Google Takes Action on Large Guest Blog Network

[Dymero]

[searchengineland.com...]

Matt didn't mention the specific network, but My Blog Guest's Ann Smarty later noted on Twitter that her site was penalized.

I've seen a couple others report a penalty on their own sites, supposedly in relation to this, but not many so far.

[edited by: Dymero at 6:00 pm (utc) on Mar 19, 2014]

[EditorialGuy]

Great Questions -- One I have is why they feel the need to "flaunt" the fact they did their job like the receiver who "shows off" every time they score a touchdown

For the same reason the police flaunt the fact that they've broken up a ring of car thieves, drug dealers, or graffiti artists: To send a warning and deter bad behavior.

And let's not forget that SEOs are always demanding "transparency" from Google. If you were penalized for being part of a link network, wouldn't you want to know why your rankings and Google referrals had tanked?

[JD_Toims]

For the same reason the police flaunt the fact that they've broken up a ring of car thieves, drug dealers, or graffiti artists: To send a warning and deter bad behavior.

It is *not* bad behavior to guest blog on a site that allows open guest blogging. Not following the terms of the site by doing something like using nofollow links when the site says not to for whatever reason is *worse* than following the terms of the site or not guest blogging.

It *is* bad behavior for an independent 3rd party [Google] to essentially set the terms for a site not owned or controlled by them and "slap" the site for not kowtowing when the site doesn't cave-in to the attempted outside control of their terms.

[edited by: JD_Toims at 3:50 pm (utc) on Mar 22, 2014]

[EditorialGuy]

JD_Toins:

Let me get this right: You and MBG should have the freedom to define good or bad behavior as you choose, but Google shouldn't have the freedom to define good or bad behavior as it chooses?

But never mind philosophical questions. Let's be pragmatic:

If you want a search engine to send you free traffic, you probably shouldn't ignore that search engine's Webmaster guidelines.

[JD_Toims]

Let me get this right: You and MBG should have the freedom to define good or bad behavior as you choose, but Google shouldn't have the freedom to define good or bad behavior as it chooses?

Not sure why you're trying to put words in my mouth or twist something I said into something I didn't say, but for the record: I'm fine with Google deciding what good or bad behavior is *on Google's site(s)*, but not *yours*, *mine*, or *anyone* else's.

If you want a search engine to send you free traffic, you probably shouldn't ignore that search engine's Webmaster guidelines.

But you have to if you use nofollow, a disavow file, don't submit to as many directories as you feel like, don't guest blog, don't link-drop [piggy-back traffic] in comments, don't link in forum sig lines or a number of other things, even though all those things *can* generate traffic and increase brand awareness and the guidelines essentially say to build your site for visitors not search engines, but all the preceding are done or not done purely for search engine rankings which means you *cannot* adhere to the guideline of "building a site for visitors rather than search engines" and follow the rest of the guidelines of the search engines at the same time.

One of the "decision making questions" is "Would you feel comfortable explaining what you did to a competitor?" -- I would definitely feel comfortable saying, "Yes, I guest blog all the time, comment drop any time I can and submit to every directory I can find, because every single time a *anyone* [including the site operator] sees the name of my site it increases brand awareness." -- I have to *not* adhere to the answer to that question to *not* do it.

[Dymero]

JD_Toims, just add no-follow to things like like forum signatures...oh, wait, forum linking often uses BBCode, giving you no access to things like no-follow.

[Planet13]

Yes, we all would be much better off if google rolled over and died.

then we could go back to the old ways before google was around, like SPENDING MONEY advertising on Overture, and akamai, and Momma (or was it Mamma) and yellow page ads that never converted, and newspaper ads that never converted, and...

Yeah, those were the good ole days.

[JD_Toims]

I might be missing something, but I'm not seeing where anyone [especially me] is saying I wish they'd disappear -- All I'm saying is I wish they would "mind their own site" and stop trying to dictate the terms other sites have to run under, but of course to do that they'd have to be able to get their algo right without our help and if they could, we probably wouldn't have rel=nofollow or rel=next or rel=previous or rel=canonical or any reason to not exchange links with other sites at our sole discretion or any reason to [a whole bunch of other things here] -- The list of things done "for the benefit of search engines" regardless of impact, or lack-thereof, on our visitors goes on and on and on.

