Category Archives: Google
What If Google Penguin accidentally killed Updates Web As We Know It?
Note: This article title may be a bit sensational, but do not ignore the “what if” part. I’m not suggesting I have some plot to kill the web. However, many companies rely on Google and people are panicking about backlinks. Some going so far to threaten legal action if the links are not removed. Links. If any legal action as it has resulted in the restriction of a link in any capacity, the web as we know can be put at risk. People are afraid to link. I do not think Google wants for such things to happen, but people do not always respond to things in the most rational way. I do not believe we’ll see a link banned or the update will kill the Penguin website. However, a reaction to Google’s penalty led to some pretty strong actions of some.
Google has said many times that he thought Penguin has become a successfully updated. Do you agree? Let us know in the comments.
PageRank and Web
WWW, as you know, stands for World Wide Web. Because they are associated with the link. Entire web sites link to each other, creating a way for users to click from page to page. Often the page on another site. This is the method that worked for years. Just think what would happen if the site is not free to link to each other. Web is broken, and users will suffer.
When Google launched its PageRank algorithm, it is a revolution in search. It seems to be a better way to search. Provides rhyme and reason for ranking search results. Now, Google uses over 200 signals to rank search results, which become more personal than ever before. PageRank is still important, but it is far from the only thing that matters.
However, the PageRank of a web link so much power to affect the visibility of web content. Now almost everyone on the web, everyone is struggling with their content viewed. Sometimes, you think: the more links either. More links can only lead to more of a chance people will see your content. Now, rather ironic, people are discovering that they have a link out there will lower their content. In some cases, they make it almost does not exist in Google, or at least to be buried, will also be gone.
Ordinary Time Out?
Google updates Penguin is a major wake up call to the webmaster about some sort of linking practices. These updates are designed to target violates Google’s quality guidelines that site. Along with these rules: “Do not participate in link schemes” and “Avoid hidden text or hidden links.”
Some guidelines Google is clear – obviously avoiding unethical practices. But in the scheme of relations department, things can get a little fuzzy. Just ask WPMU.org, who was hit by a penguin for some questionable link (pretty interesting, as it seems the benefits of the Google Panda update, which is designed to reward high quality sites).
Many webmasters taken in the forum and blogs to complain about Penguin updates, but Google has, more than on occasion, considered a successfully updated. We also see that come back around every so often, like its predecessor Panda.
Even before the Penguins, I sent a message to the webmaster ton remind them of questionable link. All of this is captured webmaster frenzy to clean up their profile link, and reduce the number of links Google considers poor quality, which may be expected to find their way back to contents visibility of Google search.
During Legal Action Link?
Some webmasters will even go so far threatened legal action against websites that link to them. Reference this, we have another article after Barry Schwartz at Search Engine Roundtable mention that it happened. Now, Greg Finn Search Engine Land pointed to specific examples where PSKL received a DMCA notice from LifeShield down, then writing a positive review.
Now, to be clear, this does not refer to the departure of DMCA notices on any content or use of content theft. It’s about the link. It threatened legal action. He said:
I ask you to remove them from the following site (pskl.us)
www.lifeshield.com all links on the website soon.
To find a link, please do the following:
If it is an online directory of the website, use the search system directory to find the “LifeShield” link.
If there is a hidden link on the main page of the website source code, open the site and view the source code. Search for “lifeshield.com” in the source code and find the hidden link.
He also said:
LifeShield, Inc.. Check legal action if the webmaster does not remove the reference links within 48 hours.
Jeremy on PSKL actually share the entire conversation in the issue, which does not include an apology, suggesting that PSKL not be on the list of sites that receive notifications. Jeremy, however, may issue a list of sites to receive notifications. Throughout the conversation, he announced LifeShield is a site that “lifeshield robe and generate additional links back to 700K” LifeShield unnoticed, and the “Google stepped in and slapped” them with punishment, which causes of layoffs in the company.
Jeremy responded, “So you’re saying that there went out and bought a 700K link back to you, knowing that your penalized by Google? So does that mean you have to (name of company) sent a DMCA notice 700K? Talk about throwing good money after bad. Linkspam to report spam team at Google, then spend the money on an SEO expert rather than trying to scare people with the threat. ‘
The response is actually longer than that, and includes metaphors extinguish a fire in the house with fertilizer, but it’s main core.
