There is no tools which will find automatically the bad links
you have to do it manually
[HELP] Get Rid of Over Optimization Penalty
- Thread starter armansto
- Start date
There is no tools which will find automatically the bad links
you have to do it manually
Yes thats true
we have to build link in this way
10% Primary Keyword
35% Various other Keywords
25% Click Here/Here/(variation)
30% Raw link
and also make some varoation in URL as
example . com
xxx . example . com
xxx . example . com/page-1.html
hxxx : // example . com
hxxx : // example . com/
hxxx: // xxx.example .com/
lol
On-page optimization taks 70% responsiblility and off-page optimization takes rest 30%
So we mast have to optimize our site storngly and perfectly and then go for linkbuilding (RELEVANT)
Dawgtown
Regular Member
- Mar 7, 2012
- 202
- 197
Eliminating all the bad links would seem like a logical step towards removing any penalties that a site, or should I say a collection of pages, will incur over time as a result of unnatural linking strategy. However, even if you are figuring a way to trace these 'bad' links to their source and delete them completely, you are actually doing more harm than good. Do you think that Big G is that blind that they would not see this sudden 'change'? If you were to eliminate each 'bad' link one by one over a period of time, then it wouldn't be so alarming to Big G.
I agree with the above posters about creating more quality backlinks. Link diversity means that inevitably, there will be both 'bad' and 'good' links. Without this type of diversity, your linking will appear unnatural to Big G. It is very much like a review site, such as Yelp. If your restaurant only has 150 reviews and all of them are exactly 5 stars, something looks fishy. Sometimes, you need a few 1 star reviews (or links) to appear more natural. So, as others have posted, create more links, diversify their anchor, and dilute the overall relevance and strength of the 'bad' links.
If these links are truly considered 'bad' by Big G, they will eventually de-value them over time by de-indexing their source site. This is why it is beneficial to leave these 'bad' links in place so that they can be crawled and de-valued.
A lot of people are always looking for instant gratification and are too impatient to let these types of things run their course. Good will always triumph over evil - just give it some time. In the meantime, add more 'good'. Create more quality content and quality links to it. Don't forget to include a few 'bad' ones here and there to keep appearances natural.
I agree with the above posters about creating more quality backlinks. Link diversity means that inevitably, there will be both 'bad' and 'good' links. Without this type of diversity, your linking will appear unnatural to Big G. It is very much like a review site, such as Yelp. If your restaurant only has 150 reviews and all of them are exactly 5 stars, something looks fishy. Sometimes, you need a few 1 star reviews (or links) to appear more natural. So, as others have posted, create more links, diversify their anchor, and dilute the overall relevance and strength of the 'bad' links.
If these links are truly considered 'bad' by Big G, they will eventually de-value them over time by de-indexing their source site. This is why it is beneficial to leave these 'bad' links in place so that they can be crawled and de-valued.
A lot of people are always looking for instant gratification and are too impatient to let these types of things run their course. Good will always triumph over evil - just give it some time. In the meantime, add more 'good'. Create more quality content and quality links to it. Don't forget to include a few 'bad' ones here and there to keep appearances natural.
Guys, you are all barking up the wrong tree here. The over optimization penalty is in regards to onpage seo and not inbound links. You are all talking about inbound links therefore not relating to the title of this thread. The title needs to be changed or we start talking about how to rectify the over optimization penalty which is over optimized onpage seo.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. My moneysite is far from over-onpage SEO'd . It is a blog, and while I do KY research, I don't stuff the article with keywords and write naturally.
I was looking into my WMT account and noticed a boat-load of Tumblr links to my site. I am assuming they are from comments. I was using a service and I assume they did that. Funny thing is that a competitor could do the same thing.
Anyway, a couple of my pages that feel out of the top 5 were good blog posts. I think I am going to rewrite and redesign those pages. I am not sure about what I am going to do for my KY's that my home page ranked in the top 10 for. But I will think of something.
I guess it is time to work harder on my private network like I was planning.
Damn Google!!!!
I've been analyzing my websites that have been hit, and comparing them with others that are fine. I don't have "bad" links (blog networks, paid homepage links etc), so the question is, what is causing it? My thoughts are:
> Keyword density from inbound links. Its piss-poor on my websites that have been hit. I was super lazy, especially on websites that were important. That was stupid.
> They have no social signals.
> They are all under a year old.
> They are pretty thin websites... some don't LOOK thin, but they are thin. Good content, but very thin.
Key then is probably...
1. Go on a backlinking spree, getting a lower keyword density.
2. Add social signals to the page; thinking twitter is the best bet here.
3. Deal with the fact they are young.
4. Add content 1; 1-2 400+ word articles every week for the next couple of months.
Then... hope and pray
Also wondering about .edu links.
I am highly doubting it is over optimisation onsite. My websites that fell were super optimised. But they weren't keyword stuffed. Keyword featured 1% in content, once in H1 header and once in meta data (on and in URL for some). That doesn't seem over-optimised to me?
> Keyword density from inbound links. Its piss-poor on my websites that have been hit. I was super lazy, especially on websites that were important. That was stupid.
> They have no social signals.
> They are all under a year old.
> They are pretty thin websites... some don't LOOK thin, but they are thin. Good content, but very thin.
Key then is probably...
1. Go on a backlinking spree, getting a lower keyword density.
2. Add social signals to the page; thinking twitter is the best bet here.
3. Deal with the fact they are young.
4. Add content 1; 1-2 400+ word articles every week for the next couple of months.
Then... hope and pray
Also wondering about .edu links.
I am highly doubting it is over optimisation onsite. My websites that fell were super optimised. But they weren't keyword stuffed. Keyword featured 1% in content, once in H1 header and once in meta data (on and in URL for some). That doesn't seem over-optimised to me?
Hard to say exactly my sites reasons, but my site is over a year old and the articles aren't over-SEO'd - in my eyes. I try to write for human and add latent terms in the H2 tags.
I purchased some Fiverr Gigs that did some comment spam on Tumblr sites. I was unaware of what they were doing.
Here is my question, is my site penalized for the links or demoted due to devalue of the links?
I purchased some Fiverr Gigs that did some comment spam on Tumblr sites. I was unaware of what they were doing.
Here is my question, is my site penalized for the links or demoted due to devalue of the links?
Did you get an email ? If you did like I did you would know real easy
No, I never received a message about my links. Maybe I am being penalized for on-site over-optimization.
Some of my title tags were keyword stuffed - or at least I can see how Google thought so. My first step is changing them. I am waiting to see Google update the title tags now. Hopefully that will do something.
saharreyhan
Newbie
- May 6, 2012
- 3
- 0
Hi All,
How can I go through items 3 to 5 from above if for instance if I have an on-bond link from a given site that I can not remove my link?
Thank you