[inplainview]

It looks like Google is intensifying his "detected unnatural links" notice campaign. This is an email I don't want to get from Google, and neither do you:



What are the culprits? Is it the anchor text abuse? Maybe the link exchange?

Help me identify what particular "links scheme" triggers this notice, so that we can avoid it altogether.

I've been looking through the results of this query: site:google.com "detected unnatural links", and found that link exchange is particularly trigger friendly, but I assume that other factors like link distribution to the inner pages might play a role as well.

I'm a big fan of link diversity, because I'm convinced that Google is passing value on the type of link, but how diverse should a link portfolio be, in your opinion?

Edited by inplainview, 29 December 2011 - 21:36.

[Dave]

I assume that poorly built HPBLs would be the main culprit.

Submitting articles to Web 2.0s and other contextual places doesn't seem as unnatural (IMO) as a re-purposed PR WP blog with several OBLs.

[SEOHelpz]

Lots of forum profile links alone (no other type of links to main site) would be a problem here? .. This is going to be an issue for SEOers in 2012 .. I bet.

[nicbos]

GODOVERYOU, on 29 December 2011 - 05:40, said:

If you install G/A on your site, then you're putting yourself in the cross hairs.
Make a choice: Use their tracking software or game their search engine.

Totally agree with you

[stanger]

Some things I'm learning:

1. if you're running GA, expect to be an easier target
2. if the site is new, say less than 6 months old, are you running adsense on it? I'm looking at not putting adsense on any site I make until it's several months old and getting steady traffic because a few $$'s doesn't make much difference
3. I made a stupid mistake the other day and realized that a site I was doing an experiment on did not have an "About Us" and "Contact" page and looking at the traffic for that day I'm positive I got a human review. Straight from 23 to 97 I went.

[active-learner]

It looks like the age of negative SEO is finally here.  May god have mercy on us all

[JSP]

1.  Don't use GA.

2.  Diversify.  If one site gets hit for whatever reason, you've got plenty of others.

We can never be truly "safe" since manual link building is technically against what Google considered legitimate.  So the best we can do is try and avoid using Google tools & services and diversify.

[Panda]

JSP, on 29 December 2011 - 07:40, said:

1.  Don't use GA.

2.  Diversify.  If one site gets hit for whatever reason, you've got plenty of others.

This 2 is probably the best advise you can get going into 2012

i dont use google analytics, adwords, adsense etc.. i only use their search engine( And its because i have to otherwise i wouldn't use it).

[patman]

There's lots of good info in this thread, but I'm curious as to whether or not anyone has any proof that having GA installed on a site can actually harm a website's ranking in Google. Have there been any experiments done to test this? And if it is proven that GA can actually impact your website negatively, do you think it's because an actual Google employee is looking at your GA statistics in order to determine if you should be penalized? I just have a hard time believing that Google/Googlebot/algorithm can automatically pull the data from your GA account and connect it with SERPs click-through/ranking data and your backlink profile in order to automatically determine a penalty. I know Google has all of the resources and can definitely see it happening in the future, but I don't see that being the case right now. Of course, I could be wrong so I appreciate any kind of advice and links to studies that anyone can provide.

[angelus]

Can you elaborate more on how GA is an additional weapon for them when your backlinks are considered? Google knows site A links to site B, independent from Site B having GA or not. Now the bounce rate and pages per visit, is another issue. But i never thought GA is bad for backlinks.

[stanger]

not only that, if a Google employee is reviewing your site and they see the GA code in there, then it's that much easier for them to look at what other sites you are tracking so they can review those as well.

[Agent000]

inplainview, on 29 December 2011 - 00:50, said:

Help me identify what particular "links scheme" triggers this notice, so that we can avoid it altogether.

Matt Cutts responded to a question in Google Webmaster help from someone who got a similar warning. He clearly said 'paid links' were the problem. Its not clear if he was refering specifically to that persons warning or generically to that warning email.

[aramyus]

Quote

how diverse should a link portfolio be, in your opinion ?