I recommend reading the whole post Jeremy. Quite interesting.
Is it a Go Where You?
He did make an important point in this: A party created a large number of backlinks to your site to generate the SEO (or, in this case, destroying SEO) is unethical. It is not illegal.
While many may not have a problem with being illegal practices, the idea that the law can intervene to connect in any way that could cause bigger problems. Just consider all of the f the gray area of the law no fair use. Always have different interpretations, and may be dangerous.
For the record (granted, I’m a lawyer), I would not expect any legal action, as threatening the DMCA notice LifeShield to hold a lot of water in a court of law. Finn also shows two cases (Ford Motor Company v. 2600 Enterprises) and (Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc..), Where the legality linking to win.
But even things like this should go to court, it is a huge inconvenience and legal fees paid. If the site is legitimate practice, the habit linking ethics stayed in, where does that leave the web?
Is this what connects to the World Wide Web will be? You need to worry about starting sued because you connect to a site, and the site may or may not find your site on a site enough to want a strong link from? You can get sued because your page is not a high PageRank and link juice is not enough to help you connect to a site in search engine visibility?
LifeShield webspam apparently targeting some very specific, but sending notices the full list of sites. The possibility that the LifeShield is not just panicing company and move on to action. It is a pity, for if some negative SEO company (not clear if it is from a competitor) has an effect on the business, such as Jeremy suggests, this is probably not the best way to try to resolve the issue.
Let’s Give Credit Multiple Google.
You can display the Google guidelines and update algorithms, which clearly caused some to think this way, but just the same, we can not be held entirely to blame for this kind of mentality is good. The company has said in the past that people should not be obsessed with PageRank, and it uses more than 200 signals to rank content. PageRank is not the only thing that matters. In fact, the company puts a list every month of the signal changes.
This shows the power of the people I hold very least. It shows how many businesses rely on Google as they go so far as to threaten a site just connected them with legal action.
Should legal action that will lead to success in the courts, which could mean bad news for the Web as we know it, and people will be afraid to link. I would think that spawn more problems on sites that do not get the credit (and possibly referral traffic) they deserve.
Do you think the Google rules and penalties may have an influence on legislation? Now that would be strength, and made more ironic, the fact that Google is constantly under surveillance themselves.
Webmaster Changing Structure Internal Linking A Page, Google Recovers From Penguin Update
Other webmasters claim that Google recovered from Penguin updates.
In a post WebmasterWorld forum (by Barry Scwhartz), neildt members said they saw a page that they thought were hit by Penguin, will respond to the ranking for the keyword phrase targeting . “Now it’s just a coincidence that it is restored, or cause changes that we have made throughout our site for this page is based on why we were hit by Penguin,” wrote neildt.
“Basically, from 24 April when we seem to be affected by Google Penguin update, I took a page of really random influences are changing the internal linking structure that points to a page” neildt wrote. “Before April 24th page rank on page 1 of Google for ‘name’ and ‘hotel name city’ as an example of a phrase that we target. After this time, the rankings for the phrase out on page 30 of Google SERPs. ‘
“As of yesterday (Sunday, June 24) when I checked how phrases are making progress and there are some changes in Google SERPs,” continued neildt. “To my surprise we rank on page 1 for ‘city name’ and page 3 for ‘name’.
At this point, it is not clear whether or not Google has launched the refreshed data to update the Penguins over the weekend. We reached the company, and will update when we learn more.
Schwartz, linked to a forum thread where it was discussed in the recovery Penguin, said he heard rumors of another Google update, which may have occurred on Thursday night.
As far as penguins go, obviously it is possible to recover. You may or may not need to start with a newly designed website, but make sure that you are in total compliance with Google’s quality guidelines. For more details about the recent recovery of others, read here.
Webmaster story was recovered, had a Penguin refresh the data.
You Could Be Waiting Months To See Effects of Tool Link deny Google
If you hit Penguin updates, you may need to use Google’s new tool link to decline, especially if you can get a bad link removed. That’s the message we get from Google’s Matt Cutts.
