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!
-
Thank you Joshua for your additional reply and insights, may I ask you what are your two mentioned specific word phrases you wrote above about? Just curious, because those could be "brand" related keywords like "Virtual Sheet Music" or "Classical Sheet Music Downloads" which are both our own trademarks, therefore they should be considered as "natural"... you know what I mean.
As for our affiliate links, yes, those are the URLs I am concerned about. I was thinking to 302 redirect those instead than 301, but I am afraid also to lose a big deal of juice from them by doing that, even though I am aware that Google could have already discounted those links at some extent, but I am not sure how much, and I don't want to risk losing that little juice that could help us with rankings if not really needed. So, my choice would be to leave things how they are, and, yes, as you are suggesting, start building more "link-baits" to have more natural links, but as you know, that takes time...
I am eager to know your thoughts about my points above. Thank you!
-
Fabrizo,
Thank you for the the clarification. Ok so I did my own backlink analysis real quick and I'm actually seeing that 18% of your overall links are using a very specific two word phrase. At this point, I would stop building any type of exact match backlink and and start building with a variety of branded, url, maybe a couple clicks here, and so on and so on.
I think that you have hit a pretty close threshold in this circumstance. It may also be worth just focusing on writing some really good content in the meantime. Focus on Latent Semantic Indexing to cater to RankBrain and perhaps try putting together one really big idea that will capture the attention of journalist and bloggers. That way you will start acquiring a solid balance with strong semantic relevancy. That's what I would do at least until this new Penguin update is released.
On the other hand, I can tell which links are affiliate and which ones aren't. Each affiliate link is appended with /?af=verter so that the affiliate can get credit for that purchase, however, that means that the actual link is being built to a 301 redirect in which I feel Google dampens the affect of the link... by about 15% at least. Also, it is easily detected by Google but that doesn't mean they will necessarily penalize you for those events.
Now, Google might start frowning upon that. I can't be certain until it happens, but they've always been somewhat enemies with affiliate marketers.
There are more algorithm updates coming up in the near future and Barry Schwartz just reported that there is a big Penguin update coming in the near future: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-launch-date-penguin-22694.html
Keep in mind that this next update will be an ongoing version rather than a refresh.
-
Yes, I just watched that video 2 days ago, brilliant! Thank you Thomas, I am much less concerned now.
Appreciated!
-
Thank you for your answer Joshua, in my case I am talking about affiliates links that use often similar anchor texts that look like ads.
To give you a real example, my website is virtualsheetmusic.com, and pretty often affiliates link to us with, randomly, the following kind anchor text:
"download sheet music at Virtual Sheet Music"
"classical sheet music downloads"
"find violin sheet music on Virtual Sheet Music"
And so on... from what you describe, I shouldn't worry about it, first of all because of the percentage of this kind of anchor texts, second because they are varied anyway (they are not all the same), but of course Google is able to spot a pattern there and understand that they are not natural. Also, most of our affiliates have used our ready to use, copy & paste links, therefore many of them are exactly the same kind of links, but still, just around 16% of our overall inbound links.
I am just worried that Google could see that as a "link scheme" of some sort, and possibly penalize me... your final thoughts?
-
Rand kind of touched upon this with number 3 on here: https://moz.com/blog/weird-crazy-myths-about-link-building-in-seo-you-should-probably-ignore-whiteboard-friday
-
Fabrizo,
I think that you are asking the question that every link builder thinks about. When you say unnatural, that can mean a lot of things, so I would ask you to clarify the types of sites you are referring to. I tend to think about link building in a different way. Even if a link is "unnatural", which I define as a link that is built to the website by means of influence or submission, then it doesn't mean that penguin is going to see it as unnatural.
Instead, I consider the types of links that are pointing to my site. For instance, if my client has a scholarship and I reach out to a few regional universities which successfully acquires 4-5 .edu backlinks I wouldn't say that is natural but Google will still reward me for that.
Now, if I find a tool that will auto-create 200 web 2.0 profiles, spin massive amounts of content and then generate 1000 backlinks from various subdomains, then I can see that as being a detectable signal that Google will pretty easily pick up on.
