6 Ways to Recover from Bad Links

Posted by Dr. Pete It’s a story we hear too often: someone hires a bad SEO, that SEO builds a bunch of spammy links, he/she cashes their check, and then bam – penalty! Whether you got bad advice, “your friend” built those links, or you’ve got the guts to admit you did it yourself, undoing the damage isn’t easy. If you’ve sincerely repented, I’d like to offer you 6 ways to recover and hopefully get back on Google’s Nice list in time for the holidays. This is a diagram of a theoretical situation that I’ll use throughout the post. Here’s a page that has tipped the balance and has too many bad (B) links – of course, each (B) and (G) could represent 100s or 1000s of links, and the 50/50 split is just for the visual: Be Sure It’s Links Before you do anything radical (one of these solutions is last-ditch), make sure it’s bad links that got you into trouble. Separating out a link-based penalty from a devaluation, technical issue, Panda “penalty”, etc. isn’t easy. I created a 10 minute audit a while back, but that’s only the tip of the iceberg. In most cases, Google will only devalue bad links, essentially turning down the volume knob on their ability to pass link-juice. Here are some other potential culprits: You’ve got severe down-time or latency issues. You’re blocking your site (Robots.txt, Meta Robots, etc.). You’ve set up bad canonicals or redirects. Your site has massive duplicate content. You’ve been hacked or hit with malware. Diagnosing these issues is beyond the scope of this post, but just make sure the links are the problem before you start taking a machete to your site. Let’s assume you’ve done your homework, though, and you know you’ve got link problems… 1. Wait It Out In some cases, you could just wait it out. Let’s say, for example, that someone launched an SQL injection attack on multiple sites, pointing 1000s of spammy links at you. In many cases, those links will be quickly removed by webmasters, and/or Google will spot the problem. If it’s obvious the links aren’t your fault, Google will often resolve it (if not, see #5). Even if the links are your responsibility (whether you built them or hired someone who did), links tend to devalue over time. If the problem isn’t too severe and if the penalty is algorithmic, a small percentage of bad links falling off the link graph could tip the balance back in your favor: That’s not to say that old links have no power, but just that low-value links naturally fall off the link-graph over time. For example, if someone builds a ton of spammy blog comment links to your site, those blog posts will eventually be archived and may even drop out of the index. That cuts both ways – if those links are harming you, their ability to harm will fade over time, too. 2. Cut the Links Unfortunately, you can’t usually afford to wait. So, why not just remove the bad links? Well, that’s the obvious solution, but there are two major, practical issues: (a) What if you can’t? This is the usual problem. In many cases, you won’t have control over the sites in question or won’t have login credentials (because your SEO didn’t give them to you). You could contact the webmasters, but if you’re talking about 100s of bad links, that’s just not practical. The kind of site that’s easy to spam isn’t typically the kind of site that’s going to hand remove a link, either. (b) Which links do you cut? If you thought (a) was annoying, there’s an even bigger problem. What if some of those bad links are actually helping you? Google penalizes links based on patterns, in most cases, and it’s the behavior as a whole that got you into trouble. That doesn’t mean that every spammy link is hurting you. Unfortunately, separating the bad from the merely suspicious is incredibly tough. For the rest of this post, let’s assume that you’re primarily dealing with (a) – you have a pretty good idea which links are the worst offenders, but you just can’t get access to remove them. Sadly, there’s no way to surgically remove the link from the receiving end (this is actually a bit of an obsession of mine), but you do have a couple of options. 3. Cut the Page If the links are all (or mostly) targeted at deep, low-value pages, you could pull a disappearing act: In most cases, you’ll need to remove the page completely (and return a 404). This can neuter the links at the target. In some cases, if the penalty isn’t too severe, you may be able to 301-redirect the page to another, relevant page and shake the bad links loose. If all of your bad links are hitting a deep page, count yourself lucky. In most cases, the majority of bad links are targeted at a site’s home-page (like the majority of any links), so the situation gets a bit uglier. 