Google's 950 Penalty

[Ms Naughty]

The "950 penalty" thing has been making me into a craven beast, and I'd just about given up on trying to fix it since nothing has worked.

Interesting that Matt Cutts would say overoptimisation was the trigger, since I believe my site wasn't really optimised when it got the boot. I've since worked hard on trying to clean it up to Google standards, as Halfdeck says, but it's made no difference.

Still, this might inspire me to keep trying.

If recip linking with uniform anchor text is a problem, it's pretty fucking hard to fix, because you can't really ask people to change links all over the place.

At this point in time I hate Google with a passion and long for Microsoft and Yahoo to somehow kill it. LOL

[Halfdeck]

For example, suppose that in April you had a bunch of links at the bottom of your page that looked like "Online Loan | Santa Cruz Hotels | Xbox Mod Chip | Home Loan | Mobile Phones " or "Bad Credit Mortgages | Afvallen | Problem Remortgage | Mortgage | Myspace Layouts". Linking to bad neighborhoods or spammy sites can affect your site's reputation. So the webmaster help group might look at your site and say "Hey, why not remove that link co-op stuff and then do a reinclusion request that says 'In case this was a factor, I'm no longer participating in this co-op link exchange and linking sites like this from my root page.' That might do it."

If you're penalized, I think you really have no choice but to submit a reinclusion request. Even if your site is clean, once your site is penalized, according to this quote, the penalty will not go away automatically. Someone inside Google has to flick a switch.

[jennym]

For example, suppose that in April you had a bunch of links at the bottom of your page that looked like "Online Loan | Santa Cruz Hotels | Xbox Mod Chip | Home Loan | Mobile Phones " or "Bad Credit Mortgages | Afvallen | Problem Remortgage | Mortgage | Myspace Layouts". Linking to bad neighborhoods or spammy sites can affect your site's reputation. So the webmaster help group might look at your site and say "Hey, why not remove that link co-op stuff and then do a reinclusion request that says 'In case this was a factor, I'm no longer participating in this co-op link exchange and linking sites like this from my root page.' That might do it."

Wow, that is a pretty interesting quote.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

If you're penalized, I think you really have no choice but to submit a reinclusion request. Even if your site is clean, once your site is penalized, according to this quote, the penalty will not go away automatically. Someone inside Google has to flick a switch.

Matt has said that. If you have a penalty, you should do a reinclusion request.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

If you're penalized, I think you really have no choice but to submit a reinclusion request. Even if your site is clean, once your site is penalized, according to this quote, the penalty will not go away automatically. Someone inside Google has to flick a switch.

However, I felt one couldn't be certain that the "penalty" referred to in that part of what cutts said to be directly tied to the so-called 950.

The links descbribed at the bottom were part of a moderately well known link trading "co-op" - which is substantially worse in googles eyes than a more simple type of "over-optimization" - it's clear participation in a linking scheme to game google.

But, I agree, that was an interesting statement, with implications for the reinclusion request.

I'm just not sure it's directly applicable to the problems adult sites are having.

However, someone should test it, and see what happens.

[jennym]

Originally Posted by Bill

I'm just not sure it's directly applicable to the problems adult sites are having.

I have been having the thought that there are some LL that are in a group sort of like that co-op. They all pretty much interlink. That is why I thought some sites were penalized. It is what I was trying to convey in that *other* thread. Not that my site was special, but that I wanted to get out of "the group" to see if it helped me with Google.

[CaptainJSparrow]

To add more confusion to the mix, I've seen what looks like an obvious penalty for a keyword and yet that same page can be in the top 10 for a different keyword or keyphrase.

We have numerous instances of that. On some pages, we're buried for the target keyword phrase (this is the anchor text of all the incoming links) but we place #1 for slight variations of that phrase. We have a theory that google will flag a page for a certain keyword phrase...say if you have 75 links at the bottom of your amateur page with most using the words "amateur sex" to link to your link exchange partners. Google will flag you so that you can not show up well for "amateur sex" but for "sex amateur" you're fine, or something such.

If this is the case, will just changing the anchor text of your link exchanges away from the phrase "amateur sex" be enough, or did google already identify all 75+ sites (because most of those sites also trade every category page with each other) as some sort of link farm and you will never place well until you remove those links, and submit a reinclusion request?

[Bill]

Originally Posted by jennym

I have been having the thought that there are some LL that are in a group sort of like that co-op. They all pretty much interlink. That is why I thought some sites were penalized. It is what I was trying to convey in that *other* thread. Not that my site was special, but that I wanted to get out of "the group" to see if it helped me with Google.

And getting out of "the group" is certainly a valid and interesting experiment.

But, I'm definitely not sure that "the group" and the kind of co-op linking Cutts described would be seen as similar by google.

