• http://twitter.com/YoungbloodJoe Joe Youngblood

    if the purpose of these messages is to tell webmasters about bad links (many of which they may not have control over) and wont be used to penalize websites, then why oh why not tell the webmaster exactly what links they dont like? instead they are forcing webmasters to guess, which will hurt the link graph as a whole.

  • http://www.facebook.com/iamachump Johnny Gedye

    About time. The idea that authority can be bought by “whoever can build the most links” is a complete joke/fallacy. Thank goodness Google are seemingly making a proper stand against it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1012450033 Joseph Chambers

    I think even thought they are getting smarter they still have a ways to go. I can build 10 or so mini sites and pay 30 bucks a year for separate accounts on different hosting accounts. sure, they will get some traffic and use those as a layer. throw a affiliate ad on there and make some money back.

    i think they just want people to be more scared. that’s it. I loved this post: http://seobullshit.com/grey-hat-white-hat-disaster/

  • http://twitter.com/GoodGirlSEO Mayday

    @twitter-261751775:disqus, For the same reason they don’t give us definitive answers about the algorithm. They want to stay smarter than us. They like when people are beating their brains out to figure it out.

    I also think it stinks that they won’t pay attention to certain industries. I am so tired of hearing about these link penalties all the time. Where are they in my industry?! For example, I have sent a 12 page comprehensive report of a link scheme to the webspam team about a site owner who is ranking several sites highly (first page) with nothing except scraped content and glaringly obvious link purchases. I even managed to get the report directly into the hands of one of the Google team. But have they done anything or taken any action against the sites? Heck no. The bucket truck industry is too miniscule for them. 

  • http://www.googlingsocial.com/ Chris Lang

    This email or Webmaster notification was actually industry wide. I know for a fact that 760,000 Realtors all got a notification last week Barry. Even though some of my clients got a notification they are not delisted and still rank well. As far as I can tell this was all about BMR links which of course anyone I know removed if any.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jamesjhuman James Hu

    @ Johnny I think the idea was a good start but now the technology is there to support the original intention – people will naturally follow/link back to the source of information.  

  • PositOrange

    Except that Google’s algorithm’s make mistakes all of the time and unfairly flag people for no bad intent on their part. And Google doesn’t tell you what’s actually wrong, leading you to guess and make mistakes trying to comply. And then people’s AdSense accounts or Adwords accounts get banned, with very little ability to get the attention of an actual human being to spend time with you actually going over what issues exist or giving you a fair review. And then your entire business is screwed. Google’s mistakes lead to businesses getting destroyed and people losing jobs. It’s easy to be all gung-ho about this when you don’t realize that Google’s actions against this type of thing have a massive effect on not only people that buy links, but innocent people who are guilty of nothing and are caught up trying to navigate the Kafka-esque world that is Google’s “customer service” department.

  • http://www.rustybrick.com/barry Barry Schwartz

    Google implied that was not the case.

  • Corey Northcutt

    Love the transparency, and understand why they don’t want to give webmasters too much, and instead leave them compulsively scrubbing up theirs acts.  

    I have seen a few people totally demolished by Panda 3.3 however, seemingly just because they had a black hat in their history that added a private blog network to their link building strategy (whereas links weren’t simply devalued, but they were kicked to the sandboxed and asked to submit for reinclusion).  This approach seems to open the floodgates of Googlebowling if it sticks.

  • http://smobot.com smobot

    I STILL think this is bad policy. It may help SEOs to not waste time and resources, however, inbound links are not in the webmaster’s control, for the most part, which is the point.. right? If I rank #2 and want to be #1, I suppose I COULD unnaturally link my competitor… so again, the unnatural portion of links acquired may be filtered, link acquisition rates, traffic sources, webmaster identity iGoogle accounts, and all that stuff considered as baseline link profile… but why should unnatural links penalize?

    Or what if I’ve invited a very specific niche of webmasters to an offline hotel seminar by mail, and they all link to me on the same day. What then? What if I place my computer in the hotel ball room, and they all use my PC, signed into my Google account, to link to me from their various poor quality websites, because I was giving ironic tips on web quality at this offline hotel seminar? I’m just curious…

  • http://twitter.com/durant_imboden Durant Imboden

    I’d like to see Webmaster Tools include a “Disregard these links” checkbox in the link report, if only for the site owner’s peace of mind. We’ve had cases where–according to WMT–sites (sometimes poor-quality sites) have given us tens or even hundreds of thousands of unsolicited links. We didn’t ask for the links, we don’t want ‘em, and we’d be happy to tell Google “Ignore these links. Please.”

  • http://www.iobisystems.com/ Ryan Eisenbart

    I for one support this.  There are so many ways to get great inbound links while actually contributing on the web.  All you need to do is provide great content with appropriate links and you should have nothing to worry about.  Just make sure that the links you do build are getting indexed. This isn’t rocket science.

