Google removed links

[Tig]

We have been under an attack by a rival web design company (Tacoma Web Design & Print :: Artifex Business Identity Development) for about a year. I got so sick of it that I've decided to file suit against them for libel, defamation of character, and copyright infringement (they actually took one of our marketing sites, copied it, and acted like they'd done it!).
However, it looks like they have been lobbying Google against us too. We have about 50 clients, and are all cross-linked with us. However, in doing a link search of Tacoma Web Design, Seattle Web Design, Puyallup Web Design, Internet Marketing Specialists, all our clients are now gone from the cross-links, which has hurt our ranking and listings.
I have no doubt this is the work of the same company. My question is: When some of these links have been there for years, and are now gone, does anyone have any idea how to get them back? I don't want to resort to the same black-hat techniques as my competitor. They can act as illegally as they want, I won't do it.
So does anyone have any help in getting the cross-links back the right way?
Thanks!

[wige]

The first suggestion I would have is to change the link text. If the other party is attempting to alter your link profile to make your links appear spammy by copying your links to spam sites to cause the original links to be devauled, changing that text may undue any penalty.

Second, make sure the links in question are not reciprocal. Google places less wieght on reciprocal links than one way links. Relevance is also becoming more important. If you have a reciprocal link on a car parts site you designed, I wouldn't necessarily be suprised if that link vanished because Google considered it worthless. (This link should probably be marked with nofollow or omitted anyway)

Third, bear in mind that Google is constantly changing their algorithms. They are placing more importance on finding and devaluing links that are paid (or possibly paid) and as a result your position in the serps can fluctuate. A spam report from your competitor is unlikely to result in a manual penalty unless you are doing something blatantly black hat - submissions are reviewed and spammy techniques are then recorded and used to modify how the bots detect black hat techniques.

Fourth, remember that the Google link: query is intentionally inaccurate. The best way to see what links Google knows about and processes is to check webmaster tools.

If there is a standard link you use on every site you develop, and those links make up a significant portion of your link profile, you need to be prepared in case that link is devalued by Google.

[Tig]

Wige,
That's some great information. However, I've always read that it's best to keep link text the same to better your chances in search engines. For instance, if you are a web desgin company, wouldn't it be better to keep using "web design," rather than alternating "web design," "web marketing," "web company?"

Granted, it's been few hours since I did my studying so it's probably changed (grin), but I've also read that reciprocal links bear more weight than one-way links. Is that a recent change?

Thanks for the great ideas so far!
Ty

[freelancedesigners.com]

Originally Posted by Tig

if you are a web desgin company, wouldn't it be better to keep using "web design," rather than alternating "web design," "web marketing," "web company?"

From my experience using the same phrase will incur a penalty for overkill of the same phrase - so it would actually be better to use variations like "web design," "web marketing," "web company"

[wige]

Additionally, in those cases where the link only has one or two words, there is usually surrounding text. Google will look at this surrounding text to try to figure out relevance. Changes to this outside text can help, because it is unlikely that several links would occur naturally with the same surrounding text.

In other words, you shouldn't have ten links that say:
Hey, check out my <a>web design</a> company.
This will make Google suspicious. You should mix it up
My <a>web design</a> company is Name
Visit Name <a>web design</a>.
etc.

[mpilatow]

Originally Posted by Tig

Wige,
wouldn't it be better to keep using "web design," rather than alternating "web design," "web marketing," "web company?"

Granted, it's been few hours since I did my studying so it's probably changed (grin), but I've also read that reciprocal links bear more weight than one-way links. Is that a recent change?

Thanks for the great ideas so far!
Ty

On your first question. Not necessarily, Google wants natural links and if every single link has the same exact anchor text it does not necessarily look natural. It would be better to switch it up. You could use terms like "web design", "website design", "web development", etc.

On your second question, reciprocal links were never more valuable than one-way links. They did work well back in the day but their weight has been devalued for a while now. It does not mean that they can't help a bit but one way links are much better. Google looks at a link as a vote for a site. If you have one way links to your site it looks like people are "voting" for it. If you have nothing but a bunch of reciprocal links it does not look like a vote. Rather it looks like you and the other site have an agreement and those links are devalued because they are not considered true editorial "votes". A few reciprocal links are OK but if your link profile is made up primarily reciprocal links you will get little to no value from them.

[Peter (IMC)]

However, it looks like they have been lobbying Google against us too.

Lobbying Google to screw a competitor? I'm sure that Google is far from being a saint, but that just doesn't make sense. If Google took action on something you did, it's because you did something wrong. Unlikely that they do something because a competitor doesn't like you.

We have about 50 clients, and are all cross-linked with us.

You used the word "cross-linked". What exactly do you mean with that? Just standard link exchanges or did you link all your clienst with each other and your self in the middle? In case it is just link exchanges you should be fine.

If I were you I would completely ignore this problem and work on other marketing techniques to get more clients. I know most small companies just use Google, but the reality is that if you do all the other marketing stuff,... you'll do good in Google as well.

[craigmn3]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Lobbying Google to screw a competitor? I'm sure that Google is far from being a saint, but that just doesn't make sense. If Google took action on something you did, it's because you did something wrong. Unlikely that they do something because a competitor doesn't like you.

How hard would it be to copy a competitors site and then use the google report feature to report them in violation? Does Google have the resources to check the web caches and see which one is older?

