Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Outbound Link Penalty Guest Blogging

         

flanok

1:39 pm on Mar 31, 2014 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Last week 3 of my many site got an outbound link penalty probably based on guest blogging.

But what I found interesting is this.

Blog 1: To be fair the poportion of guest posts to my own is high (lack of time). all posts were aquired from that well known guest blog site that has now been penalised by Google.
So that is the bad news and I should be put up against the wall shot for that.
But I would argue, that I was very careful to only choose posts that were 100% on topic for my readers and written to a good standard ( I refused many, after reading through them fully). I don't have a lot of time for this blog, so it will now become defunk, unless someone is still prepared to contribute with a nofollow link.

Blog 2: This is a different story in that the percentage of guest blogs is very low, ceratinly under 5%. That is because there is only one type of subject matter, I would allow guest posts for. I have to guess that the penalty was not applied because of quantity but because of the google profiles of the writers. My contribution to that blog is much much higher.

Blog 3: There are no guest posts at all on here, did I say zero. I was just very happy to link out extensivly whilst writing the posts. This blog is more of a hobby than a business, I write about what I enjoy and link to anything I think is relevant without thinking about SEO, bad neighbourhoods and that kind of stuff. But I got an outbound link penalty. It is true a few sites there are lots of links to ( I have no connection to them). But I do that because it is relevent to that post. not because of any foresight to penalties.

I have now nofollowed all links and all penalaties have been revoked.

But I say this to the whole world. I will never give a dofollow link to anyone from any site I own.

The advice I will give to any other webmaster is, never link out to anyone with a dodollow link. It doesn't matter what your opinion of the content or site. You have no guarantee that search engines will see it in the same light, it now been proven to be too risky.

I know a few people who run big branded sites with authority. I can tell you, no matter how hard you work, they will never give out a dofollow link. its just too risky for them now.

The fact is Linking is no longer a natural process and any site worth its salt will put its own priorities first.

I accept that exchanging money etc is not right for attainling links, but good fresh content, I think should be should have been accepted. Its a shame, that search engines can't tell the difference between good quality guest blogs and spam.

I predict in 5 years time there will be no link spam team , because links will no longer be counted and will be replaced with something else (is anyone brave enough to do this? Make their spam departments redundant and replace them with "content quality advisers".

We don't need external links anymore. We all add our site to WMT, use authorship etc. Search engines can find our pages, without external links. So much time is spent by trying to prove, that there is link spam out there, that you have to wonder why bother?

Stop counting links and the spam goes away.

Dymero

6:17 pm on Apr 3, 2014 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Theoretically, yes, you should be able to. If that were the case, no one here would be complaining.

But when you risk getting an outbound link penalty from Google because the rules keep changing and nobody's sure what's going to be considered a "link network" next year, I can see why someone would throw in the towel and no-follow everything. That way, your outbound links can never be considered bad.

EditorialGuy

7:08 pm on Apr 3, 2014 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I can see why someone would throw in the towel and no-follow everything. That way, your outbound links can never be considered bad.


On the other hand, what does that say about your site?

If you nofollow legitimate editorial links, for example, do you risk losing whatever value those links may have for your site (e.g., helping to establish relevance or topic authority)?

I have yet to hear of a site that has been penalized by Google for legitimate editorial links or "citations." Links in guest posts? Maybe, especially if the guest posts are of the kind that the OP admits to having used on one of his sites. But such links aren't "earned" links, they're the result of a barter arrangement ("I give you a guest post, you give me a link").

Links are the glue that holds the World Wide Web together, and they've been part of Google's algorithm since Larry Page and Sergey Brin were in grad school. IMHO, site owners who nofollow all of their editorial links are more likely to become wallflowers than the belles of the ball.

n0tSEO

8:44 pm on Apr 3, 2014 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Site owners who nofollow all of their editorial links may get paid back with the same coin, sooner or later. You know what I mean. A Web graph made of nofollow links.