  • http://www.roostercomm.com/ roostercomm

    The reason why Google doesn’t say exactly which links are bad is pretty simple:  if you’re in violation, they want you to remove everything. If they tell you what links are bad, you might only remove those ones, instead  of getting rid of all the black hatty stuff you’ve done that they don’t know about. Obviously this isn’t great for the good guys out there who get unfairly penalized, but that’s the game, and it’s for big boys and girls.

    Aside from that, I have heard of a few cases where a notification about unnatural links from Google coincided with a sharp drop in rankings. Not convinced that’s a coincidence…

  • http://twitter.com/seowestcp Christopher West

    Very interesting – about a month ago I had a client site that showed a sudden jump in home page links (we talking over 1 million here!) and that very same warning. In one day the rankings were toasted.  The next day they came back – better than before too.

    Always a good idea to check WMT often.

  • http://www.cbil360.com/ Website Design Company

    There is nothing wrong in it, Google is always asking for natural link building, so this step was most awaited. Can some one give me idea- Suppose you are a website design company then what ever website you create at footer you get credit for making it either directly or through some key word (say- website design) is it also not natural?
       One more yesterday I was reading an article that google is now lunching pay per position- pointblankseo(.)com/pay-per-rank, do you have any idea & if such articles are wrong why not they(Google) take action on this

  • http://www.ramkrshukla.com/ Ram Shukla

    No doubt this will definitely help Google to deliver most relevant results. Global formulation of this practice will force Webmasters and SEO companies to revise their approach. Content marketing with high quality of ideas and strategy will help in winning this battle..

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aiden-Moor/100001939456401 Aiden Moor

    Oh, A new and great update again by Google. May be it will be very helpful to Google and its users. Now Google will provide more relevant and useful results according to user’s choice. And as I think its users are also in a long wait for this type of move from Google. So happy to hear it..

  • Whatamaroon

    Im calling BS on this. You dont know any numbers “for a fact”. A few who did get notifications that didnt do anything were dropped 40+ spots.

  • http://www.touchstarccs.co.uk/ Arul Dave

    This is one of the topics
    among the popular search engines always concerned about. To keep the system
    provide reliable SERP results, search engines must find out the algorithmic
    solution to kick off such kind of back links for Google Page Rank manipulation

  • Albert Albs

    I’m agreeing with your point. 
    Google should punish the spammers for doing their spam link building works.
    This will improve the Google’s SERP and we can get more clean and accurate
    results. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/vladimirn137 Vladimir Nikolaev

    All in internet must going naturally, without Google’s globalization. Only free development gives us chance to get fantastic future.

  • http://about.me/syednomanali Syed Noman Ali

    Awesome!!! finally Google take action against spammers and advertisers 

  • http://www.nigerianbusinesslinks.com/ NBLinks

    Good news to genuine webmasters. It is a good and solid step to stop spammers.

  • http://twitter.com/SocialHats Social . Hats ²

    Never ever build a business to be solely dependent of some other business (be it Google, Facebook, etc.). If there is a certain recipe for failure, than this. Relying to Adsense, Adwords to drive your business is WRONG! You are at their mercy, and yep, at times they are merciless … read they cannot care less about you and your business. Diversify your sources of income and the places you advertise to, that’s the only way to keep your business safe.

  • SocialHats

    smarter? Is that why their search sucks? (really does, try a search in different languages and see how you get English sites on top of the results no matter what you chose in the special search preferences). Google should get their ducks in a row first, as for the users and businesses alike the best answer to all this mess would be an alternative to Google. Let’s see what facebook comes up with – if not the perfect alternative, still better than none :)

  • http://scholarshipsngrants.com/scholarships-for-high-school-seniors/ Scholarship Man

    I’m confused – so they are saying it’s a penalty or not a penalty and merely being more vocal about distrusting links? Distrusting links is one thing, and a great way to stop spammers – but if they start penalizing sites it’s not going to be hard to take your competitor down, and they just gave unethical webmasters a blueprint to take down their competitors.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001053594220 Sean Doyle

    Google should just improve their algorithm processes instead of pointing fingers and telling people they use the internet wrong. If Google is smart enough to point out these links they should be smart enough to disable them from placing effect. There’s no point in saying you purchased a pizza and have to eat it with a knife and fork… use your hands if you want.

  • Vitaliy Radovanski

    Suppose you have purchased 100 links and 20 of them Google marked as artificial. You get a message – “Hey, check this out, these 20 links are bad – here are the urls” – what would you do? You would most probably take those 20 links off and keep the remaining 80 still affecting your rankings (which Google doesn’t encourage). By receiving general message “We found artificial links pointing to your site” you may consider taking all 100 links off.