Short answer to this question is: match exactly your competitor spectrum

I am pretty sure we will have to partially switch to white hat in 2012...

see my other post for more info:

http://trafficplanet.com/topic/779-what-should-i-do-with-this-website-panda-ate/page__view__findpost__p__8110

Also: I doubt GA is responsible for Panda slaps. I have no proof, but most of my sites are on the same GA account and some have not been hurt by panda. G has many other ways to evaluate your traffic, at least statistically. GA just makes their life easier.

[trishworks4u]

lol - awesome thread.

I've seen so many forum threads start with "I got the dreaded message in my GWT account"... "what did I do wrong?"

Just answered 1/2 your question right there.

I have learned A LOT from forums, mostly BLF, in the past year but I have to say it's mostly about what NOT to do. And, that's huge in itself.  But have not learned so much about what works.  Frankly, what "works" and what's going to get you ahead isn't going to be something that you read about in a forum because people that are innovating and figuring it out aren't going to run in here and post about it - if they're smart.  I can tell you that it doesn't resemble anything remotely white hat though.

[adamcm]

Hi all, looks like most here are saying to not use Google Analytics.  I haven't applied it to any of my new sites but do have it on some of my older sites.  These sites use some paid links.  Should I just remove the GA code from my site?

Thanks!

[neutrinoburger]

GODOVERYOU, on 29 December 2011 - 16:26, said:

Read the information and make up your own mind. Don't let someone tell you how to run your business. Learn and make the best business decisions you can for YOUR business.



Have you been reading my journal because you are just taking pages right out of my book, I'm tellin' you. That's 2 for 2 today that I couldn't agree with more.

Journal? What journal? Where can I find it?

[inplainview]

Gee, I started  this thread before I went to bed yesterday night, and now I get back to it to find so many replies. Thanks everybody for pitching in!

Just to clarify, I didn't get that email. However, since I run a top rated backlinking service, I like to keep a close eye on any trends and developments, to find patterns that might help me and my clients grow and protect our businesses.

One way I do this is by setting up Google Alerts based on various topics of interest. This is how I noticed that the number of queries for "detected unnatural links" grew exponentially in the last couple of months.

The number of results for the query [site:google.com "detected unnatural links"] was about 50 when I started following this topic. Now I can see over 300 results. This happened in less then 2 months...

If I extrapolate and think more about how many people would post about this issue within Google's Webmaster Central, compared with how many people would not say anything at all, I think that multiplying this figure by a factor of 100 would be safe, assuming that this behavior is similar with that of posting product reviews on Amazon - only 1 out of 100 people would post a review, sometimes even less.

Anyway, this means that at least 30,000 people got this email. We can play with the numbers anyway we want, but the trend is very clear: Google is up onto something heavy.

I have never used GA, or registered my sites with Google Webmaster. I find though that blaming such notices solely on GA might be too simplistic.

I also don't agree that relying heavily on a single type of backlinks might trigger this notice. This behavior would be too easy to simulate by a malevolent competitor, so Google will never punish a site owner for having solely one single type of backlink. It might discount those links, but not send a Unnatural Links Notice (ULN - ha, I always wanted to create an abbreviation that nobody understands

I really don't care for creating (more) panic so my intention is to investigate this issue thoroughly, as I always do. I have a couple of my VAs already browsing the Webmaster Central, trying to identifying patterns, and I'll keep you posted on my findings.

[angelus]

I know what a tracking script does. Thanks for the dummies guide anyways.
However no traffic passes through junk load of crap links i build as profiles, ALN posts, shitty spun web 2.0s etc.. So in my case a link is still a link. There is no more information attached to it.

I find it hard to believe people receive traffic from blackhat links. That made me suspicious about blaming GA on this. But a theory is a theory. Thanks for the share.

Edited by angelus, 29 December 2011 - 18:21.

[ewishki]

I would argue that Google tools actually help your ranking.  Those that hide in the shadows are the ones that Google will be looking for.  If you don't think that Google has just as much information about link a going to link b, or link a, going to c, that goes to d, that goes to multiple e's then back to b and eventually to the money site, then you are just kidding yourself.

[Gadget]

GODOVERYOU, on 29 December 2011 - 19:07, said:

PS - You're my new favorite idiot.
http://www.godoveryou.com/blackhat-links-my-new-favorite-idiot-white-hat-phrase/

and GOY delivers an "ELBOW FROM THE SKY!!!"