I respectfully disagree.

I believe you can still get a Penguin penalty regardless of whether the links were created via an automated tool or by hand. If you manually create 100 links to your site with the anchor text "best dyslexia remedy" you run the risk of being penalized. Whether you break Google's Guidelines automatically or manually is not a factor. The breaking of the rules is the point.

Automated tools can be set with tons of variables to make it look natural. You can say only post between 8am - 8pm, space out posts between a random amount of minutes, etc.

Also, if you build manipulative links in your niche, they are still manipulative links. If Google determines links are manipulative, do you believe their algorithm has a subroutine which says "well, the links are bad but since they are in the same niche we wont penalize them"?

You could be right, but my experience suggests otherwise.

Gigs20, I agree it is beneficial to obtain links related to your niche. That was a helpful addition.

I am concerned about your suggested manner of adding building links. The Penguin update is designed to penalize "built" links, meaning links the target site has built or had built on their behalf. One specific mechanism used to identify such links is matching anchor text.

Ultimately I expect Google to get even better and locate other methods of determining "built" links. I would recommend EARNING links from others over building links.

Link building is a rather deep topic which takes both training and experience to truly develop.

At a high level, you want to EARN links, not build them. If you provide a website which is based upon solid architecture and is well designed for a great user experience, then add well-written, authoritative, engaging, and current content to that site then others will WANT to link to your site.

For example, take a look at Rand's latest article: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/phoenix-rising-bings-new-webmaster-tools-whiteboard-friday. As of this moment the article has almost 1000 tweets not to mention 160+ likes and 85 +1s. Clearly this article will earn many additional links as well.

What makes this article, and many similar articles on SEOmoz rank well, is they are topical (i.e. related to SEO), authoritative (Rand is a recognized expert in the field of SEO and he is interviewing Duane Forrester, Sr. Product Manager @ Bing), the article is very well written and current (the changes have just been made). This combination of factors helps make a great article.

When you build your own links in forums and blog comments, many of them are tagged as "nofollow" meaning they are not directly helpful for search engine ranking. Take a look at your "Joy" and "dyslexia" links above which are "nofollow" as well.

You should also know Google values some sites and pages much higher then others. For example, if you obtain a link from the New York Times it will likely be discovered in under an hour. If you obtain a link from a random forum which is not popular the link may take a month or never be discovered.

Did you investigate if blocking those links by making the server drop the request will work. This seems to be a easier way if posible?

Alan, I had not investigated blocking server links. Anything is possible but after thinking about the process, it does not seem reasonable to me that Google would remove a penalty based on the block. Some challenges:

• How could Google see the block exists?

• Even if the block does exist, why would Google care? The types of links Google is penalizing are not likely to receive any traffic, which is why they are being penalized. If the links actually received traffic, Google would not have any problem with the links.

• After working through a few of these penalties I really feel Google is trying to achieve one of two goals. Either to punish webmasters who have violated their policies, or to clean up the web. Blocking the links does not achieve either goal.

With the above noted, it is just my intuition and logic. I have been mistaken before. Nothing beats testing and experience!

Google does not care if you target 1 keyword or 10. The problem you face is, all other factors being equal, a competitor who only targets one word on a page will always beat a page which targets multiple words.

Ranking in search engines is purely a competition. I recommend you go all out and try to rank #1 (or as high as reasonably possibly). Once you have achieved top rankings for your primary keyword, THEN you can try to get greedy and diversify to multiple keywords.

Below are the results of the keywords you shared (and more) from SEMrush (www.semrush.com).

Based on those results, I would focus on "dentist los angeles". That is tied for first place as the term with the most traffic. Next, you have a choice as to which you place the most importance upon..."dentist" or "los angeles". I prefer your niche rather then your location. Why? It is far more relevant to capture searches for "Dentist ???" then for "los angeles ???".

In competitive niches, you usually need to focus a single keyword target per page. If you focus more then one, you can or will be beat by others who practice more focused SEO on their page.

| Keyword | Δ Volume | CPC | Com. | Results | Trend | |
| dentist los angeles | 1,300 | 14.69 | 0.87 | 19,500,000 |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|   |
| los angeles dentist | 1,300 | 15.52 | 0.89 | 19,800,000 |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|   |
| cosmetic dentist los angeles | 590 | 22.86 | 0.98 | 2,050,000 |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|   |
| dentist in los angeles | 480 | 11.62 | 0.94 | 21,900,000 |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|   |
| los angeles cosmetic dentist | 480 | 20.84 | 0.90 | 3,940,000 |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|   |
| los angeles dentists | 480 | 12.24 | 0.85 | 9,600,000 |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|   |
| dentist in los angeles ca | 260 | 10.57 | 0.90 | 8,740,000 |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|   |
| los angeles cosmetic dentists | 260 | 11.18 | 0.92 | 3,730,000 |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|   |
| dentists in los angeles | 210 | 10.85 | 0.85 | 9,600,000 |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|   |
| dentist west los angeles | 210 | 9.22 | 0.88 | 7,800,000 |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|   |