[JD_Toims]

One of the craziest things, to me, about this entire "We took action against a guest blogging network" thing is they're the ones who chose to use links as the base of their algo, but now they can't get it right on their own, so rather than rethinking their choice or figuring out how to better use the choice they made, they're trying [and doing a good job of getting there] to force those of us who own sites to change how we do things to suit their purposes -- Huh?

[EditorialGuy]

rather than rethinking their choice or figuring out how to better use the choice they made, they're trying [and doing a good job of getting there] to force those of us who own sites to change how we do things to suit their purposes

Yes, I can remember when Webmasters happily bought and sold PageRank. Then Larry Page stole the name, launched Google with Sergey Brin, and said PageRank wasn't supposed to be for sale. Ah, for the good old days of the early 1990s.

[JD_Toims]

Yes, I can remember when Webmasters happily bought and sold PageRank. Then Larry Page stole the name, launched Google with Sergey Brin, and said PageRank wasn't supposed to be for sale...

At least we pretty much [okay, we do, except I think there was a space in Page Rank back then, but don't tell anyone, you'll ruin my reputation] agree on something -- lol ;)

Ah, for the good old days of the early 1990s.

Gotta FYP though [just for good practice - lol] -- "Ah, for the good old search engines of the early [and even mid] 1990s which worked with what they were given rather than trying to dictate how things should be done on sites they didn't own for their [sole?] benefit."

[bluntforce]

PageRank was for sale way past the 90's. Some would say it's still possible to purchase PR to this day.
Google took down a guest blog network they could identify, how many have they not identified?

Google will always present their FUD, some people will buy into it, others will interpret it based on serps.

Apologies if I interrupted a group hug moment.

[JD_Toims]

Apologies if I interrupted a group hug moment.

LMFAO! -- I don't do group hugs, but I do call things how I see 'em, and even though EditorialGuy and I usually go back-and-forth, this time we agree, so to be fair I really have to point it out the same way I do when we don't.

I know "mature and reasonable", even after disagreements, isn't usually the case, so it might throw some for a loop, but life and the Internet are definitely both a learning experience ;)

[tangor]

While I am not a fan of G... (my historical posts show that) I am completely on board that their sand box, called google serps should not be gamed. It is their sand box. They can set the rules. All who wish to play in that park should abide the rules... or risk getting kicked out. (That they suck our sites via bots is a different thing, but yet is the same thing!)

Get a life, kiddies. It! Is! Their! Sandbox!

They also have the pail and shovel.

In the old daze (sic) didn't mean anything. As soon as DOLLAR$ were added every scam artist on the planet got involved. And have been since the start. HOWEVER, g had to build a business, even with this ugly going on, until they had sufficient market share to correct the ugly with that same market share.

So... what worked in the past to game the system is getting shut down, bits and pieces via the algo changes, and we'll keep getting more of these "horror" stories. Ad nauseum.

[JD_Toims]

So... what worked in the past to game the system is getting shut down...

Gaming who's system, Google's? -- Really, do you mean the system the site owners had in place [get noticed and traffic any way you can] before Google came along, or, the one Google *chose* to base it's algo on, meaning links?

Webmasters who were here before Google didn't require Google to base it's algo/rankings on links to be a search engine; Google did it by choice -- Now Google's trying to dictate the terms of linking for every site -- How can reasonable people see Google's decision of basing an algo on links as being equal to the right to dictate how/why links are given by sites Google doesn't own?

[edited by: JD_Toims at 6:03 am (utc) on Mar 23, 2014]

[bluntforce]

I know "mature and reasonable", even after disagreements, isn't usually the case, so it might throw some for a loop, but life and the Internet are definitely both a learning experience ;)

No doubt. The problem is when a person sees their income stream dissolving due to a Google "transition". How do you help that person?

Kind of sucks when all you can say is "Google wants something different now".

And there is no specific reply to the different now question.

[JD_Toims]

The problem is when a person sees their income stream dissolving due to a Google "transition". How do you help that person?

Kind of sucks when all you can say is "Google wants something different now".

Yup, sure does -- No argument from me on that point at all. It's actually a really good question/point, imo.

[graeme_p]

Guest blogging can successfully manipulate your Google rankings. Why else would Google bother to penalize a guest blogging network?

Yes, if it did not work and was easy to spot Google would happily let would be PR manipulators get on with it and diver resources from something that would work.

We also probably need to wait and see if the network gets hit.

