Buying Links & Google Penalty [Archive]

marketingforte

06-18-2010, 12:25 AM

About 3 days ago one of my sites has been penalized by Google. How do I know this? We were on the 1st and 2nd pages on Google for 100+ keywords that we were targeting and business was going great. Now we are nowhere to be found. The number of pages indexed in Google is still consistent (site:domain.com) which means I'm not totally banned but words that were on the 1st page are now pretty much buried past 30 pages. And this is pretty much every single keyword that we were working hard on and spending a quite a bit of money overall.

As far as link building for SEO we've been doing manual directory submissions and paid text link ad campaigns. I know most of you are thinking "you deserve it" but I know most of you either thought about buying links or actually tried it. Anyway, the site was rising fast on many of the keywords and then BOOM! flat line.

I've researched for many hours the last couple days on link building and google penalties to refresh my memory. I used to think that since 'Website A' has no control over 'Website B', whatever links to 'Website A' shouldn't harm it since it has no control over Website B, C, D, E. etc. The worst thing google should do is just ignore the link (and they used to do that). But this experience is making me think otherwise.. Wouldn't this open doors to sabotaging competitors?

henk

06-18-2010, 07:03 AM

The worst thing google should do is just ignore the link (and they used to do that). But this experience is making me think otherwise.. Wouldn't this open doors to sabotaging competitors?

Could it be Google at first gave you credit for these links, but then they discovered they where paid links, so they started to ignored those links, as a result you have a lot less links and you drop in the rankings.

Tubby

06-18-2010, 08:55 AM

quote "We were on the 1st and 2nd pages on Google for 100+ keywords that we were targeting and business was going great. Now we are nowhere to be found. "

Google does this occasionally and the reason is not always instantly obvious . . You might be premature in "knowing" why it happened.

L R Hand

06-18-2010, 04:25 PM

mrbongos

06-18-2010, 04:36 PM

I too would wait a few days to see if the change is temporary. If nothing has changed at that time and your only link building efforts have been directory submissions and the paid links then you most certainly need to look at gaining some links via natural methods. Since you have a budget for paid links I would consider press releases as one avenue to gain some links. This would not be a complete solution to your link issue but can help "speed" the process of getting good value links.

ncseo

06-18-2010, 04:46 PM

Here are some questions and thoughts

1. How long have you waited since the penalty? It can be an algo change

2. copy some text on your homepage and google it with quotations. If your site doesnt show up then it can be a penalty
if other sites show up with your text then you're probably in the google duplicate filter

3. check ALL the OUTBOUND links....and check to see if those sites are penalized
if they are, then you can be penalized as well

4. what is the ratio of paid links to regular links?

5. are you not showing up for any keywords within the top 1000-2000 pages or did you get knocked down to 1000 page mark?

6. have you been getting the content on your site and posting it somewhere else?

claybutler

06-18-2010, 05:01 PM

Could be a fluke. My site dropped off the rankings radar for a full seven months then suddenly came back stronger than ever in one day. It ranked well for seven years straight then nearly vanished. I didn't do anything. Google kept indexing my site the whole time and even adding pages. No penalties. Statistically it looked fine it's just all my rankings except for one page dropped away for seven months. During that time I had two one day blips where it seemed to come back only to disappear again. It's tempting to point a finger and say I've been banned for doing this or that but it may not be true at all.

Fitz

06-18-2010, 05:05 PM

quote [I]"Google does this occasionally and the reason is not always instantly obvious . .

Tubby is right (usually is!) .... don't panic .... wait a bit .... it may well correct itself if it's a temporary algo tweak. Google is constantly playing with stuff and I've seen things bounce back many times.

If it *does* turn out to be a Google penalisation then you can try fixing any blackhat issues like paid links and *then* log into Google Webmaster Tools to request re-inclusion.

C0ldf1re

06-18-2010, 05:49 PM

Some people are starting to talk about the 'Caffeine Effect' and webpages suddenly disappearing from serps. See http://www.webproworld.com/webmaster-forum/threads/101750-Caffeine-Is-Live/page5 I had two similar test webpages showing on serps (no paid links or anything black-hat, they were only tests), and one suddenly disappeared completely, although still indexed. Weird!

