Link Nightmare

[ep2012]

So I am in the process of talking to an SEO expert & he's telling me the following:

The reason my sites fell is b/c of my backlinks.

I told him that I never actually did backlinking on a large scale & I didn't, but he's saying that ANY link that is on a site that has NOTHING to do with my industry is counted as a bad link.

So of course this forum came up b/c I'm sure over the years I've asked for help in something & gave out my URL. That's normal & natural right?

Another example is McAfee... I'm a customer of theirs & they allow us to put our site in their directory. He's saying that's considered a BAD LINK.

If this is true (is it?), than this is a bloody (I want to use a different word here) NIGHTMARE!!!!

So we can never post our site on any other site if it's not 100% directly tied to our industry? I'm not even talking about trying to get links to raise our SERPs, I'm just talking about living life & handing out our URL for other reasons.

Like I post ads on biz opportunity sites b/c my kits are biz opportunity kits.

WTH is going on???


Michelle

- - - Updated - - -

He's also saying that many sites can't get their ranking back so it's just better to start with a fresh new domain.

What do you think about that?


Michelle

[weegillis]

In a field with so many indefinites, he sounds awfully definite in his views. My only opinion is that it is good that you are seeking a second one.

[deepsand]

So I am in the process of talking to an SEO expert & he's telling me the following:

... he's saying that ANY link that is on a site that has NOTHING to do with my industry is counted as a bad link.

Rubbish.

Another example is McAfee... I'm a customer of theirs & they allow us to put our site in their directory. He's saying that's considered a BAD LINK.

Balderdash.

He's also saying that many sites can't get their ranking back so it's just better to start with a fresh new domain.

What do you think about that?

If doing X won't restore an existing site, then doing X isn't going to do much for a new one either.

IMO, this "SEO expert" is overconfident and underqualified.

[cleanfreak]

Run, don't walk, but I repeat run away from this guy. He is giving you bad advice! If any link that was not 100% in your industry was counted as a bad link, there would be way too many ways to easily kill off your competition.

[PatMarcello]

Hi Michelle,

Yeah, this guy's (or gal's) positions are too absolute, which is impossible with SEO because nobody, except the search engines themselves, have insider knowledge about how their algorithms work. We can derive some ideas through testing, which is what SEOs do, but here's the thing...

Search engines expect you to have a diverse profile of linking. In a "natural" state, people from sites that aren't in your niche will link to you. Those links don't hurt you, unless they're what Google considers to be "bad neighborhoods," like gambling or porn. But even one or two of those links won't hurt you if you have more good links than bad to balance things out.

Now, here's the kicker: If bad links or links that aren't remotely connected to your niche are the ONLY links you have, then you aren't going to be very influential with Google or any other search engine.

Your overall backlink picture will have more great sites that are directly connected to your niche, some sites that aren't connected but may have some type relationship, and some sites that have nothing to do with your niche at all. You should be top heavy with links that are helping you, but... a link from McAfee? LOL No... That definitely won't hurt you.

This person doesn't seem to know his/her SEO very well at all.

- Pat

[bhartzer]

Another example is McAfee... I'm a customer of theirs & they allow us to put our site in their directory. He's saying that's considered a BAD LINK.

It is not the case that it's a bad link--it just might not be "counted" as much as a link that is an on-topic link to your site. There are certain sites that have enough domain authority and are "trusted" sites, and a link from a site like McAfee's directory won't hurt your site. It's just not a bad link.

[RichardBaldock]

Hi Michelle,
What your describing is a phenomenon I am starting name "Penguin Paranoia" . Regarding the links: Google has started to penalise sites with what they have deemed is an unnatural linking pattern. There is a lot of conjecture about what constitutes this, however some clarity is starting to appear around the make up of what Google will deem to be unnatural. Of course with each iterative update the potential for the unknown looms large again.
There are now some published 'acceptable link' ratios as follows: 20% Branded, 40% Generic & 40% Targeted. If you link profile is within this you should be fine.

Regarding the second point of once your site is de-ranked its better to start again, that is still yet to be confirmed. If you adjust your link profile and continue to offer value to your users I would say over time, your existing (mature) site would gain an advantage over a new one - but as I said that research has yet to be proven.

Hope that helps.

[deepsand]

Regarding the links: Google has started to penalise sites with what they have deemed is an unnatural linking pattern.

No, Google is not penalizing those with "unnatural linking patterns." Setting aside the fact that there is no good universally observable objective measure of "naturalness" available to an indexing engine, any reevaluation of data is just that, a revaluation; it is not a penalty.

There are now some published 'acceptable link' ratios as follows: 20% Branded, 40% Generic & 40% Targeted. If you link profile is within this you should be fine.

Numbers pulled from the air by the clueless.

Regarding the second point of once your site is de-ranked its better to start again, ...

There's no such thing as "de-ranked," only "de-indexed," which itself is a misnomer, as a Domain Name that's been banned from the SERPs remains present in the index. Where that not so, then it could be easily rediscovered, re-indexed, and subsequently reappear in the SERPs.

[RichardBaldock]

No, Google is not penalizing those with "unnatural linking patterns." Setting aside the fact that there is no good universally observable objective measure of "naturalness" available to an indexing engine, any reevaluation of data is just that, a revaluation; it is not a penalty.


Numbers pulled from the air by the clueless.


There's no such thing as "de-ranked," only "de-indexed," which itself is a misnomer, as a Domain Name that's been banned from the SERPs remains present in the index. Where that not so, then it could be easily rediscovered, re-indexed, and subsequently reappear in the SERPs.

I think those who sites have lost traffic will disagreed that their re-evaluation (as you call it) is without penalty.

On what basis is your comment regarding the the link ratio? Please substantiate this.

There is both de-ranked and de-indexed. A page may still be indexed, as before and now - but have a different / lower rank.

[deepsand]

I think those who sites have lost traffic will disagreed that their re-evaluation (as you call it) is without penalty.

Failure to understand and make the distinction does not substantiate their claims.

On what basis is your comment regarding the the link ratio? Please substantiate this.

Burden of proof rests with those who make unsubstantiated claims of the sort that I here rejected.

There is both de-ranked and de-indexed. A page may still be indexed, as before and now - but have a different / lower rank.

"De-ranked" is a distinction without a difference.

No page is preassigned any SERP rank; SERP rank is dynamically determined at search time, based on the user's query string and any personalized search criteria, along with the current evaluations of all indices for all pages currently indexed and present in the data store of the particular Data Center handing the query in question.