Advertising and negative impact on SEO
-
On one of my sites, I've been trying to get the word out by contacting blogs and asking them to share my site with their readers. This has resulted in some free publicity for my site, as well as quite a few paid reviews/sponsored posts. Note, however, that I've never paid for links, just reviews of my site...
When I started this about 2 months ago, my site was a PR3 and getting fairly lowsy organic search traffic (i.e. 30-40 visits a day from Google). Then a few days ago, my PR dropped to 1. I didn't worry too much though, because my organic traffic was still around 30-40 visits a day.
Now today, I checked and I only had 1 visitor the entire day from Google. Obviously I've been penalized.
My most important question is, what can I do? Do I have an recourse, or do I need to just shut the domain down and move elsewhere?
Second, wtf is Google penalizing this? I understand the argument against paid links, but should I not be allowed to advertise my site? Apparently I can buy links all day long through Google and they'll happily take my money, but the minute I pay some poor blogger to write an article about my site to their audience, I get penalized?
Please help, I can't believe I just destroyed one of my sites like this!
-
I agree with the thin content assessment. Below is what I wrote before I read your comment a second time.
I'm looking at interior pages on the site, and my question is "if I were Google, what benefit do I get from including this site in the index?". What does this site offer that's not already on the web? I visited a few random pages. Several of the offers were expired, some as much as a couple of years ago. The product information is taken from another site, and is duplicated all across the web. The blog hasn't had a new post since January. There is very little to this site that is not from a data feed, from what I can tell. Why should Google include this site in their results, when other sites can offer more information?
On the technical side, don't include "all" in the robots meta tag, it's not an option (see http://www.robotstxt.org/meta.html). I don't know if it's causing any problems, but it doesn't need to be there.
-
FYI, to add some more to the discussion, I had a long talk with an SEO buddy of mine, and he has a theory on why my google traffic might have dropped. Before, my site was a PR3, had been around for several years, but not getting much traffic, much publicity, etc.
Then I started this advertising campaign in early June. Immediately we started getting a lot of links, so from Google's perspective, it looked like there was suddenly interest in the site. Obviously, some of those links were sponsored posts, which Google possibly took note of.
However, if I look at webmastertools in Google, I noticed that Google is crawling a lot more pages. This was probably because Google said "woah, something is going on here, this site is showing up on a lot of blogs all of the sudden" so it crawled like crazy.
However, on this particular site, I basically aggregate deals on women's products. A lot of the content on each product page is pretty generic, like product titles and descriptions that are duplicate content from other sites.
Therefore, my buddy's theory is that Google took an interest in the site because of the sudden influx of links. As a result, Google crawled deeper into the site (keep in mind we have 50-75k products, each product with its own landing page). As it went deeper, it didn't like what it saw, because the content was "thin" i.e. lots of duplicate content with other sites, etc.
As a result, his theory is that Google decided to penalize the site. So in other words, he doesn't think it's the sponsored posts and the lack of nofollow links, he thinks it's the increased attention on the site that caused Google to look closer.
Any thoughts from anyone else here on this?
-
I haven't made any code changes or robots.txt changes, at least not yet. The URL is:
This is a site that historically has gotten poor SEO, I just started focusing on it in the last month by asking for links/articles/reviews from other sites.
-
Hi Dustin,
Do you know if any code changes have been made? Maybe accidentally something modified the robots.txt and excluded most of your site? Has your organic traffic from Bing and Yahoo had a similar drop? Before getting the tin foil hat on too tight, check the robots.txt file and the code on your page and make sure something didn't go astray there.
Can you share your URL with us?
-
That's what I heard from everyone too, don't rely on page rank when it dropped from 3 to 1. That happened over a week ago, but my organic search results were still healthy. Then last night I noticed the big drop down to only 1 organic search result from the standard 40-50 results I was getting from Google.
If I went back through all of the sponsored posts I've received and asked those site owners to add rel="nofollow" to all of the links to us--or at least the ones that disclosed that the post was sponsored/paid--do you think google would remove the penalty? Do I need to do anything proactive with Google to make them reconsider?
-
The site still shows up in google, but I've lost positioning for the few keywords I spot-checked, which coincides with the results I'm seeing from Google Analytics.
What should I do? One idea I had was to go back to all of the sites that wrote paid reviews for us and disclosed it, and ask them to add rel="nofollow" to all of their links. Assuming this is what penalized us, would Google re-evaluate and eventually remove the penalty if it saw that all of our sponsored posts had rel="nofollow" even if originally they didn't have nofollow attributes?
-
Hi
I would wait another few days before confirming that you have been penalised, as this is unlikely. First check that nothing else has changed, especially your analytics tool? What are your actual organic results positions for your keywords? Do you have an adwords campaign, has that changed? Also, I wouldn't rely on page rank as a metric. Instead, use Seomoz DA and PA.
-
Paid reviews are pretty much the same as paid links, becuase you are paying for the content to be placed on a block with links.
The worst thing is if the person you purchased the paid review is listing the stuff on a public forum or public site. Then Google can easily just see the content and hit it hard.
In regards to making content that is not paid I advise to use Guest posts where you make content for free for a site.
You can try and make sections of the site on sub domains and see if they have any ranking, I would also advise to make sure then content is natural and unique.
Maby it is worth while also too type in site:yoursite.com into google to see if it is also still in the index, worst case senario is if Google has removed the site from the index.
My advice is to try a reconsideration request if that is the case.
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
-
Express js and SEO?
