Change links to non anchor text or remove links? How to handle citations?

[Oimachi2]

Change links to non anchor text or delete altogether?

I have been hit by Penguin 3.0, my website has links from article directories, forum signatures ect...

Old SEO that was done years ago.

I an access some of the links, should I delete them completely or replace exact match anchor text with URL link?

[theodore007]

Hi,

Here will see some ideeas that should bring you some answers about it: support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en : "Links with optimized anchor text in articles or press releases distributed on other sites" - looks like an URL (if has no keywords in it, better) or a non-commercial anchor text should be much more safer, i would change those.

Check the ranking you have for anchors from every article directory and from forums, those that are penalised must be changed (Penguin it is about links and anchors, as you already have the answer).

After you finish this work, should concentrate on the new link building guide, gaining backlinks and branding mentions keeping in mind that anchor text should have brand and sometimes some different keywords in it.

Hope that helps!

[Oimachi2]

"should I delete them completely or replace exact match anchor text with URL link? "

[Robert Charlton]

I would delete (or nofollow) them, as well as any other links you have from the same domain.

Logic goes something like this... Google wants freely given editorial links, ie, links you don't control. If you're able to control the anchor text, though, this suggests to Google a kind of relationship that looks spammy.

While it's almost impossible to be certain whether this is correct, I've seen a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that those who tried to retain backlink credit by changing anchor text did not succeed.

[aakk9999]

I would delete (or nofollow) them, as well as any other links you have from the same domain.

Agreed - unless you are getting traffic through such link. So I would first see if any of these bring traffic and if so, do not delete these, instead nofollow them.

The rest you could either nofollow or delete - providing you have access to article directories (I am assuming you do have access to forum post signatures.)

If you have no control and hence cannot delete nor nofollow, then disavow these.

[Oimachi2]

Hi Robert,

Thank you for the clearer answer.

That site has been fine for nearly 14 years, why did this happen now? I did get a warning for unnatural link profile a few years back though...

This change happened on December 10 2014.

To this day, the site keeps dropping rankings daily....

[Oimachi2]

Something else...

Should I also delete my citation?

Most or the signatures includes my Google Places Business address and phone number

[Lorel]

If you change the anchor text then it's even more proof that you can manage the link yourself. Better to delete it.

[Oimachi2]

---

System: The following message was spliced on to this thread from: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4724971.htm [webmasterworld.com] by aakk9999 - 9:49 pm on Dec 27, 2014 <small>(gmt 0)</small>

---

Should I delete citations from "bad" websites?

I have citations on article directories, forum signatures ect...

I'm not in the process of removing links, but should I keep the Gooogle places address citation and company name intact?

[edited by: aakk9999 at 10:04 pm (utc) on Dec 27, 2014]
[edit reason] Moved from another location [/edit]

[aakk9999]

I would certainly not touch citations right now since you are removing the links. Otherwise you would not know what caused if there were any changes to your traffic and ranking.

So deal with links first - (Are you going to be nofollowing them or deleting them or leaving them as they are?)

With regards to citations, you should do nothing for at least couple of months to give a chance to Google to deal with links changes.

Later on you may want to reviw them. Are citations your brand name or your website URL?

If they are brand name then I would not remove unlinked citations. If they are website URL, then it would really depend how many there are. I would perhaps remove citations from the spammiest forums.

But as I said, I would do nothing with citations right now.

[goodroi]

If you were bitten by the most poisonous snake on the planet would you put a simple bandage on it and take a nap or would you slap on a tourniquet and get to the hospital? Serious situations require serious responses.

Too many people try to salvage links & citations that "aren't too bad". The links are bad so get rid of them unless they are driving real traffic then you can debate it. Think again back to the poisonous snake story. Is there any level of poison that you would want the doctor to leave inside your body? That is why you want to super scrub everything till they are all clean.

Once we have handled the poison we need to rebuild all of the link equity that was destroyed when Google flagged it as spammy. It is not easy but the more traffic generating links we get the better our rankings will be. Actually if we get enough traffic generating links we don't even care about Google rankings anymore.

[toidi]

I have been hit by Penguin 3.0, my website has links from article directories, forum signatures ect... 

Old SEO that was done years ago. 

Guilty as charged but i have survived every critter thrown at us. Why? Is it the amount of articles, directories and forum signatures? Is it bad articles, directories and forums or am i just lucky so far?

I still find some of my articles showing up in the serps so how can they be bad?

If the article, forum or directory is relevant, what makes it bad?

[blacks]

hello guys!

if I have own network or several sites for example, better bad anchor text like rich keyword or something like that to delete, and I can later add link again on this site (my site, my network) or it's backling on this site better never add in future?

I tried make 301 redirect, and site 2 month blinking on gooogle, it show on the top position and then drop down, and then again the same. I adding links with anchors, deleted and add again) now with non anchor text (only domain, domain.com) and wait now...

[martinibuster]

question:

what makes it bad?

Please read Robert Charlton's post above:

Google wants freely given editorial links, ie, links you don't control.

That is your answer in a nutshell. Anything you build is just a link. Google has tried to remove the influence of links since the very beginning. What they want are citations because that's what Google is, a citation based search engine. Learn the difference between a link and a citation and you'll be ahead of the game.

Good luck.

[toidi]

So, according to what is being discussed here, i should take articles that are showing up in the serps and delete them because they contain a link to my site? If the serp gods disapproved wouldn't they stop showing the articles?

I run a business and use the website to advertise this business. I advertise this business everywhere, online and off. Adding my url, phone number and business name to directories, articles and anywhere i can put them is not spamming, it is called advertising and i believe g can see this.

imho, there is a difference between an internet based business or affiliate site and a real world brick and mortar business using the web to advertise.

