[Important SEO Tip] The Reason Many Pages Get Penalized

Hi guys,

I have another good SEO tip that I'm pretty sure most people don't really know.

Anchors..

You need to keep those ratios in safe levels which means plenty of brand, and no duplicate money anchors.

Yeah yeah, I hear you say. You know that already.

BUT.

Do you know that anchor texts are something on a PAGE level *and* a site level?

You should have lots of homepage brand anchors, but just because you have 90% homepage brand does not mean you can slam one of your inner pages with 95% exact match.

This is why many of you are finding some pages are stuck on on page 3/4 or worse and no matter how many links you're sending, you can't get the thing moving. It's because you've over optimized it.

I'm going to do a more detailed case study of page anchors with recommendations for how to do it right, so keep your eyes peeled for it.

So if I understand this correctly for my inner pages say my brand name is BHW and my inner page keyword seo I should make more anchors on inner page on BHW?

I will wait for the case study.

Great advice..! Thank you

Mr Positive said:

So if I understand this correctly for my inner pages say my brand name is BHW and my inner page keyword seo I should make more anchors on inner page on BHW?

Click to expand...

Yes, you can use the brand anchor for inner pages as well to look natural. Ex: if someone link a forbes article about millioners, then they will anchor the word forbes instead of millioners just because if the well known brand. Thats the way we have to follow to look more natural.

Unclear statement.
Waiting the proof and your study case output data.

Without data that proof the statement, for now I just said this is just another BS SEO tips. Sorry to say so, but thanks for the share anyway.

makes sense, thanks

This is splishsplash. What more do you need? does he have a reason to mislead you? NO. is he obligated in anyway to provide proofs or case studies to back up his words? NO.

Take it or leave it

MSRP said:

Unclear statement.
Waiting the proof and your study case output data.

Without data that proof the statement, for now I just said this is just another BS SEO tips. Sorry to say so, but thanks for the share anyway.

Click to expand...

lol wtf

TheVigilante said:

lol wtf

Click to expand...

Ikr, and its a 07 acc ffs

Mr Positive said:

So if I understand this correctly for my inner pages say my brand name is BHW and my inner page keyword seo I should make more anchors on inner page on BHW?

Click to expand...

No as far as I'm aware anchors should just be used as:

Exact, Partial, Phrase, Brand and Random.

If you start to create a ton of links on an internal page called BHW and they all link to a different page. Then I can't see that helping you at all - I don't think google falls on them as heavy as it once did but it's still a clear indication of what a page is.

So if your links are:

BHW Guide to SEO > links to page about SEO
BHW Guide to Google > links to page about Google
BHW Guide to Tools > links to page about Tools

And all you do is place a link on BHW I think that's the mistake. Doing it this way is trying to place weight on a brand or branded term that has no relevance to the page which can result in zero effect (i.e link juice) or worse cause some issues for you with google..

At leas't that's how I always thought it worked.


The idea of internal linking is to make the journey and page flow as easy as possible for the user. Going back and forth like a kids dot to dot offers little value at all.

@splishsplash is God.

FreakenSEOsmh said:

This is splishsplash. What more do you need? does he have a reason to mislead you? NO. is he obligated in anyway to provide proofs or case studies to back up his words? NO.

Take it or leave it

Click to expand...

I don't complain about the loss from this thread.
It's my right to express my opinion here. The thread is opening for the public.
Yes, I leave it as is.

OP thread talk and marked the "important SEO tips," so when I see the OP signature, definitely OP has something to sell here at BHW.
OP is not working on any search engine company, and OP makes a statement just like he/she knows how his/her statement work.
Without valid data, it's just BS tips and only signature spread thread.

NOTE:
No animals were injured, and there were no losses caused by this discussion.

Keeping things looking natural is the best thing,

I always check anchors of white hat branding pages using ahrefs, and try to keep my ratios as similar as possible

Great one! Thanks

Mr Positive said:

So if I understand this correctly for my inner pages say my brand name is BHW and my inner page keyword seo I should make more anchors on inner page on BHW?

Click to expand...

Yes.

I am going to do some detailed case studies because I'd like to see if there's any sort of pattern for pages that do well. These things are hard to identify, but I'll see what I can find out. I'll look at small, medium and large sites and the timeline of links to their pages to see if there's some more common patterns. There won't be anything hugely common, but it should give us some ideas of what a natural page link profile looks for different sizes and types of sites.

But right now, you are definitely fine if you take this kind of approach..

Let's say it's a fresh page "Top 10 Best Toasters - Ultimate Guide 2020" on brand KitchenMagic.