SemAdvance

06-18-2010, 06:16 PM

I would also advise as noted by others to sit tight for a few weeks before making changes.

Google really cannot catch someone buying links if the method is such that it does not set a pattern. However I would think with the text link ads, you might have set a pattern Google could catch algorithmically. If they were PR oriented then that may be a factor as well. If you buy all PR5+ links (for example), its easy to get caught....it sets a pattern, creates a spike or aberration that they can detect.

If you think your link buys were of a pattern, then you might want to buy some more to break up the pattern and boost your results back to the front page. Not saying this will work, but if you have been pressing down on the pedal in the past, might as well keep pressing and see what happens. There is not much difference if you drop 30 pages or 100 pages.

Good luck either way!

meinking22

06-18-2010, 07:51 PM

C0ldf1re

06-18-2010, 08:10 PM

...I had two similar test webpages showing on serps (no paid links or anything black-hat, they were only tests), and one suddenly disappeared completely, although still indexed. Weird!

Update The pages have just bounced back to #1 and #2 on Google serps. (It was just an obscure keyphrase as a test, with only 470 other sites in competition, so nothing to boast about.) However, Caffeine has proved its speed. From creating a new webpage to #1 on serps in 29 hours. It is hard to criticise that. I just hope that the story ends as happily for the other people on this thread.

deepsand

06-18-2010, 08:50 PM

With the implementation of Caffeine, there have been numerous reports of Googlebots repeatedly banging away at the same pages, copious quantities of previously indexed pages having gone missing from WMT, and great SERP volatility.

Until Caffeine's birthing spasms are in the past, all here is pure speculation.

C0ldf1re

06-18-2010, 09:42 PM

... copious quantities of previously indexed pages having gone missing from WMT...

WMT = Wal-Mart? We don't have them in this country.

deepsand

06-18-2010, 10:02 PM

WebMaster Tool

vivianrollins

06-18-2010, 11:45 PM

if your site is still indexed, then you are fine. its the google dance. it happened to me on several sites too. one day, gone nowhere to be found but within 1 month, it came right back up.

Target Webs

06-19-2010, 12:41 AM

I'd agree with the most common recommendation others are providing "wait about a week or even two"....... and start checking all of your keyword phrases again. I too have experienced the "popping in and out" with several sites.........fortunately they eventually stabilized where we were hoping for originally.

It's a "hair pulling" experience, that's for certain. Especially when your doing the SEO on a client's website and ZAP they're GONE! An aspect few clients are able to grasp is the "time" element of effective SEO.

Good Luck!

C0ldf1re

06-19-2010, 03:04 AM

WebMaster Tool

OK. Show off that you're cleverer than me! (Sob...)

webullswobble

06-19-2010, 04:18 AM

Google really cannot catch someone buying links if the method is such that it does not set a pattern. However I would think with the text link ads, you might have set a pattern Google could catch algorithmically. If they were PR oriented then that may be a factor as well. If you buy all PR5+ links (for example), its easy to get caught....it sets a pattern, creates a spike or aberration that they can detect.

If you think your link buys were of a pattern, then you might want to buy some more to break up the pattern and boost your results back to the front page. Not saying this will work, but if you have been pressing down on the pedal in the past, might as well keep pressing and see what happens. There is not much difference if you drop 30 pages or 100 pages.

Good luck either way!

Dead Right

If at first you don't succeed try try and try again. Maybe even get some of those Indian seo linkbuilding experts I see advertising a lot on board.

C0ldf1re

06-19-2010, 08:34 PM

... those Indian seo linkbuilding experts I see advertising a lot on board.

If only Google could perfect an algorithm to detect and discount spam postings. But surely their herd of PhD's can manage thst?

TechEvangelist

06-20-2010, 10:40 AM

@marketingforte, it sounds like you have a weak link building plan. From my testing, submitting sites to the thousands of free link directories is mostly ineffective. We ran a test with one of our clients last year who insisted that they wanted to try one the Indian directory submission services. They paid for submissions to 1000 directories. The company did indeed submit the site to the directories, but every submission that we checked was on a PageRank zero page and not a single directory submission has ever showed up as a backlink in Google or Yahoo. We found no benefit from the link submissions.