4. Build Good Links In some sense, this is the active version of #2. Instead of waiting for bad links to fade, build up more good links to tip the balance back in your favor: By “good”, I mean relevant, high-authority links – if your link profile is borderline, focus on quality over quantity for a while. Rand has a great post on link valuation that I highly recommend - it’s not nearly as simple as we sometimes try to make it. This approach is for cases where you may be on the border of a penalty or the penalty isn’t very severe. Fair warning: it will take time. If you can’t afford that time, have been hit hard, or suspect a manual penalty, you may have to resort to one of the next two options… 5. Appeal to Google If you’ve done your best to address the bad links, but either hit a wall or don’t see your rankings improve, you may have to appeal to Google directly. Specifically, this means filing a reconsideration request through Google Webmaster Tools. Rhea at Outspoken had an excellent post recently on how to file for reconsideration , but a couple of key points: Be honest, specific and detailed. Show that you’ve made an effort. Act like you mean it (better yet: mean it). If Google determines that your situation is relevant for reconsideration (a process which is probably semi-automated), then it’s going to fall into the hands of a Google employee. They have to review 1000s of these requests, so if you rant, provide no details, or don’t do your homework, they’ll toss your request and move on. No matter how wronged you may feel, suck it up and play nice. 6. Find a New Home If all else fails, and you’ve really burned your home to the ground and salted the earth around it, you may have to move: Of course, you could just buy a new domain, move the site, and start over, but then you’ll lose all of your inbound links and off-page ranking factors, at least until you can rebuild some of them. The other option is to 301-redirect to a new domain. It’s not risk-free, but in many cases a site-to-site redirect does seem to neuter bad links. Of course, it will very likely also devalue some of your good links. I’d recommend the 301-redirect if the bad links are old and spammy. In other words, if you engaged in low-value tactics in the past but have moved on, a 301 to a new domain may very well lift the penalty. If you’ve got a ton of paid links or you’ve obviously built an active link farm (that’s still in play), you may find the penalty comes back and all your efforts were pointless. A Modest Proposal I’d like to end this by making a suggestion to Google. Sometimes, people inherit a bad situation (like a former SEO’s black-hat tactics) or are targeted with bad links maliciously. Currently, there is no mechanism to remove a link from the target side. If you point a link at me, I can’t say: “No, I don’t want it.” Search engines understand this and adjust for it to a point, but I really believe that there should be an equivalent of nofollow for the receiving end of a link. Of course, a link-based attribute is impossible from the receiving end, and a page-based directive (like Meta Robots) is probably impractical. My proposal is to create a new Robots.txt directive called “Disconnect”. I imagine it looking something like this: Essentially, this would tell search engines to block any links to the target site coming from “www.badsite.com” and not consider them as part of the link-graph. I’d also recommend a wild-card version to cover all sub-domains: Is this computationally possible, given the way Google and Bing process the link-graph? I honestly don’t know. I believe, though, that the Robots.txt level would probably be the easiest to implement and would cover most cases I’ve encountered. While I recognize that Google and Bing treat bad links with wide latitude and recognize that site owners can’t fully control incoming links, I’ve seen too many cases at this point of people who have been harmed by links they don’t have control over (sometimes, through no fault of their own). If links are going to continue to be the primary currency of ranking (and that is debatable), then I think it’s time the search engines gave us a way to cut links from both ends. Update (December 15th) From the comments, I wanted to clarify a couple of things regarding the “Disconnect” directive. First off, this is NOT  an existing Robots.txt option. This is just my suggestion (apparently, a few people got the wrong idea). Second, I really did intend this as more of a platform for discussion. I don’t believe Google or Bing are likely to support the change. One common argument in the comments was that adding a “Disconnect” option would allow black-hats to game the system by placing risky links, knowing they could be easily cut. While this is a good point, theoretically, I don’t think it’s a big practical concern. The reality is that black-hats can already do this. It’s easy to create paid links, link farms, etc. that you control, and then cut them if you run into trouble. Some SEO firms have even built up spammy links to get a short-term boost, and then cut them before Google catches on (I think that was part of the JC Penney scheme, actually). Almost by definition, the “Disconnect” directive (or any similar tool) would be more for people who can’t control the links. In some cases, these may be malicious links, but most of the time, it would be links that other people created on their behalf that they no longer have control over. Do you like this post? Yes No