I would go with something like this(Bearing in mind that you're going to be using guest posts/pbns for boosting pages, which means we wouldn't really want to use title anchors. They tend to be more things that appear on lower quality blogs that are just listing articles on bigger sites) :-

these toasters
reviewed at KitchenMagic
this page
toasters at KitchenMagic
the top 10 picks

then you can add in 1 more aggressive one like "reviews of toasters over at KitchenMagic"

Remember that this is if you want to try to hit a page harder with more links. If you are doing 1 to 2 links, then you can just do

"reviews of the latest toasters" and either "toasters", "toasters at KitchenMagic" or a pure misc like "find out more".

In many cases a safer way to try to boost individual pages is to create 4-5 support articles, internally link to the page you want to boost, then do 1-2 links to each of the support pages.

Google is definitely going to look at the backlink profile of a site as a whole, ie, if your average page has 2 links and you have 1 article with 50 links, it's a flag. They are always looking for anomalies. This is how approach things like this from an engineering standpoint. You don't really try to create a framework of what's normal and match against that, since it's too hard.

If you look at any sort of engineered system in the world. Look at planes. They aren't scanning for what's normal. They are scanning for abnormalities and taking action accordingly.

Why would a site, where all 85 of its articles have between 0 and 2 links suddenly get 50 links to a new page? That page just happening to be targeting high volume keywords(google can see this easily, they have the database), and on top of that it has aggressive money anchors. HUGE flag and so easy to spot. A novice programmer could write code to spot this.

It's really easy to fit in with the pack. Google aren't super geniuses, but they have a lot of smart engineers. They can't identify your page with 4 pbns/guest posts you've made with misc/phrase/brand anchors as being unnatural. It's like the guy at the gym who looks good and you're not quite sure if he's on steroids or not. But the page with 10, 15, 20 contextual links, all with exact/partials is like huge vein bursting guy who you have no doubt is on steroids.

Even the human brain works like this. We cannot, even with our brains identify normal. It's so hard. Normal does not exist. Systems, computers, brains, humans, animals all identify things that are way out of the ordinary.

The purpose of the case study isn't really about learning how to do our link building. It's more about seeing if we can learn a little more about what google is looking for so we can potentially make some changes that would have a positive impact, and to help us stay on top of future changes.

Also remember, I'm both talking about finding out what's natural and saying natural doesn't exist. This might seem confusing. I say natural doesn't exist to highlight the point that you can't "identify" what's natural, only what's unnatural because natural is always a broad spectrum. You can't measure someone for normal intelligence for example. You can only test for high intelligence, and if they fail that, then you have the level they sit at. You can't test for normal strength. I can't say to someone "Ok, here, bench press 100lbs", then say "Ok, you are average strength".

So in order to have a natural link profile, you don't try to be natural. You avoid the unnatural.

MSRP said:

Unclear statement.
Waiting the proof and your study case output data.

Without data that proof the statement, for now I just said this is just another BS SEO tips. Sorry to say so, but thanks for the share anyway.

Click to expand...

You want me to teach you SEO, and prove to you that it's valid information? How about I also come round to your house every morning and give you a massage, cook you breakfast, plan your day and give you a motivation talk? Or maybe you could just stay in bed and I'll do everything and pile up a big stack of cash outside your bedroom, waiting for you when you wake.

MSRP said:

I don't complain about the loss from this thread.
It's my right to express my opinion here. The thread is opening for the public.
Yes, I leave it as is.

OP thread talk and marked the "important SEO tips," so when I see the OP signature, definitely OP has something to sell here at BHW.
OP is not working on any search engine company, and OP makes a statement just like he/she knows how his/her statement work.
Without valid data, it's just BS tips and only signature spread thread.

NOTE:
No animals were injured, and there were no losses caused by this discussion.

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. I write and share information to increase my business, make more money and get more clients. I'm active. I have energy. I like to build my business and I love my business and my work. I'm not just some lazy guy who wants to run a bot and make money.

Is this a bad thing?

Do I need to be a retired SEO millionaire who's decided to just spend his day helping ungrateful newbies who want proof and a "click to make money" button?

This isn't how the world works. People need to make a living. People make videos, books, blogs, articles and share information because it helps them expand and be more successful. It also helps other people expand and be more successful.