Some local and niche directories do help. The key is to look to see if the site is showing any PageRank for the inner pages, especially the page where you links reside. When Google went on their paid link vendetta a few years ago, they penalized most directories with a gray-barred PageRank value for almost all of the inner pages. For a mature web page, when there isn't any PageRank, there isn't any link juice to pass. The link has therefore been effectively neutered.

As for other sites that sell links, the safest bet is to use sites that embed your link within the text of an article related to your site's theme. IMHO, the worst paid links to buy are footer links, because it is typically obvious that they are paid links, especially if they are linked to unrelated sites.

It is very possible that your link building history is the root of your problem, but don't focus on that alone. If you are running an autoblog or are using content found on other sites, your site may have been flagged by the duplicate content filter. Using duplicate content is always a roll of the dice and most sites eventually get hit by the duplicate content filters.

Although Google denies that the duplicate content filter is a penalty (technically it may not be), the effect is the same.

Makes sure that all of your content is unique and focus on building quality links from sites related to your site's theme.

deepsand

06-20-2010, 05:23 PM

Although Google denies that the duplicate content filter is a penalty (technically it may not be), the effect is the same.
No, the effect is not the same.

This has been long and well discussed in numerous threads, both here and elsewhere, such that the distinction should now be clear to all who have put forth the effort to read with an unbiased eye.

Martinscholes

06-20-2010, 06:53 PM

Instead of paying for links, find websites like mine that want original content. Provide good quality content that is relevant to your field for free, on the understanding that the article etc links to your site, et voila. Relevant links that won't be penalised.

Aha! But Google will penalise for using content from other sites, too! Google now seem to be penalising people for daring to own a website, these days.

TechEvangelist

06-20-2010, 09:05 PM

No, the effect is not the same.

This has been long and well discussed in numerous threads, both here and elsewhere, such that the distinction should now be clear to all who have put forth the effort to read with an unbiased eye.

Did you notice that I called it a filter and not a penalty? I am aware of the difference. In this case, it is the net effect that I am referring to.

No offense intended, but the duplicate content filter is and continues to be a controversial topic, both here and elsewhere. If you know of a thread where a conclusion was reached and everyone was in agreement, I would really like to read it. I only occasionally visit here, so I probably missed something. When it comes to this topic, any article that you read is still just someone's opinion.

I've watched dozens of autoblogs and scraper sites that initially appeared to rank well, and a few weeks to a few months down the road suddenly disappeared from Google's radar. The same thing happens to affiliate sites using data feeds. Many of these sites eventually start getting de-indexed. Google doesn't officially call it penalty and technically it is not, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.... guess what? If you have an autoblog that Google is filtering out, from your perspective it looks like a penalty.

We don't know very much about the site owned by the person who started this thread, but if the site is built using duplicate content, getting wacked by the duplicate content filter is certainly a possibility. If the content is unique, I would immediately rule that out. Someone who thinks that link building means buying directory links and possibly paid footer links certainly fits the profile for someone who may have set up an autoblog.

I would like to see a response from the thread starter on this topic.

deepsand

06-20-2010, 09:21 PM

No offense intended, but the duplicate content penalty is and continues to be a controversial topic, both here and elsewhere. If you know of a thread where a conclusion was reached and everyone was in agreement, I would really like to read it. I only occasionally visit here, so I probably missed something.
The fact is that there is an important distinction between a penalty and a loss of that which was not rightly and irrevocably gained.

That some refuse to accept such distinction is immaterial to its existence.

Calling every loss a penalty serves no one well. It merely encourages some to look outside themselves for a place to place blame for any and all undesirable eventualities, to cry "foul" at every possible occasion.

TechEvangelist

06-20-2010, 09:37 PM

The fact is that there is an important distinction between a penalty and a loss of that which was not rightly and irrevocably gained.

That some refuse to accept such distinction is immaterial to its existence.

Calling every loss a penalty serves no one well. It merely encourages some to look outside themselves for a place to place blame for any and all undesirable eventualities, to cry "foul" at every possible occasion.

