anchor text to use
-
We have been trying everything we can with anchor text. We have read here that we should try naturalistic language. Our competitors who are above us in Google search results don't do any of this. They only use their names or a single term like "austin web design". Is what we are doing hurting our listings? We don't have any black hat links. Here's what we are doing now. We are going crazy trying to figure this out. We are afraid to do anything in fear it will damage our position.
Bob
| pallasart web design | 31 | 1,730 |
| website by pallasart a texas web design company in austin | 15 | 1,526 |
| website by the austin design company pallasart | 14 | 1,525 |
| created by pallasart a web design company in austin texas | 13 | 1,528 |
| created by an austin web design company pallasart | 12 | 1,499 |
| website by pallasart web design an austin web design company | 12 | 1,389 |
| website by pallasart an austin web design company | 11 | 1,463 |
| pallasart austin web design | 9 | 2,717 |
| website created by pallasart a web design company in austin texas | 9 | 1,369 |
| website by pallasart | 8 | 910 |
| austin web design | 5 | 63 |
| pallasart website design austin | -
Thank you both for helping us. We talked about what you wrote this morning and are making changes based on this advice.
-
What more can be said - nailed by EGOL
-Andy
-
website by pallasart a texas web design company in austin
I would keep it really really short. Get the name of your company in there and leave it at that. Why?
Pallasart Web Design is easy to read.
Pallasart Web Design is more memorable.
Pallasart Web Design, used on all of your designs, is a consistent branding message (I hope that is your domain name)
Pallasart Web Design is your brand name and Google doesn't like keyword-rich anchor text in my opinion.
People are going to click through based upon the quality of your work rather than where you are located (in ten years running many sites all of the people I have hired are very far from me because I hire based upon who does work that I respect).
People who click through this type of link are going to do so based upon how much they think you know about Google and I personally think that Google frowns on long keyword-rich anchors for an attribution link.
People are going to click through based upon how good you are at creating links that elicit clicks and I think that short, rather than keyword-rich is more effective at eliciting clicks.
A lot of people really dislike these types of links (search here for heated discussions about them) and they would allow Pallasart Web Design long before they would allow the long messages you provided as samples. Some will not want any attribution links.
Some people are going to check your code and see if you have nofollow on the link and will be more likely to allow the link if it is nofollowed.
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
-
Should 'View All' filters on ecommerce sites be indexable?
Hi, I’m looking at a site at the moment that has a lot of products. For some of their category pages they have a ‘View All’ feature available. The URL uses this structure: domain.com/category/sub-category/product domain.com/category/sub-category/view-all < currently noindex applied Should the view all page be available for indexing? The individual sub-categories and products are indexable My immediate reaction is no, so long as the individual sub-cats are?
Technical SEO | | daniel-brooks0 -
Can't get my site recognised for keyword
My site prettycool.co.uk and primary we sell fascinators, the problem is I can't get the word fascinators to be listed by Google. We are on the 1st page for most colours ie. pink fascinators, blue fascinators etc. but for the term fascinators even if we fetch we are listed for a couple of hours and then disappear. I've checked for keyword stuffing but our site sell fascinators and we need to have this word in our site and other sites have a lot more references to the term and are listed on the 1st or 2nd pages. We used to be listed on page 1 for many years but the last 2 or 3 years dropped back to page 4 but now nothing. Any help or suggestions would be fantastic!
Technical SEO | | Rutts0 -
Mobile first - what about content that you don't want to display on mobile?
ANOTHER mobile first question. Have searched the forum and didn't see something similar. Feel free to passive- aggressively link to an old thread. TL;DR - Some content would just clutter the page on mobile but is worth having on desktop. Will this now be ignored on desktop searches? Long form: We have a few ecommerce websites. We're toying with the idea of placing a lot more text on our collection/category pages. Primarily to try and set the scene for our products and sell the company a bit more effectively. It's also, obviously, an opportunity to include a couple of long tail keywords. Because mobile screens are small (duh) and easily cluttered, we're inclined _not _to display this content on mobile. In this case; will any SEO benefit be lost entirely, even to searchers on desktop? Sorry if I've completely misunderstood mobile-first indexing! Just an in-house marketing manager trying to keep up! cries into keyboard Thanks for your time.
Technical SEO | | MSGroup
Ross0 -
I don't understand how this site is ranking?
This website is ranking for a very high competitive keyword "bail bonds los angeles" http://www.bondgirlsbailbonds.com/ They maybe have one backlink and 10 citations. How are they ranking for 2nd spot? This doesn't seem possible. Almost 5 other domains on page have pr2 and higher and not able to beat this site. Can someone please explain what might be causing this? thanks in advance
Technical SEO | | webbutler130 -
Google insists robots.txt is blocking... but it isn't.