The reason I think that, is that there is a natural tendency for sites devoted to the same subjects to link to each other. This doesn't make them a linking scheme to game google. (altho, as we all know, adult sites come damn close to doing this, especially, ESPECIALLY, with the tendency to link based on PR)

Note the anchors of the links in the site cutts mentioned:

"Online Loan | Santa Cruz Hotels | Xbox Mod Chip | Home Loan | Mobile Phones " or "Bad Credit Mortgages | Afvallen | Problem Remortgage | Mortgage | Myspace Layouts".

This is radically different from what adult sites do.

I do happen to have some big concerns about the way adult sites handle:

1. uniform anchor text
2. links at the bottoms of pages
3. not giving one way links to each other
4. and still this, IMNSHO, idiotic obsession with PR, as evidenced by all the crazy people posting links about how they want "PR4+ links", without ever once mentioning the damn niche and relevance of the links.

[CaptainJSparrow]

Originally Posted by Bill

However, someone should test it, and see what happens.

We are testing these things in a few different ways and hopefully will have some positive results from at least one of our tests over the next few months.

[spacemanspiff]

But, I'm definitely not sure that "the group" and the kind of co-op linking Cutts described would be seen as similar by google.

I've long thought that this was the case. A typical "link farm" or "co-op" to me has always been one of those deals where you're given some code to put up on your page(s), so a whole lot of pages have exactly the same list of links with the same anchor text. I think everyone would point to that and scream "link farm".

Now what if Google has tightened up the algo just a little bit (which I suspect is the root of their patent filing of Dec. 06), and due to the way we provide our trade partners with our desired anchor text we've fallen prey to the more sensitive algo? We don't all have identical lists of links, but they're just close enough. If every LL webmaster had changed his anchor text recip page after every trade, would we be seeing a whole lot of link lists in the 950 graveyard?

[CaptainJSparrow]

Now, the big question is, if you have a penalty on just some of your pages (i.e. not your whole site) should you do a reinclusion request? If so, do you make the request for each page that's down, or the site as a whole? I've seen alot of sites that we're all familiar with, where some of their pages are #1 for certain terms, but alot of other pages are buried (950 penalty) for other terms. There are pages that are buried for the keyword phrases that they target, yet show up as #1, or top 10, for other phrases.

That said, I don't know how the reinclusion request works...never done it. Just wondering if you can request it for a page, or must it be for the whole site?

[Preacher]

Originally Posted by CaptainJSparrow

Now, the big question is, if you have a penalty on just some of your pages (i.e. not your whole site) should you do a reinclusion request? If so, do you make the request for each page that's down, or the site as a whole? I've seen alot of sites that we're all familiar with, where some of their pages are #1 for certain terms, but alot of other pages are buried (950 penalty) for other terms. There are pages that are buried for the keyword phrases that they target, yet show up as #1, or top 10, for other phrases.

That said, I don't know how the reinclusion request works...never done it. Just wondering if you can request it for a page, or must it be for the whole site?

To add more confusion to the mix, I've seen what looks like an obvious penalty for a keyword and yet that same page can be in the top 10 for a different keyword or keyphrase.

[eman]

Originally Posted by Preacher

To add more confusion to the mix, I've seen what looks like an obvious penalty for a keyword and yet that same page can be in the top 10 for a different keyword or keyphrase.

Same here.

I've got pages that support that view.

[Bobc01]

How can you tell if you've been penalised?

[CaptainJSparrow]

1) go to http://google.com
2) click on "Advanced Search" ... this is to the right in small text
3) type in the search term (the keyword phrase that you're targetting) in the first field of the "Find Results" area that says "with all of the words"
4) change the "drop down" to the right to "100 results"
5) click the button labeled "Google Search"
6) scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the #10
7) click on the link that says "repeat the search with the omitted results included." ...note, you should really do everything without this step first and then do it if you don't find your site/page
8) use your web browser's "find" or "find in this page" capability to search for your domain name
9) if you're not on page 10 then go to page 9, etc until you find your domain

[Jim]

If you are being penalized, could a reinclusion request really hurt? I was told that if you are listed at all, you don't really want to bring attention to yourself.

[CaptainJSparrow]

Well spoken Halfdeck. You're preaching to the choir here.

[CaptainJSparrow]

A question that I'd like to throw up for discussion.

Let's assume that those 50 to 100 links at the bottom of all of our link lists, that are all interlinked, and mostly using the same anchor text, are the cause of a bunch of our sites getting a penalty. This being so, is it enough to move the links from the bottom of our pages to somewhere in the middle (or put them all over the page) and, of course, change the anchor text and put a description to each site...or to be reincluded must we pull all of those links to show that we are not a part of that link farm anymore?

Thoughts?

[Ms Naughty]

Before you start pulling links and pissing off link partners, let me say that I have a number of sites suffering from this "penalty" and none of them have link trades with other sites, so the "link farm" thing may not be the problem. In my case it could be interlinking between my own sites that's done it, although I'm only guessing.

I feel like I should start a new thread about this, but I'll write it here anyway. It feels as though we as adult webmasters could start using the "nofollow" attribute to distinguish between links for traffic and what we could call "full links".