Then things would get interesting, and I can't help of thinking of a certain metaphor -- a student who underlines an entire paragraph instead of underlining only the most important notions; to underline everything is to underline nothing.

JD_Toims

8:51 pm on Apr 3, 2014 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



A Web graph made of nofollow links.

Or, possibly a web graph made of nofollow links and mentions, which could be referred to as an "Implied Link Graph"?

Emphasis Added
The system determines a count of independent links for the group (step 302). A link for a group of resources is an incoming link to a resource in the group, i.e., a link having a resource in the group as its target. Links for the group can include express links, implied links, or both. An express link, e.g., a hyperlink, is a link that is included in a source resource that a user can follow to navigate to a target resource. An implied link is a reference to a target resource, e.g., a citation to the target resource, which is included in a source resource but is not an express link to the target resource. Thus, a resource in the group can be the target of an implied link without a user being able to navigate to the resource by following the implied link.

[patft.uspto.gov...]

martinibuster

11:04 pm on Apr 3, 2014 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



It's explicit from Google that no-followed links are removed from the link graph. They don't count.

JD_Toims

11:20 pm on Apr 3, 2014 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



They don't count.

As far as discovery or passing PageRank are concerned -- They haven't said anything explicit about what they do with them wrt implicit links and whether they're used in the portion of the algo that includes those "links" or not.



Example:

### ARTICLE HERE ###

Source: <a href=http://www.example.com/does-this-count rel=nofollow>Example.Com - Does This Count</a>



I can totally drop the fact the <a> exists from the link graph for discovery, PageRank and all other purposes [basically pretend the <a> does not exist] and I'm still left with an implicit link [citation] for example.com -- Why would they be so adamant about people not comment-spamming blogs with their site name or keywords, even with nofollow in place, if it's not used in any way? Hmmmm

I could also drop only the explicit link from the link graph for PageRank and discovery purposes due to the nofollow, but use the URL and/or text from the <a> element as a citation [implicit link] for the http://www.example.com/does-this-count page on example.com or even limit it to an implicit link [citation] for example.com in general, without "following" the link -- Much like a robots.txt disallowed page, they don't always need to follow the link to "gain information and insight" as to what a page is about/contains.

They usually tell the truth but play things "close to the vest", and we don't have any info on implicit links and their actual use afaik, so personally I'm not ruling out anything about the possible use of nofollowed links as implicit links in some way, even though they're not used for discovery or PageRank purposes.

n0tSEO

6:54 am on Apr 4, 2014 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Yes, martinibuster, nofollowed links don't count for Google's link graph and PageRank, but my post was intentionally 'provocative'--

Imagine that every site ends up nofollowing every outbound link (it's already happening, at a small scale); the resulting Web will be made of nodes (pages) that are only linked to each other via nofollow links. Then, unless Google changes something in its algorithm, their link graph would end up either disconnected or (like the kid who underlines an entire paragraph instead of a few important concepts) lead to such an impoverishment of Google's SERPs that nofollow will become the new dofollow and Google will start taking action against the use of it.

So while other search engines may still do well at this point (unless they rely heavily on links), Google may end up with a new problem.

@JD_Toims - Your idea is interesting. Might explain why some sites still rank even though they have nearly non-existent link profiles (or mere textual mentions).

EditorialGuy

3:33 pm on Apr 4, 2014 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Imagine that every site ends up nofollowing every outbound link (it's already happening, at a small scale); the resulting Web will be made of nodes (pages) that are only linked to each other via nofollow links. Then, unless Google changes something in its algorithm, their link graph would end up either disconnected or (like the kid who underlines an entire paragraph instead of a few important concepts) lead to such an impoverishment of Google's SERPs that nofollow will become the new dofollow and Google will start taking action against the use of it.


That won't happen for a simple reason: Not all site owners or Web publishers are driven by (or even interested in) SEO.