Cutts and Google really emphasize that the majority of people do not use the tool, and only one painted as a tool of last resort kind of thing, but Danny Sullivan has posted a Q & A session in which Cutts He said:
“[Google’s announcement last week post] heading saying anyone who has an unnatural relationship warning. It also says people affected by Penguin, but I keep starting ask about it. I reiterate that if you are exposed to Penguin and know or think you might have a bad link, you can use it “where U.S. …
Here is the exact text of the original post:
“If your site is affected by the update algorithm Penguin and you believe it may be because you generate spam or low quality links to your site, you may want to look at your site and link backlinks decline results from the scheme links violates Google’s guidelines. ‘
Cutts Sullivan asked how long it take for the site to see the improvements, which asks whether the site may need to consider the time it takes for Google to push another update Penguin. Google initially indicated that it may be a matter of weeks, but here, Cutts identified for several months.
“Can it really be time consuming, and potentially months,” Cutts was quoted as saying. “There is a time delay for data to be entered in the index. Then there may be a delay time after that to refresh the data in different algorithms. ‘
As you know Penguin victim, webmasters may wait long enough for Google to roll out refreshed.
Although Cutts says that you can use the tool if you are exposed to Penguin, do not mean that it is useless if you use not really trying to get the link removed first. He also told Sullivan that you should not count on it to work if I do not see any links that actually came from the web.
While the tool is something that some webmasters and SEO wanted for a long time, it may be silver bullet that they are actually looking for. Even Google acknowledged in the original post about the tool can not ignore some of the links you send.
This Business Is Furious With Google For Removal Of Hundreds
In May, Google announced Google+ Local, which will replace the Place Page, and improvement of local evaluation efforts throughout Google’s search results. We have written in the past about how the transition will be worth clicking the business, and we have seen some pretty crazy business talking about Google deleting review, which again, is worth the customers.
How do you think the transition Google+ Google Local? Was it the right move for Google? Let us know what you think in the comments.
Wichita Suzuki car dealers have a bad experience with transitions Google. Businesses have lost hundreds of reviews, consider an important source of marketing. Company President, Scott Pitman, a blog about the situation, show time events.
Aaron Wirtz, social media manager at the dealership, WebProNews says, “It is difficult to calculate exactly how it has affected our business. Fortunately our regular customers do not need to check the reviews of Google know that they want to do business here, but how many potential customers will find our list and turn? ‘
In the course of about a month and a half, Google has removed the reviews more and more, according to dealers. On July 15, the number of reviews is dropped 418-405. On August 1 they drop 405-281. On August 3 they dropped 281-9.
Think about it for a second. Are you more than 400 reviews for your business, many are positive, and that number is quickly reduced to 9. 3 or 4 of 9, Wirtz tells us, is negative.
In a blog post, Pitman share some screenshots, claims reserves. Here, you can find 418 reviews:
Here, you can see the 9 reviews in Google, Google displays even from the main search results:
It does not necessarily reflect the number of small business review, regardless of the ratio of positive to negative, except maybe the business is brand new. The company was founded in 2007, and claimed to rank # 1 Suzuki Automotive Retailers in the United States in 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Note: In another screenshot that goes with the top, showing the relationship “more reviews” at 169, still far less than what the company once had.
“We’re not just in Wichita dealers affected by this problem,” notes Wirtz. “But our case is certainly one of the most interesting.”
“A lot of deals in Wichita so far unaffected, but the dealer in Wichita is left with nothing but 0/3 review, gave them 0/30 score on average,” he said.
Wirtz put this video on the situation:
“During the bumpy transition from Local Area, thousands of businesses have lost customer reviews submitted also that Google collected for them now,” said Pitman blog post. “We’re hearing reports of lost business studies three times within a period of 30 months.”