If you are talking about a few fiverr gigs that you paid for or even paying a blogger to write an article and submit a contextual link to your site, I wouldn't be too worried about it if you vet the site and ensure that there aren't any red flags like too many outbound links, the site isn't indexed, the Moz spam score isn't through the roof and they have real credible backlinks pointed to their site as well.
From a perspective of looking at footprints, or possibly a private blog network you may have created, I'd say that everyone has their methods. There is a right way to build a blog network, and there is a wrong way to do that. You have to understand the footprints Google looks for and decide whether or not its the right choice for you.
I think the ratio you described is perfectly fine quite honestly. You have to consider that every backlink profile isn't perfect whether they are all natural or not. Consider if I decided I didn't like CompanyA.com in the serps being ahead of me and I decided to have some fiverr.com guy create 20,000 backlinks with all of the same anchor text pointing at the home page. That would be a negative SEO tactic that might damage their rank. However, Google knows that exists and their algorithm is also built to take that into account. They may still lose rank but if the site has a high amount of authority and trust with Google, it is likely not going to affect them as much and they can always disavow.
When it comes to anchor text, I would think in terms of ratio. I don't like my anchor text to exceed 15-20% and I think about it semantically. I use keyword variations in themes or groups so they are all diverse and then build with branded terms, the url, click here, etc....
It's all about balance. Not all links come from premium editorial content, bloggers, article directories, local citaitons, etc... There's a blend of links that naturally occur when you have a popular website and my focus would just be on ensuring that I am keeping that balanced and using competing sites that perform well to compare.
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
-
Submitting url to link directories seen as un-natural link building?
Hi I have been a lurker for a long time, so I finally took the step to make my 1st post, and will hopefully start giving back more in the future since I have gained invaluable info from this great site Background I hired a new freelancer on our team of SEO consultants ("specialists") During the course a month he (the new consultant) submitted our website to numerous link directories (he assured me this is good), today I received the report of the work he had been doing for the past 4-weeks. I opened the report and I was furious and wanted to sack him there and then The Problem / My Question He had submitted our website to 150 directories with various levels of page rank, ranging from 7-1. Most of the directories are totally irrelevant to our niche (we are in the catering business) and he had gone and submitted the site to directories such as "finance busters", "questfinder" etc For all 150 submissions he used: exactly the same url exactly the same title exactly the same description exactly the same keywords My Concern Am I right to be worried about this? Or am I completely wrong and may this actually have an effect (even if none)? The way I see it is that Google is seeing 150 duplicate links coming from irrelevant directories all within a months time, which will trigger a red flag and possibly do major damage to my site, which has always been strictly white hat and been doing pretty well. p.s does link directory submissions even count these days anyway? Thanks for reading and advice very much welcome
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | timthetanker0 -
Link Building / Link Removal
Hey, I'm in the process of learning SEO, or attempting to, for my company and am chipping away at the process ever so slowly! How can I tell if a site that links to my company's site, www.1099pro.com, has a negative effect on my page/domain authority? Also, if a page doesn't show up in the search rankings at all for it's keywords when it really should (i.e it has the exact keywords and page/domain authority far surpasses even the top results) how can I tell if Google has removed the page from its listing and why? Thanks SEO Gurus
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Stew2220 -
Benefits of having outbound links
Are there any strengths (benefits) in having outbound links within the site regarding SEO? If linking to reputable sites, would that help increase our SEO strength or does that only work if they links back to us?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | WebRiverGroup1 -
Someone has built low quality links to my site - what should I do?