One could argue that Google's SERPs might improved if enough Googlephobic site owners and SEOs began nofollowing their links by default. Why? Because such a change would shift more ranking influence to the "organic Web," where rel="nofollow" isn't a daily topic of conversation.

In any case, as JD_Toims points out, Google can honor "nofollow" without turning a blind eye to other citation data on a page (including, but not limited to, anchor text). Do a search on "co-citation" or "co-occurrence," and you'll find any number of articles on that topic.

n0tSEO

4:32 pm on Apr 4, 2014 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I don't think it would really happen, EditorialGuy, but to imagine the extreme of a trend usually helps seeing all possible directions of it, the pros and the cons.

When you say "organic Web", you mean websites whose owners know nothing of optimization, rel=nofollow and marketing?

And thanks for the hints!

EditorialGuy

6:35 pm on Apr 4, 2014 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



When you say "organic Web", you mean websites whose owners know nothing of optimization, rel=nofollow and marketing?


In some cases, the owners might "know nothing of," but in other cases, they may simply "not spend that much time thinking about."

mhansen

7:31 pm on Apr 4, 2014 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



We spotted a site we help manage with a significant drop in Google referrals (-70%) on March 18th. The site was otherwise very healthy and had great metrics.

We walked through the site with a forensic approach, checking the usual things that may have caused an issue of this size, (robots.txt, xml sitemap, changes in html header, etc) and found nothing.

The only real anomaly was a very sporadic googlebot activity as seen in WMT. From late Feb, we noticed the "pages per day" downloaded was a series of spikes, versus the fairly flat profile leading to that time.

We have no guest content anywhere on the site, all pages are written by us, and we consider ourselves fairly expert-level on the topic. Within almost every page of the site are multiple links to related content both on and offsite. They were places to help the reader understand more on the topic.

We've never done any guest content of our own elsewhere and the link profile is thin enough to think it could be a ranking issue on its own. (It's not, the site ranked as expected prior to the 18th)

Yesterday, we no-followed every offsite editorial link on the site, suspecting it's the guest-post issue that MC mentioned a few weeks ago. Time will tell if it helped or not.

Planet13

4:53 pm on Apr 5, 2014 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



But it [nofollow tag] was never intended to be the default for outbound editorial links, and using it for that purpose sends the message that "All of the links from our site are paid links or links to sites that we don't trust."


Where, exactly, has either Matt Cutts or John Mueller STATED that as a fact?

Where have they implied that?

EditorialGuy

6:29 pm on Apr 5, 2014 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Where, exactly, has either Matt Cutts or John Mueller STATED that as a fact?

Where have they implied that?


And where, exactly, did I say anything in this thread about Matt Cutts or John Mueller?

Planet13

6:44 pm on Apr 5, 2014 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



"And where, exactly, did I say anything in this thread about Matt Cutts or John Mueller?"


Nowhere, and that is precisely the point.

That statement would carry a whole lot more weight in my mind if it came directly from a google employee rather than, say, an SEO consultant.

EditorialGuy

1:07 am on Apr 6, 2014 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Planet13, you're confusing the message with how Google treats that message.

First, the message: Google has said to use rel="nofollow" for links that were purchased or that you can't vouch for. So, if you nofollow all of your editorial links (as opposed to UGC links in blog comments, forums, etc.), there's a fairly strong implication that (a) the links were purchased, (b) you don't trust the links enough to link in the normal manner, and/or possibly (c) you'd just as soon not have Google look too closely at your outbound linking patterns. That's the message. It's implicit, and it has nothing to do with Matt Cutts or John Mueller.

Whether or how Google responds to that message today, next week, or next year isn't something that you and I are in a position to know. For us, the choice is simple:

1) Link in the normal way when creating outbound editorial links, or...

2) Use rel="nofollow" in a way that never has been recommended by Google or, to my knowledge, by any other search engine.

Which of the two options looks more "natural" and "organic" to you?
This 45 message thread spans 2 pages: 45