“The problem is, review disappear without warning or explanation, and many businesses affected collected reviews with integrity,” he added. “Any attempt to contact Google will produce blurry, canned response citing the whole list of reasons why reviews may or may not be removed. Even now, I do not have a customer service team to answer questions on Yahoo local reviews and online, citing the reason that Local is a free service. ‘
Automotive News, who interviewed Mr. Pitman, shared a statement from Google on the matter, saying that Google aims to avoid “spam” content, even at the risk of sometimes remove legitimate reviews.
Wirtz told WebProNews, “We do not feel like one review that ‘spam’. Each post reviews written by customers to do business with us, which contains specific information about the transaction, and most of the reviews mentioned our staff members by name. None of the reviews contain links, irrelevant text, or any of the other features commonly associated with spam postings. ‘
Google has restored some of the reviews. When we checked in with 54 of them (still good less than 418 companies in mid-July.
“Most of the reviews seem to be restored to its original removed,” Wirtz told us. “We know that some of the reviews is new, however.”
Fortunately, for the Suzuki of Wichita, the business has a rating of 27 (with 26 and 30 described by Google as “extraordinary to perfection”). That seems pretty good, and it is impossible to prevent a lot of potential customers.
Wirtz agreed that 27 looks “pretty good,”
“But our customers declare our business is 29/30, the average value we have posted for this,” he added.
So how much help Google in this business, after the removal of the reviews?
“The conversation we should have spoken only Google AdWords representative, who sounded very sympathetic and helpful, but because the local Yahoo was not under their jurisdiction (no customer service department exists for that product), each communicating with them broken like this , “Wirtz said we, describes the process as:
We explained the situation to them (ie missing reviews, etc.)
They said they would check with someone they know who is a specialist in the area
Then we get a return email within 24-48 hours containing canned response is why our review “may” disappear. None of the information contained in each new email all of this can be found in the product forum posts
“The re-emergence of some of the reviews we are one of the most puzzling aspects of the whole situation,” said Wirtz. “We rely on two separate correspondence from Google that if lose analysis, past. At this point there is no information from Google can be described as useful. ‘
Wirtz said he shared the response they get from Google in response to the Better Business Bureau Suzuki Wichita complaints filed against the company:
“Thank interaction. I am very sorry to hear that you are having a problem with the reviews on your local Google+ page. It comments that we find / hear the last few weeks and months. And believe me, we get the feedback to heart and work on improvement of the way we gather reviews. At this point, it is impossible for us to find reviews unfortunately lose your business. We realize this may seem unfair, but our engineers are working on a feature to create more stability review (for lack of a better word) are stable. Aaron, we, the Googlers and consumers, understand how important those reviews are a business and believe me when I say we are working to make it a better experience for everyone. Thank you for your understanding. ‘
“The positive reviews is as good as gold,” Pitman said in a blog post from the dealer. “What makes the reviews online so much more interesting than word of mouth referrals that consumers can now reach thousands, maybe millions of others, and analysis, as it is written, be permanently posted online for anyone to find. Or so we thought. ‘
On the other hand, we have to wonder how many of the negative reviews are disappearing, possibly leading to business users do not need to live up to the expectations they have from being available, and more profitable for reviewing.
Are you moving Google+ Google Local, and removal of the review as a significant cost to the business, or a necessary evil just for Google to improve the user experience? Let us know what you think in the comments.
What Confusing Warning Link On Google
Editor’s Note: This is a guest post from an author in the field of search engine marketing. Any suggestion to the author, and do not reflect the views of our organization.
If you read the post Chris Crum on Monday, you could be one of the thousands of webmasters who receives notice of differentiated Links Google Google Webmaster Tools (GWT) last week. As mentioned article Chris’, “the head of web spam team” Google, Matt Cutts promised on Friday that the revised notice more clearly express the intent of the original message will be distributed soon.
Update: Since this article was originally written, Cutts questions about the messages in a blog post.
That notice came Monday afternoon GWT message inbox and read:
“We noticed that some of the links that point to your site using Google Webmaster Guidelines techniques out.
We do not want to put any trust in artificial or unnatural links. We recommend removing any links that are not fair to your site. However, we recognize that some of the links out of your control. As a result, for certain circumstances we take action which is not targeted and not a natural link your site as a whole. If you can remove one of the links, please submit a reconsideration request, including actions you take.