[Shepherd]

Now Google's trying to dictate the terms of linking for every site

That's really only a half truth. You keep leaving off "to be included on google's website".

I don't want to live in a world where a website, my site or google, can't decide what they display on their own website.

[EditorialGuy]

Get a life, kiddies. It! Is! Their! Sandbox!

Speaking of which...

Whatever happened to the "Google Sandbox"? Did it disappear with the "Google Dance?"

And where's Infoseek's "Instant Add" when you need it?

[EditorialGuy]

Hasn't Matt Cutts just helped MBG to acquire a whole lot of NATURAL links (and free publicity)?

The links won't do MBG any good if it's under a penalty, and the publicity isn't likely to encourage people to join MBG or use its guest posts. (IMHO, the expression "Even bad publicity is good publicity" needs to be taken with a grain of salt.)

[Planet13]

Good points.

[martinibuster]

What's interesting is (1)all the so-called white hats who are outing themselves as having had an account there, as well as (2)others voicing confusion as to why it should happen.

1. Not as white hat as they represent themselves.

2. Not as bright as others suppose them to be.

[MikeNoLastName]

>Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Why would you treat a content page that's getting traffic from organic search like a PPC landing page?
------
Because when we DIDN'T do that they got penalized and lost organic search.
-------

>You're forced to make users copy URLs instead of clicking them? Forced by whom?
-----
Apparently by G if we want to remain appearing in the organic search results. See above response. Recovered from Penguin/Panda as soon as we made the changes. G won't tell you what a bad neighborhood is so as not to link into it, so you pretty much have to assume EVERYONE is bad.
------
>I'd be concerned that, at some point (if not already), Google would regard that tactic as a heavy-handed attempt to discourage users from leaving the site. If I were grading such a page on "user experience," I'd rate it pretty low.
------
Possibly. Obviously one of those cases of G-darned if you do and G-darned if you don't. Hopefully they will consider, if we were trying to discourage them from leaving the site we wouldn't give them the URL at all. Perhaps G would prefer it if we tell them instead "for more info about this event/product/location goto google dot com and search for 'keyword' to find the dot org link starting with the letter j." That way G can make more ad revenue and REALLY love us. It all comes back to G likes what makes G more money and it's so ridiculous, huh?

[Planet13]

I don't think you have to worry about linking out naturally. there are a few smarter people than I on this forum who link out like crazy, and apparently their traffic is growing.

[bluntforce]

Whatever happened to the "Google Sandbox"? Did it disappear with the "Google Dance?"

And where's Infoseek's "Instant Add" when you need it?

What's your point? My impression is that you are still processing Google dances and a Sandbox, but most have moved on.

If you knew the Sandbox and dances weren't active, then you should ask yourself why you are posting.

I'd provide my true opinion, but the mods would certainly be all over that.

[martinibuster]

What's your point?

It's sarcasm. Not meant to be replied to or remarked upon. ;)

[saepul]

I became increasingly confused as to what I should do

[Dymero]

I guess the logical continuation to this is: where do we now stand on this matter of guest posts with self-serving links?

I know there's a large debate over this, but for sake of discussion I'll go along with Google's interpretation of a self-serving link in a guest post.

It seems to me that an SEO has but one choice here:

Write a post that shares knowledge and promotes your authority in the subject but forget the link. No exact match anchor text. No highly-targeted deep links to commercial pages. Maybe don't even provide them with a link to your site.

Of course, what happens if your post is great quality and accepted, but the site owner wishes to give you attribution of their own accord? Do you freak out on them to make that link no-follow, just because it's a guest post? Or say thank you and hope for no penalty?

[Planet13]

"Write a post that shares knowledge and promotes your authority in the subject but forget the link. No exact match anchor text. No highly-targeted deep links to commercial pages. Maybe don't even provide them with a link to your site."

have them nofollow the link.

If they won't nofollow it, then disavow it.

Or I think you can (don't want to swear by it) have it go to a landing page that redirects through a blocked script?

~~~~

If the content is all that though, why not put it on your own site? then maybe you will get sites to link to you NATURALLY (since you have awesome content on your site).

[EditorialGuy]

Of course, what happens if your post is great quality and accepted, but the site owner wishes to give you attribution of their own accord? Do you freak out on them to make that link no-follow, just because it's a guest post? Or say thank you and hope for no penalty?

I'd take Matt Cutts at his word:

[mattcutts.com...]