The Positive Take Of The Unatural Links Warning In Webmaster Tools

[morestar]

Let's see if we can take a more positive look at the warning messages in Webmaster Tools regarding unatural links, shall we?

For one, at least now this message let's us know there's a problem with our website - in Google's eyes of course - and that that is why we're losing our rankings or traffic.

Another positive is that we can now find out where the problems are coming from, which sites to contact for link removals and which sites to avoid all together.

We can also determine if we're being hit by our competitors with bad-linking-schemes - that is if we're even lucky enough to get the warning message - what if you don't for a long time? If some back link checkers discredit and don't even show links from low value websites, it could be quite difficult to determine that you're under attack.

Has anyone actually recovered after receiving a Webmaster Tools warning message and doing something about it?

[seothomas]

Another positive is that we can now find out where the problems are coming from, which sites to contact for link removals and which sites to avoid all together.

Google does not tell you which sites are problematic? And if you have 100k links then thats a pretty massive pile to sort through!

[morestar]

Apparently they do:


This is the first time this has been seen anywhere yet.

For the first time we have a solid grasp of how Google is deciding what sites it deems are using 'Unnatural Linking' practices.

This could well affect all of you, very easily.

Someone came to me this morning with a rather odd scenario. She stated that Google had left a client of hers the dreaded unnatural linking notice in GWT, with example urls of pages it found unnatural links on. This part is nothing new really, but until now we had no idea how Google was deciding this...

So, I checked out some of the urls, the one I was given this morning, and one I had gotten on another site a while back. Both had two things in common.

[SteveGerencser]

They don't tell you all of them, just a few..

[morestar]

They don't tell you all of them, just a few..

Well hopefully that changes. And when I think about it that sucks OR they list the ones they feel are more important (to them) - hopefully but I doubt it.

[SteveGerencser]

We've been asking them to give us lists for years.. I really doubt that it will happen..

[kgun]

Another positive is that we can now find out where the problems are coming from, which sites to contact for link removals and which sites to avoid all together.


I wish you good luck with your new job.


Google does not tell you which sites are problematic? And if you have 100k links then thats a pretty massive pile to sort through!

And why repeat your same message again and again in new clothing (http://deoxy.org/emperors.htm):

http://www.webproworld.com/webmaster-forum/threads/117272-Competitors-Can-Affect-Your-Rankings-With-Bad-Links

Write and link naturally - that is semantically and you have nothing to fear from a good semantic search engine:

You are who you link to, but can not control who links to you. Why should you care?

Are you mining old WPW threads or reading WMW home page stories?


There have been many intensive discussions here at WPW about many link schemes, where the last is this now 13 pages long thread about inbound links (http://www.webproworld.com/webmaster-google-discussion-forum/68650-can-inbound-links-really-hurt-you.html#post371876). As explained in my post #639 (http://www.webproworld.com/webmaster-google-discussion-forum/68650-can-inbound-links-really-hurt-you-13.html#post403376)
link selling and buying have been also been relatively extensively discussed.

Links::: Life or death of your eBusiness. (http://www.webproworld.com/webmaster-forum/threads/72847-Links-Life-or-death-of-your-eBusiness)


Apparently they do:
Source?

Don't expect further comments from me.