Hey guys, I was wondering whether you could offer me some help on something. One of the site's I'm working on has a blog attached to it and we sometimes accept guest posts from authors. A month or so back we published a blog that has been attracting a number of low-quality backlinks. Having looked into the matter further, it turned out that the client who had created the guest post was doing something called "tiered link building" and was building crappy links to their guest post content on other websites. I have subsequently deleted the blog post in question - will this devalue/cancel out the inbound links pointing to the original URL? Or do I need to do something extra? Disavow even? Comments appreciated!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Webrevolve0 -
Linking my pages
Hello everybody, i have a small dilemma and i am not shore what to do. I am (my company) the owner of 10 e-commerce web sites. On every site i have a link too the other 9 sites and i am using an exact keyvoerd (not the shop name).Since the web stores are big and have over a 1000 pages, this means thet all my sites have a lot off inbound links (compared with my competiton). I am woried that linking them all together could be bad from Googles point of wiev. Can this couse a problem for me, should i shange it? Regardes, Marko
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Spletnafuzija0 -
When to NOT USE the disavow link tool
Im not here to say this is concrete and should never do this, and please if you disagree with me then lets discuss. One of the biggest things out there today especially after the second wave of Penguin (2.0) is the fear striken web masters who run straight to the disavow tool after they have been hit with Penguin or noticed a drop shortly after. I had a friend who's site who never felt the effects of Penguin 1.0 and thought everything was peachy. Then P2.0 hit and his rankings dropped of the map. I got a call from him that night and he was desperately asking me for help to review his site and guess what might have happened. He then tells me the first thing he did was compile a list of websites back linking to him that might be the issue and create his disavow list and submitted it. I asked him "How long did you research these sites before you came the conclusion they were the problem?" He Said "About an hour" Then I asked him "Did you receive a message in your Google Webmaster Tools about unnatural linking?" He Said "No" I said "Then why are you disavowing anything?" He Said "Um.......I don't understand what you are saying?" In reading articles, forums and even here in the Moz Q/A I tend to think there is some misconceptions about the disavow tool from Google that do not seem to be clearly explained. Some of my findings with the tool and when to use it is purely based on logic IMO. Let me explain When to NOT use the tool If you spent an hour reviewing your back link profile and you are to eager to wait any longer to upload your list. Unless you have less than 20 root domains linking to you, you should spend a lot more than an hour reviewing your back link profile You DID NOT receive a message from GWT informing you that you had some "unnatural" links Ill explain later If you spend a very short amount of time reviewing your back link profile. Did not look at each individual site linking to you and every link that exists, then you might be using it WAY TO SOON. The last thing you want to do is disavow a link that actually might be helping you. Take the time to really look at each link and ask your self this question (Straight from the Google Guidelines) "A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you, or to a Google employee" Studying your back link profile We all know when we have cheated. Im sure 99.9% of all of us can admit to it at one point. Most of the time I can find back links from sites and look right at the owner and ask him or her "You placed this back link didn't you?" I can see the guilt immediately in their eyes 🙂 Remember not ALL back links you generate are bad or wrong because you own the site. You need to ask yourself "Was this link necessary and does it apply to the topic at hand?", "Was it relevant?" and most important "Is this going to help other users?". These are some questions you can ask yourself before each link you place. You DID NOT receive a message about unnatural linking This is were I think the most confusing takes place (and please explain to me if I am wrong on this). If you did not receive a message in GWT about unnatural linking, then we can safely say that Google does not think you contain any "fishy" spammy links in which they have determined to be of a spammy nature. So if you did not receive any message yet your rankings dropped, then what could it be? Well it's still your back links that most likely did it, but its more likely the "value" of previous links that hold less or no value at all anymore. So obviously when this value drops, so does your rank. So what do I do? Build more quality links....and watch you rankings come back 🙂
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | cbielich1 -
Google-backed sites' link profiles
Curious what you SEO people think of the link profiles of these (high-ranking) Google-backed UK sites: http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.startupdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.lawdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.marketingdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.itdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.taxdonut.co.uk Each site has between 40k and 50k inlinks counted in OSE. However, there are relatively few linking root domains in each case: 273 for marketingdonut 216 for startupdonut 90 for lawdonut 53 for itdonut 16 for taxdonut Is there something wrong with the OSE data here? Does this imply that the average root domain linking to the taxdonut site does so with 2857 links? The sites have no significant social media stats. The sites are heavily inter-linked. Also linked from the operating business, BHP Information Solutions (tagline "Gain access to SMEs"). Is this what Google would think of as a "natural" link profile? Interestingly, they've managed to secure links on quite a few UK local authority resources pages - generally being the only commercial website on those pages.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | seqal0 -
Methods for getting links to my site indexed?
What are the best practices for getting links to my site indexed in search engines. We have been creating content and acquiring backlinks for the last few months. They are not being found in the back link checkers or in the Open Site Explorer. What are the tricks of the trade for imporiving the time and indexing of these links? I have read about some RSS methods using wordpress sites but that seems a little shady and i am sure google is looking for that now. Look forward to your advice.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | devonkrusich0