Hi fellow Mozzers, I have been tasked with providing some SEO recommendations for a website that is to be built using express.js and Angular. I wondered whether anyone has had any experience in such a framework? On checking a website built in this and viewing as a GoogleBot etc using the following tools it appears as though most of the content is invisible: http://www.webconfs.com/search-engine-spider-simulator.php http://www.browseo.net/ Obviously this is a huge issue and wonder if there are any workarounds, or reccomendations to assist (even if means moving away from this - would love to hear about it)
Technical SEO | | musthavemarketing2 -
SEO is DEAD – Long live ADWORDS
SEO is dead and the winner is ….. Google Adwords Do you agree??? Shares in Google inc on October 24th were trading well over $1,000 per share, joining an elite club of super-shares having risen 42% since the start of 2013. And the reason is in one word ….. “Adwords” If your email inbox is anything like mine, you will have noticed a change in your “junk” emails that get past your filters. The spammers have given up on targeting “penial-enlargement” products (because every spam filter in the world is blocking them) to so-called-legitimate-business activities like SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) or “How to Get your company to #1 on Google” The truth is all those thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours “we”, “you” and your company spent on increasing your Google “organic” rankings over the last five years have been a total waste of money…… and Google are totally to blame … and are making a total gain Once-upon-a-time you could get #1 ranking on google by using clever and current SEO techniques such as link-building, elimination of duplicate content, keyword density etc etc … terms many of you in business will have heard so-called-SEO-experts spruiking too many times and persuading you to part with $$$$ in cash to fix. How many of those so-called-SEO-experts told you you could save thousands of dollars by adopting a simple a cost effective Google adwords campaign??? Not many, the SEO industry is self-promoting and full of smoke-and-mirror (snake-oil) salesman promises. In recent times Google have….. a) Increased the number of paid ads at the top of the page from 1 to 3
Technical SEO | | Webjobz
b) increased the number of lines their paid adverts take up
c) increased the % of the “above-the-fold” advertising space to paid adverts
d) reduced the distinguishment between paid and organic ads to such an extent that around 50% of us cannot determine what is a paid or organic ad anymore. Being #1 “organically” (un-paid) in Google will NOW only get you 9% of the clicks on that page. 42% of all clicks goes to the top three “paid” listings (Adwords) If you want to get traffic to your site so that people purchase your products, move your marketing budget AWAY from SEO and web design and invest in Google Adwords as soon as possible. It is very easy to setup and administer yourself [staff removed links to copy of blog post]0 -
1000+ links from domain to subdomain - impacting?
Hi there! I'm wondering if anyone could kindly help me with this question. I have a domain let's say: thisdomain.com - and I also have a subdomain called widgets.thisdomain.com thisdomain.com has approx 2000 pages on it. There are site wide links in the top nav, side nav and footer pointing to widgets.thisdomain.com (all with the same anchor text - not branded - it's a money term). My question is, do you think this would be causing some kind of algorithmic penalty (over optimisation / penguin)? Or, do you think Google realises these links are pointing to a subdomain and says, "hey, OK we understand these two domains could be related" or given subdomains are seen as essentially standalone websites, the algo is saying "hang on a minute, pal, this looks fishy, why are you linking to this subdomain 1000+ times with sitewide links on the same anchor text"? Should I nofollow these sitewide links? Do you think that will help? I would really appreciate any help on this one. Cheers!
Technical SEO | | WCR0 -
Does incomplete or private WHOIS information have negative effect on SEO?
I wondered if having incomplete WHOIS information has a negative effect on rankings? Also I know it's possible to keep WHOIS information private, so I wondered if google would think this suspicious and rank a site not as highly as it should? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Silktide0 -
E Tags and SEO relevance
While working through a number of issues related to the speed of my site I came across a discussion of E Tags. I did not read much positive about them. How do they affect SEO? Or do they?
Technical SEO | | casper4340 -
.lbi file - SEO friendly or not?
Up until yesterday afternoon i had never heard of a .lbi file. It turns out it is a library file used by Adobe Dreamweaver. From what i can tell it works like a client side included but i am unsure of the technology behind it. The issue:
Technical SEO | | kchandler
When running through a recent SEO audit for a new client i found these .lbi files being used all over there site for site wide callouts and even navigation. When viewing this content through firebug or in the browser you can see the executed HTML content but when viewing the source or the page in seo-browser.com the content is nowhere to be seen. So my thought is this is not SEO friendly and is the same as displaying content in any client-side script like JavaScript or JQuery. Any feedback or thoughts on this subject would be awesome, especially if anyone has used these previously. Unfortunately i cannot share the client site but i would be more than happy to answer any questions if more detail is needed. Thanks in advance - Kyle0 -
SEO-Friendly FAQ Software
Hi, We use Kayako Supportsuite (help desk and FAQ software) installed on our site and it's causing about 80% of all our SEO errors/issues. I've googled a lot and I can't seem to find a FAQ software (we need the ability to maintain and constantly update a large # of questions) that doesn't have duplication (print version, pdf version of each question, etc.), terrible URL structure and an overall very cheesy look. We don't need the helpdesk part, just FAQ functionality. Anybody have any ideas? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | mynewco0 -
Mobile SEO or Block Crawlers?
We're in the process of launching mobile versions of many of our brand sites and our ecommerce site and one of our partners suggested that we should block crawlers on the mobile view so it doesn't compete for the same keywords as the standard site (We will be automatically redirecting mobile handsets to the mobile site). Does this advice make sense? It seems counterintuitive to me.
Technical SEO | | BruceMillard0