Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

@ScrittySEO That is interesting. It does continue to show that the Penguin filter is something you can slowly slip into or more importantly out of over time. We are seeing more confirmations from our own data and other people that you do not have to wait for a Penguin update to see recovery.


Thanks for sharing, please keep me posted on how it goes with disavowing you links. It would be very interesting to see how quickly it takes for Google to react to it.

11 months, 1 week ago on Penguin 2.1- What Has Changed?

Reply

@jbobbink @GeoMusson Very good point. It also explains the slow recovery we've seen on some sites yet others see a direct increase. It could simply be down to other sites dropping due to being hit.

11 months, 2 weeks ago on Penguin 2.1- What Has Changed?

Reply

@GeoMusson Thanks for the comment, I do hope that the time is coming where we will be able to fully trust the disavow tool to see recovery. It would be a lot easier, for now until we see enough confirmation on that we will certainly be disavowing and removing links. Have you seen many recoveries from Penguin with just disavowed links?

Thanks for the mention about Bing Webmaster Tools disavow, it's an excellent point and one that's easily forgotten in this Google dominating world :). I will add this into the post as an update.


11 months, 2 weeks ago on Penguin 2.1- What Has Changed?

Reply

@hitreach This wouldn't surprise me. The data Google has in Webmaster Tools seems to be very fresh yet they do seem to keep hold of the old data. Maybe its the same case with this. I assume you've requested a review to get the warning removed?

1 year, 1 month ago on WMT’s New Manual Penalty Action Confusion – Solved

Reply

@jasonacidre Thanks very interesting Jason. We haven't seen case study for a manual penalty in which simply changing the anchor has resulted in a revoke. We have always been very clear and dealt with the site-wide itself.

We have had a few sites now that we have been able to get reconsidered first time. If you are thorough enough with grabbing all links that are causing an issue then there is no reason it cannot be successful first time round.

Also, it has become more and more clear to us that you can simply submit your disavow file and reconsider your site shortly after. We are seeing evidence that the human reviewers put the disavow file over you link profile and look at what is left.

I think it is easy to forget that you are dealing with real people when reconsidering for a manual penalty. So I completely agree with your last point. If you are confident that you haven't done anything wrong, be very honest in your reconsideration and you can get revoked. They are real people at the end of the day :)

1 year, 2 months ago on Google’s Manual Penalty > Why You’re Still Doing it Wrong

Reply

@peterwatson12 Hi Peter, thanks for commenting. If you would like us to take a quick look at the competitor site we certainly can do. Just email me the URL over to adam.mason@zazzlemedia.co.uk and I will have a quick look.

1 year, 3 months ago on Surfacing Unnatural Links > Why You’re Doing it Wrong

Reply

@MarketStomper Hi Danny, Thanks for commenting. Yes we have seen great results from using this method. We have used this as part of our link removal process and seen success with that which has lead to increases in rankings.

1 year, 5 months ago on Surfacing Unnatural Links > Why You’re Doing it Wrong

Reply

 @AndyPalmerSEO Hi Andy, that's fine ask as many question as you wish.

 

Yes this method is designed mainly for clients hit with Penguin or a Manual Links Penalty. For cases where there is a drop in rankings I am not sure if this would cause an issue as such. When we have seen a drop in rankings we usually associate it with some of their links losing value (directory links etc). In this case it would find these links and remove them but this would not actually give any kind of gain.

1 year, 6 months ago on Surfacing Unnatural Links > Why You’re Doing it Wrong

Reply

 @AndyPalmerSEO Hi Andy, thanks for commenting. The results have been very consistent across the sites we have used this on. It does vary slightly per niche but it immediately picks out the low quality/ spammy domains i.e. link networks.

 

What I usually do is start with halfing the average trust ratio of the niche (as said in the article). Then look at a good few of the domains to make sure it is correct. Then remove/ disavow the links and reconsider. If Google still come back saying there are unnatural links then you can simply raise the trust ratio slightly to detect slight higher trust links that could still be causing issues. The beauty of this method is you can easily tweak the aggressiveness of the detection dependent on the niche.

 

I hope this helps.

1 year, 6 months ago on Surfacing Unnatural Links > Why You’re Doing it Wrong

Reply

 @Marc_McDermott As already stated we have found Majestic to be fresher. You are welcome to try the other link metrics also. It should work, however you may need to play around with the ratios slightly.

