Has anyone just ignored the "Unnatural inbound links" message?

[FishingDad]

I believe this whole Unnatural inbound links thing is just a good way to clear a path. G already knows the sites which are just link farms and can very easy discount them, as they have done so for years. There's no need what-so-ever to force site owners to police links which they have no control over, it's utterly ridiculous.

Yet here we all are, furiously deleting links, changing them to no follow, terrified of placing a link somewhere, why?

Has anyone dared to take a site through the "Unnatural inbound links" email with a screw you attitude, and just carried on regardless. Not bother contacting Google, not bothered changing a thing, in fact deleting the WMT account and just sticking two fingers to them. It would be interesting to see the results.

[edited by: aakk9999 at 3:24 pm (utc) on Jun 19, 2015]

[lucy24]

idle query: what proportion of web sites even have wmt accounts? The ones who don't are not just your grandparents' wedding-photo vanity sites. There have got to be plenty of "real", established dot coms that simply carry on and don't give a squat.

corollary idle query: what proportion of WebmasterWorld readers have wmt accounts?

inescapable third corollary: what proportion of web sites have someone who reads WebmasterWorld?

Finish paragraphs 2 and 3 the same as paragraph 1.

[tangor]

I suspect that the ones getting the message are already pushing the boundaries of "links" which any search engine (includes Bing and Yeandex and Yahoo, etc). The vast majority of sites out there are not *usually) pushing such boundaries as they don't know they even exist.

For a qualifie4d answer specific to the OP, one of my clients who is pushing the boundaries has said damn the torpedoes full steam ahead and has seen no marked drop off in traffic.

I suspect this is an outlier as other clients doing the same have suffered for their efforts.

You do your best to instruct, but they still think there's a way to game the system.... What can you do?

_{(collect a check cleaning up their mess, of course)}

[EditorialGuy]

i think most of the "policing links" is being done by people who:

1) have violated Google's guidelines and are trying to escape a penalty (whether before or after the fact), or...

2) have the mistaken, herd-driven belief that Google expects them to disavow every crappy link that comes their way.

[jmccormac]

Assuming that the people in Google are smart enough to distinguish content farms from genuine content is not a good strategy. You are dealing with a bunch of people who never built any website of significant worth or value and who rely on their FUD buddies to scare people. Eventually they may stumble upon the key to what is a genuine IBL but for the moment, all they have is a rather crude hammer and every site looks like a nail. You are dealing with people who often cannot tell a good link from a spam link. Act accordingly.

Regards...jmcc

[Shai]

Our experience is the complete opposite of tangor's. We have never seen the message without a corresponding drastic drop in rankings and traffic. If you see the message, expect a big drop or, in some cases, the drop has already happened. The only times I would assume the lack of drop is a possibility is if the over optimised terms are non competitive in nature. i.e Google has targeted specific phrases or related keyphrases and those are not your main source of traffic.

[tangor]

er... I said one guy hasn't been hit ... yet

All the others have.

Look to you link profiles and keep it sweet. Then again, you aren't the link police, so if you get this message it is an indication you have either gone too far, or have not managed what you have.

MOST FOLKS will never see this if they are accruing natural links.

[Shai]

I saw that. I should have made it clearer in my post.

I have heard it said quite a few times though that people should ignore these warnings and all of the bravado that goes with it. i.e "we are not Google's police" or "if you react to the message you are admitting guilt" etc etc. As SEO's we have a responsibility for our clients and giving them this type of emotive advice is irresponsible at best. I see the effects 'bad' SEO has on some small/medium businesses and it can be devastating. To make things worst, I then hear that the SEO person that got them into trouble in the first place, gives them the advice to ignore the messages. Its disheartening and frustrating.

Just to add: I would love to see an example of a link spam message that has not resulted in a drop so if anyone has an example I can look at, please send me a PM.

[toidi]

Has anybody who is not using wmt been hit with an unnatural link penalty?

[Shai]

We have certainly had people call us complaining of ranking drops who do not have Analytics or WMT setup. Once we set up the accounts to investigate further we found the message was in there already. i.e. The penalty is there. You setting up an account and verifying the site just opens the window to the data that's already there.

[lucy24]

Once we set up the accounts to investigate further we found the message was in there already

But, but, but, splutter... what on earth is the point of sending a message that may never be seen? They don't really assume that everyone has, or even knows about, a WMT account do they? afaik, the mobile-friendliness message was the only one that was ever sent out in a way that webmasters* are guaranteed to see it, independent of WMT.


* Assuming for the sake of discussion that every site has, and reads, a "webmaster@" address. (Uh... that was what Google used, wasn't it? I forget.) If they don't, they deserve whatever happens.

[tbear]

I understand G will soon be handing out free nose rings too...... Just fit it and hook yourselves up.......

[EditorialGuy]

But, but, but, splutter... what on earth is the point of sending a message that may never be seen?

Some people might think it's better than no message at all. And can you imagine the fuss if Google actively went looking for site owners' e-mail addresses to say, "We've penalized you"? We'd be seeing a spate of threads about how the folks at Google think they're the Web police.

[Shai]

Lucy, I suppose that, as Tangor implies, the % of people who push their link profile to the limit yet don't have a WMT account are 'insignificant' in number. I cant really see an alternative for them considering the volumes they have to deal with on a daily basis.

[toidi]

* Assuming for the sake of discussion that every site has, and reads, a "webmaster@" address. (Uh... that was what Google used, wasn't it? I forget.) If they don't, they deserve whatever happens.

I guess i deserve something. I have numerous email addresses but none for webmaster. I also ignore anything aimed at the webmaster as it all just spam. Have i missed something important over the years, doubtfull, but possible.

When this penalty stuff reared its head i thought about re-opening my wmt account to see if i got the penalty but i resisted the urge. I am sure there was a big surge in new wmt accounts as everybody tried to comply.

[RedBar]

Not bother contacting Google, not bothered changing a thing, in fact deleting the WMT account and just sticking two fingers to them.

I did that years ago and deleted all associated gmail accounts as well.