[GreyBeard123]

So, according to what is being discussed here, i should take articles that are showing up in the serps and delete them because they contain a link to my site?

You’re not penalized, thus why would you want to do it?

Personally, to strengthen my backlink profile, I’ll rather obtain a few citation links from 'name' sites.

[glakes]

I advertise this business everywhere, online and off. Adding my url, phone number and business name to directories, articles and anywhere i can put them is not spamming, it is called advertising and i believe g can see this.

You call it advertising and Google calls that spam. That's the problem we as business owners face - the only Google approved advertising is Adwords or nofollow links (penalties can still be levied in extreme cases). In advertising, one best be using nofollow links when linking back or it is spam. Shall I remind the Better Business Bureau that the link they give me for being an accredited business could give me a penalty?

[GreyBeard123]

Shall I remind the Better Business Bureau that the link they give me for being an accredited business could give me a penalty?

Nope, that's an excellent citation link.

[martinibuster]

...is not spamming, it is called advertising and i believe g can see this.

Let's clarify what we are discussing. What underpins your goals is free traffic from Google. Let's not forget this: we are discussing free traffic from Google. Let's also not forget that Google resists exploitation. So, what's the approach? White hat SEO has historically been preoccupied with identifying scalable loopholes and tricks. Thus we have things like viral link strategies and PageRank sculpting. Another approach, one that I'm in favor of, is the pragmatic approach. And that is to work within the goals that Google has set for it's own users.

White hat SEOs promoted Text-Link-Ads.com paid links [web.archive.org] to their clients on the basis of the argument that paid links were advertising, not spamming. There was a famous round table at SES San Jose 2007 [seroundtable.com] where several of our WebmasterWorld members and others debated with Matt Cutts about why paid links were not bad. And for a moment Google hesitated because, as I understood at the time, there was an unresolved internal discussion on whether or not TLA and the like was advertising or an attempt to influence the SERPs. Then the hammer came down and Google penalized paid links. The white hats sang a different tune [moz.com] once Google started penalizing the paid links. It was naïve to endorse paid links in the first place. While the context of that was paid links, the substance of what happened is relevant to your situation. I think it is wise to avoid following the behavior of the white hat SEOs where it takes a spanking (instead of common sense) to get you to do the smart thing. Just use some common sense when it comes to free traffic from Google (and yes, it's not really free).

If you are building a business around free traffic from Google then it makes sense to understand the rules. It's called being pragmatic. Being pragmatic is a point of view where you deal with things realistically as they are. Working within the restrictions means knowing where the line is and working right up to that line knowing that if you miscalculate there will be consequences. It also means working within the restrictions knowing full well the line and keeping a distance from it. It's not about being dictated to by Google and being a puppet. It's like Gravity. You can fight it but you can't ignore it. Google is the gravity that underpins our actions in the quest for free traffic from Google. You want soda from the machine? You can kick it and break your foot kicking it. Or you can be smart, pragmatic, and follow the directions. No one says you have to like it. It's simply the reality.

There are several ways about it. The white hat way is to seek loopholes. This leads into crappy short term SEO like PageRank sculpting. The alternative is the pragmatic approach to SEO, which is what people on this forum are trying to gently nudge you toward.

I am trying to give you the benefit of a historical perspective of why you are at this point and an overview of how this industry has approached the challenge of free traffic from Google. Good luck.

[Oimachi2]

And what is the "pragmatic" approach if I may ask?

You can't build links, and people liking and sharing your site through facebook, google+ and twitter makes no difference...

I have some top quality content that gets liked everyday, makes no difference.

What can be done for orgnanic rankings? Nothing? Pray? Hope?

Does Google sell lottery tickets?

I look at the top ranking sites in my industry, there is no sense to it...it's random really, sites rankings go up and down like musical chairs with no action from website owners, including myself ;(

[MichaelP]

From Google:

Note that PPC (pay-per-click) advertising links that don’t pass PageRank to the buyer of the ad do not violate our guidelines. You can prevent PageRank from passing in several ways, such as:

Adding a rel="nofollow" attribute to the <a> tag

One of my sites has good traffic so I placed a link that links to our other site (one way) as the last menu item. Anchor text is just domain.com (brand name,not keyword stuffing)and link has nofollow tag. It is not PPC, both sites are mine.

So according to Google that is fine? I could delete it too but it brings traffic and it seems to follow Google's guidelines.I had it like this for a year and sites were not hit by panda or penguin etc although traffic is down to pre-december levels.

[martinibuster]

Pragmatic is getting out of the mindset of trying to influence the algorithm and into the practice of influencing people.

[GreyBeard123]

The white hat way is to seek loopholes. This leads into crappy short term SEO like PageRank sculpting.

I presume white should be black :)

[toidi]

If you are building a business around free traffic from Google then it makes sense to understand the rules

As i said, i advertise everywhere and do not rely on google.

I have been studying seo as long as anybody and i routinely see experts using knee jerk reactions to pretty much everything. Back when publishing articles was the thing to do, the knee jerk was to spin articles and publish these crappy articles on as many directories as possible. This is spam. Publishing a well written article on an established article directory is not spam. This is advertising.

Forum links on an seo forum or seo thread to a dress shop is spam. Forum links on a fashion forum to a dress shop is not spam, this is adverising.

Directory links were all the rage and then they became spam, and the knee jerk was citations. I obtained a couple of lists of citation possibilities and when i went there to get my citations, i was already there from the days of getting directory links. It seems citations are just the new dirctories?

if done correctly, article links, forum links and directory links are not spam. The links are not there for google. The links are there for the public to access my site.

there is no such thing as white hat seo. Manipulation is manipulation whether it is white, grey or black. Just having a wmt or google analytics account can be seen as manipulation, so if you really want to be clean, shut down your accounts.

[toidi]

/rant