1 year, 6 months ago on Surfacing Unnatural Links > Why You’re Doing it Wrong

Reply

 @Marc_McDermott Hi Marc, thanks for commenting. It is actually the metrics of the domain/page themselves. That way you can find a good average of what ranks in that niche.

 

Ultimately though, the metrics of the domain are based on what links to it anyway so it is all the same thing really.

 

I hope this helps.

1 year, 6 months ago on Surfacing Unnatural Links > Why You’re Doing it Wrong

Reply

 @ProntoTimmy Hi Tim. Glad you're giving the method a try.

 

For SEO Quake I reduced the parameters down just just showing the page rank in the Google SERPs overlay.

 

For SEO Quake in Chrome this can be found in the preferences section. Then once I have grabbed the CSV and pasted it into Excel. You can simply find and replace the additional parameters out. I just replaced ;"2" with nothing. This will remove any Page Rank 2 parameter out and leave just the URL.

 

Do this for all the parameters and you will be left with just the URLs to then copy and paste them into majestic bulk backlinks checker.

 

I hope this helps. If you need any more detail you can always email me at adam.mason@zazzlemedia.co.uk or skype me on adam_zazzle.

 

1 year, 6 months ago on Surfacing Unnatural Links > Why You’re Doing it Wrong

Reply

 @marcusbowlerhat Yes I think the anchor texts are related in the sense people have overdone anchor text in the past to game the system. 

 

Haha, you should have seen me when I was first testing this method out. I nearly hit the roof when it exported a huge list of spammy blog networks. Never before discovered using the old method we had.

 

Let me know what happens.

1 year, 6 months ago on Surfacing Unnatural Links > Why You’re Doing it Wrong

Reply

 @Elaine Clay  @markba55  @AdamJamesMason Thanks Elaine. That's correct  :) The point of this new method is it ignores the links anchor texts. There are some sites now that are very smart to this and are using branded anchor texts to try to stay under the radar. Using this trust based technique to find spammy domains, even they cannot hide :)

1 year, 6 months ago on Surfacing Unnatural Links > Why You’re Doing it Wrong

Reply

@marcusbowlerhat

Thanks very much :) Yes I agree. We have used the link detox tool and seen good results from that also. 

 

We have looked at over optimised anchor text ratios a lot. I wrote a post on SEJ http://goo.gl/PKg9h that shows the targeted/ branded/ generic anchor texts we use. You may be interested to see that and see how it compares to what you use. But overall, we have seen more clients that are hit by an algorithmic filter than an actually penalty when it comes to over optimised anchor texts. Hence why I started looking for another method.

 

Please try this method out yourself. The more people test this the better. :)

 

1 year, 6 months ago on Surfacing Unnatural Links > Why You’re Doing it Wrong

Reply

 @marcusbowlerhat Hi Marcus, how did you find the post?

1 year, 6 months ago on Surfacing Unnatural Links > Why You’re Doing it Wrong

Reply

 @markba55 Thanks Mark. It is still important to make sure that things like anchor text ratio are correct, however it's looking like the anchor text ratios are hit by a separate filter rather than these manual and other link based penalties.

 

When you look at the link profile from a trust point of view you can very quickly discover the spammy blog networks that have used unethical tactics to game the system. If you think about it. removing these very low trust domains from your link profile will ultimately increase the trust of your site which Google is watching and analysing very carefully now.

 

 

1 year, 6 months ago on Surfacing Unnatural Links > Why You’re Doing it Wrong

Reply

This is a quite a big piece with a lot of info on it. Genuinely loved writing it :) If anyone has any questions let me know and I will happily help.

1 year, 6 months ago on Surfacing Unnatural Links > Why You’re Doing it Wrong

Reply

 @Kevin Shorter Thanks Kevin, it was a great conference. Aleyda's talk was one of the most actionable. A lot of people tend to think to just build a mobile site and the SEO from the desktop site will be enough. But there is so much more that can be done.

2 years ago on 129 Takeaways from Brighton SEO 2012

Reply

Thanks @simonpenson . It was a great event. It really showed the fact that Digital Marketing is maturing and is being recognised as one of the most important aspects of marketing.

2 years ago on 129 Takeaways from Brighton SEO 2012

Reply

Thanks guys. I couldn't have made it as comprehensive without the input from the Zazzle Team.

 

I hope people enjoy reading this as much as I did writing it.

2 years, 2 months ago on The Ultimate Penguin Link Removal Guide

Reply