Excerpt from:
6 Ways to Recover from Bad Links

Wake Up SEOs, the New Google is Here

Posted by gfiorelli1 This post was originally in YouMoz , and was promoted to the main blog because it provides great value and interest to our community. The author’s views are entirely his or her own and may not reflect the views of SEOmoz, Inc. I must admit that lately Google is the cause of my headaches. No, not just because it decided I was not going to be not provided with useful information about my sites. And neither because it is changing practically every tool I got used since my first days as an SEO (Google Analytics, Webmaster Tools, Gmail…). And, honestly, not only because it released a ravenous Panda. No, the real question that is causing my headaches is: What the hell does Google want to go with all these changes? Let me start quoting the definition of SEO Google gives in its Guidelines: Search engine optimization is about putting your site’s best foot forward when it comes to visibility in search engines, but your ultimate consumers are your users, not search engines. Technical SEO still matters, a lot! If you want to put your site’s best foot forward and make it the most visible possible in search engines, then you have to be a master in technical SEO. We all know that if we do not pay attention to the navigation architecture of our site, if we don’t care about the on-page optimization, if we mess up with the rel=”canonical” tag, the pagination and the faceted navigation of our web, and if we don’t pay attention to the internal content duplication, etc. etc., well, we are not going to go that far with Search. Is all this obvious? Yes, it is. But people in our circle tend to pay attention just to the last bright shining object and forget what one of the basic pillars of our discipline is: make a site optimized to be visible in the search engines. The next time you hear someone saying “Content is King” or “Social is the new link building”, snap her face and ask her when it was the last time she logged in Google Webmaster Tools. Go fix your site, make it indexable and solve all the technical problems it may have. Just after done that, you can start doing all the rest. User is king Technical SEO still matters, but that does not mean that it is synonym of SEO. So, if you hear someone affirming it, please snap her face too. User and useful have the same root: use. And a user finds useful a website when it offers an answer to her needs, and if its use is easy and fast.. From the point of view that Google has of User, that means that a site to rank: must be fast; must have useful content and related to what it pretends to be about; must be presented to Google so that it can understand the best it can what it is about. The first point explains the emphasis Google gives to site speed , because it is really highly correlated to a better user experience. The second is related to the quality of the content of a site, and it is substantially what Panda is all about. Panda, if we want to reduce it at its minimal terms, is the attempt by Google of cleaning its SERPs of any content it does not consider useful for the end users. The third explains the Schema.org adoption and why Google (and the other Search Engines) are definitely moving to the Semantic Web: because it helps search engines organize the bazillion contents they index every second. And the most they understand really what is your content about, the better they will deliver it in the SERPs. The decline of Link graph We all know that just with on-site optimization we cannot win the SERPs war, and that we need links to our site to make it authoritative. But we all know how much the link graph can be gamed. Even though we still have tons of reasons to complain with Google about the quality of SERPs, especially due to sites that ranks thanks to manipulative link building tactics, it is hard for me to believe that Google is doing nothing in order to counteract this situation. What I believe is that Google has decided to solve the problem not with patches but with a totally new kind of graph. That does not mean that links are not needed anymore, not at all, as links related factors still represent (and will represent) a great portion of all the ranking factors, but other factors are now cooked in the ranking pot. Be Social and become a trusted seed In a Social-Caffeinated era, the faster way to understand if a content is popular is to check its “relative” popularity in the social media environment. I say “relative”, because not all contents are the same and if a meme needs many tweets, +1 