"signature spread threads" are where people are just posting 20-30 posts a day like "Yeah, I agree with this. Great share, thank you so much". I am spending what amounts to several hours to write content and answer questions because this is part of my business. You should be glad there are people who are able to share this kind of information because the digital economy makes it profitable to do so. It's more profitable to share working information than it is to horde secrets. It wasn't always like this. All those guys on youtube who are creating videos. The vast majority aren't trying to scam you. They are actually just sharing their knowledge for free in the hope that some of their viewers will buy their more structured packaged courses. People fail at business not because they lack information, but because they lack the ability to be productive and get shit done.

And you are not the type of client I like. I don't write for newbies. I generally like to write more detailed/advanced stuff that helps intermediate and expert level SEOs who have active sites. People at that level don't need proof, because ideas are just adding to their own knowledge and they generally make sense. I can't imagine why anyone, when having this information about site/page anchors brought to their attention would be like "No, you can just have 1000 brand anchors to your homepage, then spam the shit out of your inner pages". Does that really sound like something Google doesn't detect? Given their sensitivity to anchors and over optimization as a strategy to identify unnatural link building in the form of their biggest and most famous update that completely changed the game, Penguin. It doesn't NEED any proof. If for your sites, you find that you can just do homepage brand anchors, then blast the inner pages with exacts and you rank, then fantastic, but it doesn't work for the rest of us.

splishsplash said:

Yes.

I am going to do some detailed case studies because I'd like to see if there's any sort of pattern for pages that do well. These things are hard to identify, but I'll see what I can find out. I'll look at small, medium and large sites and the timeline of links to their pages to see if there's some more common patterns. There won't be anything hugely common, but it should give us some ideas of what a natural page link profile looks for different sizes and types of sites.

But right now, you are definitely fine if you take this kind of approach..

Let's say it's a fresh page "Top 10 Best Toasters - Ultimate Guide 2020" on brand KitchenMagic.

I would go with something like this(Bearing in mind that you're going to be using guest posts/pbns for boosting pages, which means we wouldn't really want to use title anchors. They tend to be more things that appear on lower quality blogs that are just listing articles on bigger sites) :-

these toasters
reviewed at KitchenMagic
this page
toasters at KitchenMagic
the top 10 picks

then you can add in 1 more aggressive one like "reviews of toasters over at KitchenMagic"

Remember that this is if you want to try to hit a page harder with more links. If you are doing 1 to 2 links, then you can just do

"reviews of the latest toasters" and either "toasters", "toasters at KitchenMagic" or a pure misc like "find out more".

In many cases a safer way to try to boost individual pages is to create 4-5 support articles, internally link to the page you want to boost, then do 1-2 links to each of the support pages.

Google is definitely going to look at the backlink profile of a site as a whole, ie, if your average page has 2 links and you have 1 article with 50 links, it's a flag. They are always looking for anomalies. This is how approach things like this from an engineering standpoint. You don't really try to create a framework of what's normal and match against that, since it's too hard.

If you look at any sort of engineered system in the world. Look at planes. They aren't scanning for what's normal. They are scanning for abnormalities and taking action accordingly.

Why would a site, where all 85 of its articles have between 0 and 2 links suddenly get 50 links to a new page? That page just happening to be targeting high volume keywords(google can see this easily, they have the database), and on top of that it has aggressive money anchors. HUGE flag and so easy to spot. A novice programmer could write code to spot this.

It's really easy to fit in with the pack. Google aren't super geniuses, but they have a lot of smart engineers. They can't identify your page with 4 pbns/guest posts you've made with misc/phrase/brand anchors as being unnatural. It's like the guy at the gym who looks good and you're not quite sure if he's on steroids or not. But the page with 10, 15, 20 contextual links, all with exact/partials is like huge vein bursting guy who you have no doubt is on steroids.

Even the human brain works like this. We cannot, even with our brains identify normal. It's so hard. Normal does not exist. Systems, computers, brains, humans, animals all identify things that are way out of the ordinary.

The purpose of the case study isn't really about learning how to do our link building. It's more about seeing if we can learn a little more about what google is looking for so we can potentially make some changes that would have a positive impact, and to help us stay on top of future changes.

Also remember, I'm both talking about finding out what's natural and saying natural doesn't exist. This might seem confusing. I say natural doesn't exist to highlight the point that you can't "identify" what's natural, only what's unnatural because natural is always a broad spectrum. You can't measure someone for normal intelligence for example. You can only test for high intelligence, and if they fail that, then you have the level they sit at. You can't test for normal strength. I can't say to someone "Ok, here, bench press 100lbs", then say "Ok, you are average strength".

Click to expand...

I really like the way you explained in this section and I totally agree with you.
Looking forward to seeing more details!
Thanks for sharing!

Nice share thank you

Looking forward to a more in-depth case study!

Instructions unclear, waiting for case study.