Believe me, I do agree with you. At this point all we really know about the site is that the owner thinks he was penalized for link buying. If we had the chance to look at the site, we might arrive at a totally different conclusion.

deepsand

06-20-2010, 09:57 PM

At this point all we really know about the site is that the owner thinks he was penalized for link buying.
Having paid for links be discounted is not a penalty. It's merely a failure to gain.

C0ldf1re

06-21-2010, 08:38 AM

... Calling every loss a penalty serves no one well. It merely encourages some to look outside themselves for a place to place blame for any and all undesirable eventualities, to cry "foul" at every possible occasion.

It makes them feel worse, to think that they have paid good money to try to cheat the system and gained nothing by it. It makes them feel a little better to blame Google for arbitrary and oppressive conduct. It is logical to avoid pain. Therefore it is logical for them to refuse to believe your unbiased logic!

TechEvangelist

06-21-2010, 02:25 PM

You guys are getting way too deep for the average humanoid to understand! :D

deepsand

06-21-2010, 07:35 PM

Therefore it is logical for them to refuse to believe your unbiased logic!
Rational man vs irrational man - part and parcel of the human condition; it is what sets us apart from lesser creatures.

Zolesz

07-12-2010, 02:53 AM

Yes, Google is banning websites for buying links. They have banned one of my websites after I have bought several PR5 links. :(

C0ldf1re

07-12-2010, 01:49 PM

Yes, Google is banning websites for buying links. They have banned one of my websites after I have bought several PR5 links. :(

How strange. Matt Cutts seemed to say that the only Google "penalty" would be that bought links would be discounted. Was that the only naughty thing you did?

deepsand

07-12-2010, 02:01 PM

Yes, Google is banning websites for buying links. They have banned one of my websites after I have bought several PR5 links. :(
Looking at the quantity and quality of posts, both here and at V7N, I suspect that there's more to the story than is here told.

SteveGerencser

07-12-2010, 03:53 PM

Looking at the quantity and quality of posts, both here and at V7N, I suspect that there's more to the story than is here told.

As is almost "always" the case when someone gets "banned"..

martinscleaning

07-16-2010, 03:58 AM

Same problem here, this happened a couple of months ago and I still don't seem to be getting back on track. Does anyone have a valid answer. I know that google has recently made some changes but it shouldn't knock so many sites off the map! Do we re-submit our sites and hope for the best? Is there an SEO expert out there that can help?:shock:

About 3 days ago one of my sites has been penalized by Google. How do I know this? We were on the 1st and 2nd pages on Google for 100+ keywords that we were targeting and business was going great. Now we are nowhere to be found. The number of pages indexed in Google is still consistent (site:domain.com) which means I'm not totally banned but words that were on the 1st page are now pretty much buried past 30 pages. And this is pretty much every single keyword that we were working hard on and spending a quite a bit of money overall.

As far as link building for SEO we've been doing manual directory submissions and paid text link ad campaigns. I know most of you are thinking "you deserve it" but I know most of you either thought about buying links or actually tried it. Anyway, the site was rising fast on many of the keywords and then BOOM! flat line.

I've researched for many hours the last couple days on link building and google penalties to refresh my memory. I used to think that since 'Website A' has no control over 'Website B', whatever links to 'Website A' shouldn't harm it since it has no control over Website B, C, D, E. etc. The worst thing google should do is just ignore the link (and they used to do that). But this experience is making me think otherwise.. Wouldn't this open doors to sabotaging competitors?

deepsand

07-16-2010, 02:26 PM

Same problem here, this happened a couple of months ago and I still don't seem to be getting back on track. Does anyone have a valid answer.
No single cause & effect; therefore, no single answer.

I know that google has recently made some changes but it shouldn't knock so many sites off the map!
Shouldn't?

That would hold true only if the revised SERPs are not to Google's liking. Our opinions are immaterial.

Do we re-submit our sites and hope for the best?
Repeating the same act with expectations of different results is a clinical definition of insanity. ;-)

C0ldf1re

07-17-2010, 06:54 PM

... Repeating the same act with expectations of different results is a clinical definition of insanity...