Pulling link trades is not a good idea because you piss off your partners and you also lose a source of traffic. But if you think it's a problem you could contact your partners and inform them you're going to nofollow the link.

If reciprocal links are no longer much use under the new algorithm, then a link trade to improve ranking is not as appealing and the focus becomes traffic.

At the same time, reciprocal linking between similar sites is still a good idea, I think.

I'm talking out of my arse here, just thinking out loud.

[spacemanspiff]

I'm not sure I've understand what you mean by this - "changed his anchor text recip page after every trade" - could you explain this a bit more.

Bill, I think you answered your own question with your next paragraph. Change the links that trade partners use when doing cat trades, or better yet just let them supply their own anchor text (assuming they'd use something relevant).

I also agree with your next post about the links at the bottom of pages. I'm sure they can detect this. Whether or not they will "penalize" for it is unknown, but it can't hurt to assume they do.

It needs to be tested. Some folks should file reinclusions and see what happens. Some folks should make changes without reinclusions and see what happens.

I'm pretty sure someone is doing this.

At the same time, reciprocal linking between similar sites is still a good idea, I think.

I think Google has pretty much said that they don't care for reciprocal linking for the purpose of manipulating PR. But in a "natural" linking scenario among relevant sites within an industry where no one is doing any link exchanges, there is going to be some reciprocal linking. Maybe the algo looks are the percentage of recip linking on your site compared to the percentage of recip linking on other sites across your sector of the internet. Just a thought.

[CaptainJSparrow]

Originally Posted by grandmascrotum

Before you start pulling links and pissing off link partners, let me say that I have a number of sites suffering from this "penalty" and none of them have link trades with other sites, so the "link farm" thing may not be the problem. In my case it could be interlinking between my own sites that's done it, although I'm only guessing.

Grandmascrotum, would you care to share a few of the above referenced url's with us where we could take a look? Worst case scenario, we may be able to help you determine why your sites have tanked.

[Halfdeck]

At the same time, reciprocal linking between similar sites is still a good idea, I think.

There's nothing inherently wrong with reciprocal linking. If I link to you one day because I like what you wrote, and then you link to me two months later because you liked something I said, that kind of reciprocal linking happens often and its not a problem.

It's also not about relevance; it's about intent: why are two sites linking to each other? If its an exchange to boost traffic or increase brand awareness, Google's recommendation is to tag the link with nofollow. If its an exchange to improve search engine ranking, then Google's recommendation is, again, tag it with nofollow.

Using nofollow is a last resort. A smarter approach is to reduce the chance of detection by making links look more organic.

As spacemanpiff said, Google doesn't mind a moderate level of exchanged links. If a large percentage of your IBLs is organic, a few link trades aren't going to hurt you.

This being so, is it enough to move the links from the bottom of our pages to somewhere in the middle (or put them all over the page) and, of course, change the anchor text and put a description to each site...or to be reincluded must we pull all of those links to show that we are not a part of that link farm anymore?

If you want to take a conservative approach, you might try emulating a directory-type layout. For example:

"http://www.business.com/directory/accounting/employment/"

Still, you might not see any improvement until Google is convinced the entire network is clean.

Though artifical links like cat-page links are potential problems, I think a bigger problem is the lack of organic links. Many mainstream sites rank using artifical links but they also have natural links as a supporting backbone to create a balanced link profile. We don't have that luxury.

I have a number of sites suffering from this "penalty" and none of them have link trades with other sites

Msnaughty has a few exchanged links (blogroll, links to free sites, sugasm links). On the other hand, forthegirls don't link out, and it ranks on the first page for its target keyword.

[CaptainJSparrow]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

If its an exchange to improve search engine ranking, then Google's recommendation is, again, tag it with nofollow.

My understanding is that if you tag a link with "nofollow" then it will not improve search engine ranking. Is that not the general consensus?

[Ms Naughty]

I was thinking of this site: www.sexforwomen.net

It only has one link exchange and is made primarily of articles. I haven't changed it in ages, and it's probably overoptimised. It's also guilty of interlinking between my own sites. This site is on page 10 for numerous keywords.

There was a time, way back in the distant past, when it was number 1 for a quite a few phrases.

I'm thinking I need to go and nofollow all my own links to see what happens.

[CaptainJSparrow]

Originally Posted by grandmascrotum

I was thinking of this site: www.sexforwomen.net

It only has one link exchange and is made primarily of articles. I haven't changed it in ages, and it's probably overoptimised. It's also guilty of interlinking between my own sites. This site is on page 10 for numerous keywords.

There was a time, way back in the distant past, when it was number 1 for a quite a few phrases.

I'm thinking I need to go and nofollow all my own links to see what happens.

I'm not too sure that that site would be a good example as far helping to further our discussion regarding whether the old way of exchanging links could be hurting us. Just the fact that it hasn't been changed (updated, I assume you mean?) in ages is enough to get it buried. The interlinking between your own sites could also support the theory that you might be penalized as part of a network.