There are nasty cut throat people out there and google report can be misused as well as used.

I personally dislike the google tattle feature. They should be able to monitor they're own listings without asking us to do so. Anytime you open up a "useful" feature someone is going to find away to abuse it.

But as for what your going to have to do now? you have to fight. "The time for half measures are over" do what you have to do to fix this

[colincartwright]

I would be tempted to say if you tell us who they are and where they are, we'll go round with the baseball bat and sort them out for you! I truly hate people like this. No skill, no work ethic and mostly no idea what they are doing which is why they have to copy everyone else. Don't be put of and don't let them grind you down. Like others have said, if you do the right type of work in the right way, you and your clients will eventually win out. Also unlikely that google has necessarily taken any notice of what they have tried to do. More likely the type of linking you used has just been devalued by google's ever changing way of looking at things. Get the site right and the content right and you'll stay on top. Good luck!

[activeco]

Originally Posted by Tig

...but I've also read that reciprocal links bear more weight than one-way links.

There is no logic in that statement. Besides, you probably read a very old article.
The current no-no term is "excessive reciprocal linking". The threshold is unknown, but you probably crossed the edge.
Try to get more one way links (if it makes any sense) or reduce reciprocal ones.

[simmo]

Originally Posted by Tig

....(they actually took one of our marketing sites, copied it, and acted like they'd done it!)....

Was the whole site so easy to copy? Could you have secure server-side scripts and include code that will make any copied pages obvious if anyone views the copied site?

Did they copy any photos or did they link to them? If the latter, you could alter your site's photo names and paths and modify the original to contain some very inflattering pictures/comments about your competitors. Apart frpm anything else, they are sucking up your bandwidth.

[wige]

Most web sites are very easy to copy. In fact, if you have a dedicated Linux web server, you have a program already installed that can scan a remote web site and exactly duplicate it on your own server. I have used this technology quite frequently, mostly to keep local copies of supplier data up to date. That way I don't have to go outside to retrieve the data when one of my visitors wants it. There is almost no way to stop a determined attacker using this method.

[Tig]

This has turned into a great discussion. As far as the actual copyright issue, we are suing them (and publishing everything they did so everyone knows about it... lol). The site was just a regular web site so it could be indexed by the search engines easily.

What really got me was that they used it to show customers how good they were. Now I'm emailing their clients with the truth. Even worse, they are a local competitor. Their office isn't more than 20 miles away from mine.

And I do believe they were using black-hat techniques against me. I rechecked everything and my reciprocals aren't that many. I had also already changed much of the linking to different types of text.

Peter, I liked your marketing comment, and I'm not dependent on Google. In fact, most of our business comes from mail marketing, not the Internet. And whatever business we've lost is short-term. I believe we will get it back when these guys go under.

Colin, I've thought of that myself, but I try to think of what Jesus would do. I know if we just keep the upright, moral path, we will win out in the end.

Ty

[privatefleet]

Hi Tig,

It is my understanding that if spam, copyright issues etc are reported to Google, they use the information to modify their algos in some way rather than manually interfering so I doubt you will have been penalised in any way as a result of these guys.

Hopefully it will come as consolation that if they do copy part of your website, as long as your site and content has been up and indexed by Google for a while, it will probably be treated as dupe content and won't show up in the SERPs. Copying content from another website would have to rank as one of the worst things you can do for SEO. take heart in that!

Lastly, playing around with their site it appears they have ripped off some content from another company. The content on Tacoma Graphic Design Services :: Artifex Business Identity Development, Tacoma Washington matches the content on Six Digit Media, LLC | Web Design & Development | Company Branding

Why not contact the latter and let them know about these underhand tactics

[activeco]

Tig, if they are thieves, I don't understand why do you give them credits with one way links from here and nice anchor text?

[Mumtaz]

Originally Posted by Tig

We have been under an attack by a rival web design company (Tacoma Web Design & Print :: Artifex Business Identity Development) for about a year. I got so sick of it that I've decided to file suit against them for libel, defamation of character, and copyright infringement (they actually took one of our marketing sites, copied it, and acted like they'd done it!).
However, it looks like they have been lobbying Google against us too. We have about 50 clients, and are all cross-linked with us. However, in doing a link search of Tacoma Web Design, Seattle Web Design, Puyallup Web Design, Internet Marketing Specialists, all our clients are now gone from the cross-links, which has hurt our ranking and listings.
I have no doubt this is the work of the same company. My question is: When some of these links have been there for years, and are now gone, does anyone have any idea how to get them back? I don't want to resort to the same black-hat techniques as my competitor. They can act as illegally as they want, I won't do it.
So does anyone have any help in getting the cross-links back the right way?
Thanks!

1. What do you mean by cross links?
2. Reciprocal links are usually devalued as compared to one-way relevant links. Google probably cannot find out that the reciprocal links on your site come from your clients. So, it would be better if you match reciprocal links with a larger number of one-way relevant links (unpaid) to keep the ratio of reciprocal links on the lower side.
3. You may add more features to your site to improve its ranking such as relevant articles, blogs, forums and links to relevant sites such as those of seo, link building, sem if you are not yourself engaged in these activities.

How useful is the content on your site to your customers? That is the question you need to keep in mind and keep reviewing the content from time to time and making changes accordingly.