Ah... but the definition should be, "Repeating the same act in the same circumstances with expectations of different results... etc"! We have reason to believe that Google changes its algorithms frequently, and some of us think there are intermittent bugs in Google's software.

deepsand

07-17-2010, 07:41 PM

Ah... but the definition should be, "Repeating the same act in the same circumstances with expectations of different results... etc"! We have reason to believe that Google changes its algorithms frequently, and some of us think there are intermittent bugs in Google's software.
However, if the site's files are unchanged since the last crawl, then the circumstances are, from Google's perspective, unchanged, and it will not re-index them.

mjtaylor

07-18-2010, 09:54 AM

It makes them feel worse, to think that they have paid good money to try to cheat the system and gained nothing by it. It makes them feel a little better to blame Google for arbitrary and oppressive conduct. It is logical to avoid pain. Therefore it is logical for them to refuse to believe your unbiased logic!

So insightful.

C0ldf1re

07-18-2010, 10:44 AM

However, if the site's files are unchanged since the last crawl, then the circumstances are, from Google's perspective, unchanged, and it will not re-index them.

In this specific case, I probably didn't explain the problem well enough, or give people sufficient information to go on. The circumstances were these. I am building a site, and submitting a new sitemap to Google every time I add pages.

1st iteration.

Add webpages.
Submit sitemap to Google, and wait until it is re-indexed.
Do a Google search on site:example.com.
Result: example.com/queer_page.html is shown as indexed.

2nd iteration.

Add more webpages. (NB queer_page.html is NOT altered at all!)
Submit sitemap to Google, and wait until it is re-indexed.
Do a Google search on site:example.com.
Result: example.com/queer_page.html is NOT shown as indexed any more.

(It was at this point that I checked that it was not a duplicate content issue, such as had affected Clint. I made the first post on this forum, to say that it seemed that Google had either changed their algorithm again, or that there were bugs in their software that stopped it acting consistently. At this point, I did not alter queer_page.html at all, because I had more important pages to add to the website.)

3rd iteration.

Add more webpages. (NB queer_page.html is NOT altered at all!)
Submit sitemap to Google, and wait until it is re-indexed.
Do a Google search on site:example.com.
Result: example.com/queer_page.html is shown as indexed again.

My feelings at the moment are to agree with Clint, that Google releases new versions of their software without thoroughly testing it first.

CReed

07-18-2010, 02:33 PM

C0ldf1re - when performing your site search (site:example.com) are you using the same DC or are you merely going to Google.com or other TLD to perform the search?

C0ldf1re

07-18-2010, 03:11 PM

C0ldf1re - when performing your site search (site:example.com) are you using the same DC or are you merely going to Google.com or other TLD to perform the search?

Beep! Beep! (That was my ignorance alarm going off.) I'm just going to google.com, and don't know what DC means in this context.

CReed

07-18-2010, 04:00 PM

I'm just wondering if you're searching the same datacenter - by just using Google.com you may be getting different results for the site search as a result of your query being routed to different datacenters. It's not uncommon for different DCs to have slightly different indexes. Could be why you were not showing queer_page.html indexed after initially resubmitting your sitemap?

C0ldf1re

07-18-2010, 04:56 PM

.... It's not uncommon for different DCs to have slightly different indexes...

Don't leave me in suspense! How do I identify/select a Google datacentre?

deepsand

07-18-2010, 06:24 PM

Once indexed, and so long as example.com/queer_page.html continues to exist, it remains indexed.

The site: operator is notoriously unreliable.

Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.

deepsand

07-18-2010, 06:28 PM

Don't leave me in suspense! How do I identify/select a Google datacentre?
Google use dynamic load balancing to rout all service requests, both internal and external, in real time to a Data Center of their choosing. As each DC is performing crawling and/or indexing functions, as well as handling service requests from users, their local data stores are never perfectly synchronized with each other.

In Address Bar, enter IP Address of desired Data Center.

Not sure how current this list is, but try http://www.seocritique.com/datacentertool/

C0ldf1re

07-19-2010, 06:57 AM

The site: operator is notoriously unreliable.

Well, I never knew before. It wasn't "notorious" enough!

Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.