I recently launched a new website. During development, I'd enabled the option in WordPress to prevent search engines from indexing the site. When the site went public (over 24 hours ago), I cleared that option. At that point, I added a specific robots.txt file that only disallowed a couple directories of files. You can view the robots.txt at http://photogeardeals.com/robots.txt Google (via Webmaster tools) is insisting that my robots.txt file contains a "Disallow: /" on line 2 and that it's preventing Google from indexing the site and preventing me from submitting a sitemap. These errors are showing both in the sitemap section of Webmaster tools as well as the Blocked URLs section. Bing's webmaster tools are able to read the site and sitemap just fine. Any idea why Google insists I'm disallowing everything even after telling it to re-fetch?
Technical SEO | | ahockley0 -
I am getting an error message from Google Webmaster Tools and I don't know what to do to correct the problem
The message is:
Technical SEO | | whitegyr
"Dear site owner or webmaster of http://www.whitegyr.com/, We've detected that some of your site's pages may be using techniques that are outside Google's Webmaster Guidelines. If you have any questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support. Sincerely, Google Search Quality Team" I have always tried to follow Google's guidelines and don't know what I am doing wrong, I have eight different websites all getting this warning and I don't know what is wrong, is there anyone you know that will look at my sites and advise me what I need to do to correct the problem? Website with this warning:
artistalaska.com
cosmeticshandbook.com
homewindpower.ws
montanalandsale.com
outdoorpizzaoven.net
shoes-place.com
silverstatepost.com
www.whitegyr.com0 -
Panda or Penquin -Website Fell - Shouldn't this Recover?
On March 23rd our site fell 47% in one day. www.TranslationSoftware4u.com but we still held quite a few #1 to #7 rankings on Google and thought it would just recover. Our top keyword "translation software" was #4 , now we are #19 Over the next week I waited to see if it recovered. We have been online 10+ years and always stayed with white hat. I admit to learning as I go over the years but always felt content was king so I focused on information. I really do not see my site as using spam techniques but maybe I am missing something on the way I have it. March 23rd, major drop -47% On April 2nd I started with SEO MOZ and the Research tools showed we had duplicate content warning. This was from a blog we were trying to start that only had 7 posts but it had about 20 tags per post. I did not realize that tags actually created that post under that tag. I went in and deleted the tags again being stupid and not realizing it was then making that come up 404. The blog was so small we do not get hits on it anyway so hoping it just clears itself up. ( still get duplicate warning on our directory due to using "php Link Directory", but it's due to how it reuses the title tag and description, 2 instances per category page"). Still trying to fix the php directory issue. Seems many others are running it and did not have a drop. April 24th, we dropped another -10% It keeps falling -70% now. I have gone through the site and tried to clean up any warnings like duplicate title tags, meta descriptions. With regards to links I put up a small web directory with some reciprocal linking. Our product translates languages but software is not the same as a human so we often set clients up with human translators, the directory is a nice place to help our customers find a translator or see online tools that can help. The links were not excessive, there were maybe 100 links. After the fall I went in and found some translators had gone out of business so I deleted those, I am down to 65 links now, about 45 are exchanges. I have submitted to some online directories manually, but looking back through the links there is not really anything that makes me concerned. The link back to my site was really the most neglected SEO thing I did. Again concentrating on content. I did find a few links that I was not happy about but I did not put those links so had no control. I have been working on cleaning up my title tags, and making sure the content just reads better. I have been hoping that my site would just start recovering but it keeps sliding. Has anyone seen recovery from the updates. Should I see anything yet? I cannot seem to get Google to return to the site and reindex. Am I doing somethign spammy on my site and I do not realize it? Thanks for any advice in advance!
Technical SEO | | Force70 -
Different version of site for "users" who don't accept cookies considered cloaking?
Hi I've got a client with lots of content that is hidden behind a registration form - if you don't fill it out you can not proceed to the content. As a result it is not being indexed. No surprises there. They are only doing this because they feel it is the best way of capturing email addresses, rather than the fact that they need to "protect" the content. Currently users arriving on the site will be redirected to the form if they have not had a "this user is registered" cookie set previously. If the cookie is set then they aren't redirected and get to see the content. I am considering changing this logic to only redirecting users to the form if they accept cookies but haven't got the "this user is registered cookie". The idea being that search engines would then not be redirected and would index the full site, not the dead end form. From the clients perspective this would mean only very free non-registered visitors would "avoid" the form, yet search engines are arguably not being treated as a special case. So my question is: would this be considered cloaking/put the site at risk in any way? (They would prefer to not go down the First Click Free route as this will lower their email sign-ups.) Thank you!
Technical SEO | | TimBarlow0