| 11:38 pm on Jun 17, 2014 (gmt 0)|
It would not surprise me if Google is counting as a backlink a page that does not have a direct link to the site, and instead it has a link to URL which then redirects to a site.
If links going over 301 redirect can boost the site by passing the juice (this is one of reasons we do 301, right?) then I guess that in the same way links which go over redirect may be evaluated by Google as any other direct backlink when re-evaluating reconsideration request.
Interesting part is that this link was 302 (Temporary redirect) rather than 301 (Permanent redirect) - which is inline with Google saying that they might sometimes treat a 302 like a 301.
| 7:48 am on Jun 18, 2014 (gmt 0)|
That's true, thanks for replying.
But it's very worrying and perhaps makes it even harder for us to identify bad backlinks. I'm 100% confident that this link was not placed by anyone working on my clients site, it is so unusual.
| 4:51 pm on Jun 19, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Like the https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en Link Scheme Reference said: "Redirecting the links to an intermediate page that is blocked from search engines with a robots.txt file"
The reverse would be an unnatural link.
| 10:01 pm on Jun 19, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Remember that these are sample links, so they could just very well be an example of what they find wrong. And just because you have a 302 redirect, doesn't mean you can't be spamming.
| 2:18 am on Jun 20, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Remember that 302 is the default browser behavior if no code is specified when a page has moved. I'd be curious to see what happened if you added a 301 code.
Also, about that webmaster link for Google, it's not a good idea to block pages with robots.txt since those pages still end up in serps but without your page description. They still count towards your Quality rating so to speak.
| 2:39 am on Jun 20, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|Remember that 302 is the default browser behavior |
I think you must have meant a default server behaviour (not browser behaviour). It is server who issues a response code.
| 5:30 am on Jun 20, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|Also, about that webmaster link for Google, it's not a good idea to block pages with robots.txt since those pages still end up in serps but without your page description. They still count towards your Quality rating so to speak. |
It isn't on your domain it is on the domain "allegedly" offering an unnatural link... I would think the quality you expect isn't the quality you really want... since Google isn't lifting the manual review - due to it.
@jammy8891 ... Google Webspam Team is just as human as you and I and they are not infallible. They look at tons of data without any insider knowledge to use as backup reports. If they are locating questionable links it generally means you going in the right direction. Double-check your findings and stick to your guns, and point out their errors in assessment. (Obviously, is there is one)
| 4:33 pm on Jun 20, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I've seen Google count links in webmaster tools where the "linking" page just had the url typed out in plain text in the copy of the site but the source code contained no actual link. (neither did Google's cache / text cache) Try explaining THAT link removal to a webmaster...