and likes/share to be considered more popular than others, it is not so for more niche kind of contents. Combining social signals with the traditional link graph , Google can understand the real popularity of a page. The problem , as many are saying since almost one year, is that it is quite easy to spam in Social Media. For this reason Google introduced the concepts of Author and Publisher and, even more important, Google linked them to the Google Profiles and is pushing Google Plus, which is not just another Social Media, but what Google aims to be in the future: a social search engine. Rel=”author” and Rel=”publisher” are the solution Google is adopting in order to better control, within other things, the spam pollution of the SERPs. If you are a blogger, you will be incentivized in marking your content with Author and link it to your G+ Profile, and as a Site, you are incentivized to create your G+ Business page and to promote it with a badge on you site that has the rel=”publisher” in its code. Trusted seeds are not anymore only sites , but can be also persons (i.e.: Rand or Danny Sullivan) or social facets of an entity… so, the closer I am in the Social Graph to those persons//entity the more trusted I am to Google eyes. As we can see, Google is not trying to rely only on the link graph, as it is quite easy to game, but it is not simply adding the social signals to the link graph, because they too can be gamed. What Google is doing is creating and refining a new graph that see cooperating Link graph, Social graph and Trust graph and which is possibly harder to game. Because it can be gamed still, but – hopefully – needing so many efforts that it may become not-viable as a practice. Wake up SEOs, the new Google is here As a conclusion, let me borrow what Larry Page wrote on Google+ (bold is mine): Our ultimate ambition is to transform the overall Google experience […] because we understand what you want and can deliver it instantly. This means baking identity and sharing into all of our products so that we build a real relationship with our users. Sharing on the web will be like sharing in real life across all your stuff. You’ll have better, more relevant search results and ads. Think about it this way … last quarter, we’ve shipped the +, and now we’re going to ship the Google part. I think that it says it all and what we have lived a year now is explained clearly by the Larry Page words. What can we do as SEOs? Evolve, because SEO is not dieing, but SEOs can if they don’t assume that winter – oops – the change of Google is coming.   Do you like this post? Yes No

Read the original:
Wake Up SEOs, the New Google is Here

Schema.org – Why You’re Behind if You’re Not Using It…

Posted by CraigBradford If someone told you that there was a quick and easy way that many of you could improve your SERP CTR for minimal effort, you’d all stop in your tracks and give them full attention. Yet, Schema.org and rich snippets are still horribly under-utilized. Since Google (and Bing!) officially introduced schema.org in June , it’s fair to say motivation to implement it has been mixed. However since its introduction Schema.org has already evolved a lot, adding a lot of new stuff that people haven’t paid attention to. Here I try to persuade you there are few downsides and plenty of upsides. Myth: Schema.org markup doesn’t get rich snippets! A common objection I hear to people not using Schema is that there’s no point because Google don’t use it for rich snippets. WRONG! This was true, but is no longer; lots of websites in different markets have taken a leap of faith and are seeing the benefits in the form of rich snippets. Examples of Schema.org Rich Snippets Showing in Google The following are all examples of websites that are currently using the Schema.org vocabulary: E-Commerce Image Source  |  See The Example Page TV Series Image Source  |  See The Example Page Movies Image Source  |  See The Example Page Events Image Source  |  See The Example Page Recipe Image Source  |  See Example Page As you can see Schema.org is definitely being used by Google. Schema.org is not a language. Schema.org is a Microdata vocabulary; not a language in and of itself. Let me explain the difference, as there is still a lot of confusion in the SEO community. There are various languages that do the job we’re discussing: Microformats Microdata RDFa When marking up any content on a page for rich snippets or similar machine readable reasons, the method of doing so is always a mix between one of these and a vocabulary. See the example below of using Microdata with the schema.org vocabulary. Of the language and vocabulary above, it’s the vocabulary part that all the search engines have agreed to standardize with schema.org. When Google originally announce that they were going to support the Schema.org vocabulary, they also dropped the bombshell that they supported only Microdata. They also said