If you have any questions, please visit our Webmaster Help Forum. ‘
The second message helps to explain that the website receives a message not trusted by Google as a whole, but only “some” of links pointing to a web site does not meet Google’s Webmaster Guidelines.
Webmaster recommend “remove” any “unnatural links” and filed a reconsideration request. Request a review, historically reserved for the website to be penalized in various ways, including deindexing and / or rank drops. Remember though, update notices saying that I do not trust the website as a whole.
Raises the question that if Google does not suspect your site as a whole, and Matt Cutts said that the notification “… not always automatically have something to worry about, “Why Google proposes to file reconsideration requests at all?
In it lay the confusion.
What is one to do now?
There is much speculation circulating online about how to treat a warning. Some suggest you ignore them and continue with business as usual. Some believe that the filing of an application for review is an admission of guilt.
It is always my advice to follow directions from Google when it comes to this notice. You should try to remove the non-natural backlinks and you have to apply for judicial review. After all, I would say “please.”
Where do I start? Begin by pulling inventory backlinks. You can withdraw linking domains of GWT console under the traffic. However, this does not provide a specific URL that links to you, the only domains that have links pointing to your site. I recommend using a third party tool like SEOMoz Open Site Explorer or Majestic SEO Site Explorer link your inventory. This is a paid tool but will provide you with all the incoming URL link, which will make your learning too easy.
What am I? Google does not want to believe “natural” or “artificial” links, as they say in the (equally confusing) their second message. However, what is “unnatural” and “artificial” really mean? According to the Webmaster Quality Guidelines, they recommend the following quality tests:
“A good standard is if you want a comfortable explaining what you’ve done to a website that competes with you. A Another useful test is to ask, ‘Is this my users? Would I do this if search engines did not exist? ‘”
I always liked the second approach – focus on your users. You have to promote your business on the site and the content relevant to your audience. You have to ask yourself, “is this value a link to potential customers?” If not, then it should be removed.
Create a spreadsheet from the site and a specific URL with a link you want to remove. This spreadsheet will serve as a tracking document when submitting your request reconsideration.
How do I get this link removed? Nothing, easy one-click solution here. Taking the time to gather contact information and submit the request to the webmaster to remove the link. If possible, include specific URLs that link is to simplify the process for webmasters.
There is no guarantee that these links will be deleted. In fact, the success rate is relatively low remove the link. There is no incentive for webmasters to take the time to find the page on their CMS and remove the link. However, this is what I want to do we, so do we.
It is very important to monitor your learning and outreach in detail because you will need this information when submitting your request reconsideration.
In a spread sheet, add the date range for the “removal request 1” and “2 removal request” so you can keep track of all correspondence you send. It can help support your case when you submit a reconsideration request.
How many rounds of outreach play really depends on you. Some webmasters will go so far as to stop and desist letter drafted by the legal department and sent to the webmaster, which has proven successful in motivating the publisher to remove the link.
My recommendation as thorough as possible with your backlink analysis to prevent the notification from Google about links that do not conform to their Webmaster Guidelines.
What should an application for review look like? First, do not stress about it. You do not draw up legal documents, email Google to let them know that you are after power, they have to check your work and rewards you with the proverbial gold star. Use the facts that have been collected in a tracking sheet to help you compose your message. Demand example might look like this:
After receiving notification from unnatural links to Webmaster Tools on July 19, we immediately checked [number linking URL] backlinks and knew [the total number of links you want deleted] is not a natural link, then contact each webmaster and request removal. We did [1, 2, 3, etc..] Round outreach to the webmaster to request removal, concluding with a cease-and-desist letter in our last round of outreach [only if you send a C & D]. We believe that we have taken the necessary steps to remove the unnatural link and we will not see the inherent Links consideration.
You obviously can extend these templates as you see fit, but be careful with your words and 500> 2850 characters (including spaces) limit reconsideration request form in GWT.
Making the whole process should ensure that you are not reasonable notice Links will be removed. In addition, take the time to analyze your current backlink profile should make sure that your incoming links meet Google’s Webmaster Guidelines and will prevent you from receiving notifications, and the negative impact of the algorithm update.