Well... According to law, if a person is absent from his home for seven years, and nobody has heard from or about him, and there is no evidence to suggest he is still alive, a Court may presume him to be dead. The Court will then issue an Order that his Will be executed, or, if intestate, his property divided according to law. (This part of my post has nothing to do with SEO. Seeing I am the Sheriff of Nottingham, I thought I'd better reassure my loyal citizens that I know a bit about the law. When I catch Robin Hood and hang him, you will know that it has all been done legally.)

Not sure how current this list is, but try http://www.seocritique.com/datacentertool/

Thanks for the explanation and the link. This seems to be a really interesting tool. It appears to have totally solved my problem. (I just wish that people would put "This Page last updated on: xx/xx/xx" on technical pages, so you know whether to rely on the information or consider it outdated.)

mjtaylor

07-19-2010, 09:26 AM

My feelings at the moment are to agree with Clint, that Google releases new versions of their software without thoroughly testing it first.

No doubt. But really, how do you fully test a new algorithm without releasing it. When Caffeine was being tested, there was a data center where you could see the possible changes, but really how do you test other than a full release?

C0ldf1re

07-19-2010, 10:03 AM

... how do you fully test a new algorithm without releasing it...

I always test new releases of my software on nasty customers. If it goes wrong, I say, "Nobody else has had these problems. It must be your hardware, or your operating errors, or other badly-behaved software on your machine, or you haven't upgraded your operating system, or you have spikes in your electrical supply, or you must have a virus, etc, etc." I then charge them for me to fix their problem. If they don't want to pay, I just invite them to take their business elsewhere. After all, I don't really like nasty customers anyway.

I only release software to nice customers after it has been field-tested on nasty customers first. One has to preserve a sense of decency.

The problem with Google is that they have no sense of discrimination. They use everybody to beta-test their software. They ought to test it on the Spamternet first, and see if it works for Russia, China, India and the Phillipines. Only once it is working properly, should Google release it to the civilised internet.

Rule One. Do no evil.
Rule Two. When you ignore Rule One, do it to somebody else.

deepsand

07-19-2010, 09:34 PM

No doubt. But really, how do you fully test a new algorithm without releasing it.
That's really quite simple; you run it on a server that's not accessible to the public! SOP.

When Caffeine was being tested, there was a data center where you could see the possible changes, but really how do you test other than a full release?
As Caffeine was not an algorithmic change, but one of new hardware, testing it live to the public would have been for testing scalability and synchronization.

deepsand

07-19-2010, 09:37 PM

This seems to be a really interesting tool. It appears to have totally solved my problem. (I just wish that people would put "This Page last updated on: xx/xx/xx" on technical pages, so you know whether to rely on the information or consider it outdated.)
Concur 286%.

The lack of such has always been one of my biggest complaints re. documentation.

claybutler

07-19-2010, 09:53 PM

That's really quite simple; you run it on a server that's not accessible to the public! SOP.
For a simple app yes. And even then it can run perfectly on one server with your test data but as soon as you have real users taxing the system it glitches up. For Google the problem is nearly impossible to comprehend. Their system is spread over tens of thousands servers processing billions of requests. They can test the best they can but even Google doesn't know how it will play out once it's live system wide.

deepsand

07-19-2010, 10:16 PM

For a simple app yes. And even then it can run perfectly on one server with your test data but as soon as you have real users taxing the system it glitches up. For Google the problem is nearly impossible to comprehend. Their system is spread over tens of thousands servers processing billions of requests. They can test the best they can but even Google doesn't know how it will play out once it's live system wide.
Changes to internal algorithms of the nature here under discussion require no testing re. either scalability or synchronization; using a full and current database, they either do or do not yield the desired results.

Test data are easily acquired from real user queries. Simply route copy of such to the test server, let it use the real database to source its SERPs, and compare with SERPs generated by present algorithm to observe changes.

C0ldf1re

07-20-2010, 05:20 AM

... They can test the best they can but even Google doesn't know how it will play out once it's live system wide.

It would certainly cost a fortune to try to emulate real-life conditions. But do Google even try to "test the best they can"? Does it even make commercial sense? The only people with a grievance are webmasters who do SEO but who don't do PPC. Does it make business sense for Google to be nice to us?