that although they would continue to support the existing rich snippets markup, you should avoid mixing the formats together as it can confuse their parsers. The fact that you couldn’t mix Schema.org and microformats or RDFa annoyed a lot of people and as @TomAnthonySEO pointed out in his HTML5 blog post, Kavi Goel from Google later said this was a mistake and they are fixing it. You can read the discussion here BREAKING NEWS: 2 days ago a pretty big announcement was made on the Schema.org blog . There are plans in the pipeline for the Schema.org vocabulary to be used with the RDFa language; with support for using other vocabularies on the same page. 5 underused Schema.org applications I personally believe that Schema.org is the future and if you’ve not already done so, you should be implementing it right now. Regardless of what type of website you have, there are always ways you can use Schema.org, even if it’s simply defining an article and the publish date. That being said, there are cases where I think you can gain even more by implementing it, here are my top 5 examples of ways I think Schema.org should be getting used. Events. The event sschema lets you get really specific about what type of event you are describing. Right now you can specify an event as any of the items shown in the image below. With the recent QDF update, it’s important that you give Google as much information as possible. Events by their very nature are obviously time sensitive so using schema.org to enforce event details is obviously a good idea. The events schema is a pretty comprehensive vocabulary, you are able to markup things like; attendees, duration, performers, location and the start and end date. For more information see the events page: http://schema.org/Event . Jobs I don’t think I can describe how amazing this is. The jobs markup is a recent addition to the schema.org vocabulary and was announced last week on the schema blog . Even more amazing is what was announced on the Google blog today. Google have just launched a custom search engine that specifically looks for Schema.org job markup. The custom search engine is used to find veteran-committed job openings. You can read the blog post here . I would love to see search related queries returning results like that in the example below. Reputation Management This isn’t ground breaking so I’ll make it quick. Make use of the Person Schema to make the best page online about the person in question. Not only can you mark up the obvious things like name and age, you can use the tiny details such as what university they went to (alumniOf), what awards they have won (awards), where they work (worksFor), who their colleagues are (colleagues) and even who their family are (parents, siblings, spouse, relatedTo). This is an easy way to make a super targeted page around a single person. I tried this on my own blog and marked up as much as I could. (Disclaimer: I’ve not got round to actually writing a blog post yet but you can see my about Craig page that I used as a schema test. When you put this page into the Google rich snippets tool, look how much information they are now able to extract. That is an amazing amount of information and is now obviously an awesome result to Display when some one searches my name. This is how it would look in the SERPS as well. News Sites The recent QDF update reinforces how committed Google are to displaying fresh content where appropriate. Schema has now extended the vocabulary to include a section specifically for the news industry . This now allows you to reference a particular page or column in the physical paper edition if appropriate. The image below shows the recent additions. News sites should be using this to markup to tell the search engines what their content is about and when it was published. E-commerce I can’t believe how many e-commerce websites I see without any markup at all. People spend so much time trying to rank higher and forget to get the low hanging fruit. Rich snippets are an amazing way to increase click through rates by drawing attention to your listing. The Ebay example shows how much the stars help make the listing stand out. Wrap up I hope I’ve managed to convince you that Schema.org is worth implementing right now . There are already the benefits of rich snippets to be had but this isn’t just about rich snippets; it’s about creating content that machines can understand and reference. There are already services that try to make use of this kind of information such as Silk , Apples Siri and potentially Wiredoo . Ensuring that you are ahead of your competitors can only be a good thing. For those of you that don’t know me, my name is Craig Bradford and I work at Distilled as an SEO consultant. If you have any questions please leave comments or ask me on twitter @CraigBradford Do you like this post? Yes No

Continue reading here:
Schema.org – Why You’re Behind if You’re Not Using It…