    Google knows that it can’t identify all artificial links with confidence, yet it realizes that if there are such links pointing to a site, the latter is most probably into purchasing or exchanging even more links that Google won’t be able to identify as artificial, so a general message may be more effective and a webmaster would remove all paid links not to lose his rankings.

  • http://twitter.com/SEOMalc Malcolm Slade

    Identifying and removing “unnatural” links is very likely an annoying task for Google. They knock them down and more spring up over night. What if this is Google finally saying “**** it, let the webmasters worry about their link profiles more”.

    As long as everyone takes heed of the message and takes appropriate action then you should be OK. Site A, B and C all get the warning. Site A ignores it and it’s rankings tank over the following 3 weeks. Site B actions it, removing certain links and files a re-inclusion request. Rankings drop slightly but Google takes note of your action. Site C is a small shop and has no idea what SEO even is. It still files a re-inclusion request that expressed this and again Google acknowledges the effort and rankings fall only slightly.

    You could even take this to the extreme and say that if Google sends this message twice without a response you. It adds you to a list and one day takes the list of “your on the list, your out!” and removes them all from the index.

    This is of course all hypothetical, but I’m sure you will agree an interesting (all be it scary) way of looking at it. Go hard or go home and all the jazz.    

  • Vitaliy Radovanski

    Taking into consideration the amounts of search spam Google faces nowadays and the number of “bad” links (link farms etc.), such algorithm is able to make SERPs way better. Basically there’s nothing difficult in defining and separating paid or exchanged links from natural ones. Those who have never intended to manipulate Google results but still received the warning are spooled on this victimization flywheel for company’s sake – it’s all about collateral damage. They can either ignore the warning or simply let Google know they have no idea of what Google is talking about – as easy as that.

  • http://www.boastingbiz.com/ Boasting BiZ

    That would mean that thousands of websites will be getting these warnings.  There are websites with 50,000 links and I’m sure that all the links aren’t natural.  It’s about time Google get’s tough on unnatural links.

  • http://www.blackcatseo.org/product/buy-twitter-followers/ Buy Twitter Followers

    I never used these blog networks. I had thought of setting my own up however. I may still do that.

  • Eugene Kaufmann

    This article begins: “Have you recently gotten a warning from Google…….”

    Standards of English are getting worse and worse.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aliona-Shevtsova/100001229062012 Aliona Shevtsova

    Actually, google contradicts its policies and the real situation of rankings. Sometimes, it seems that they have not developed a stable and accurate algorithm  of checking sites’ back links, which is a problem for one site and a curse for another.  Moreover, nowadays there is a really great percentage of directories that make you pay to get there… It seems that now it is difficult to find free of charges sites where you can post your link… so what will google do about it? be more vocal?

  • http://twitter.com/daveashton33 Dave Ashton

    Unfortunately, it really is all academic.
    Google is a website, and if we want to list high on their website, we have to follow their rules, no matter how idiosyncratic. That’s just how it is. Problem is, the majority do their searching on Google ( in the West!) unless we can convince millions of people overnight to search on other search engines, we have to stick to Google’s rules.
    However, there are two sides to the story.
    There is an element of singling out the blog networks and making an example of them.
    The reason the blog networks links were pulled was because they were working.
    People invested into this blog networking as they saw the top blog networks as a long-term way of gaining links via content (with all the work they put into their blog building and strict content criteria), although short content.
    Build my rank had the problem of many blogs filled with short articles on many different topics, which were far too general, not like on the news sites where there are many themes, but hopefully lengthy articles on current news topics.
    If people only got links from the blog networks, then that is just crap link building in itself. No one gains links just from one avenue.
    Now people are playing catch up with some of their link building.
    Also, Google have their own way of manipulating the results via adwords. You pay them more than a competitor for the cost per click. Pay more than the competitor does per click, you should get ranked higher.
    If you place a link in the intent of promoting your site, (reciprocal links, guest blogging, etc.) the intent is so that your site increases in the rankings. Is this manipulating the results?
    So the argument is almost down to the intent of the link building. (I see link building courts in the future, ‘did you place that link in the intent of artificially promoting your site or did you place that link because you thought the site visitors could use it as a nice resource?!?’)
    But, if the de-indexing of the blog networks is to stop ultimately a spammy link blast pushing a site up the rankings and to provide better search results to the more legitimate sites that have the most worthwhile content, then that is obviously a good thing. We will have to wait and see if that pans out.
    In any game, those who consistently break the rules eventually get caught out, so it’s going to be harder work, but we might as well just play by the rules.
    But, when you have a belligerent, autocratic referee, who likes to change the rules alot, it sometimes makes life hard work!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WDBPFUJ7YC6M3R2PSOVP7BSOO4 Andrew

    Is google against ALL link/blog networks? If not, what kinds are acceptable to them?

  • http://buycirclesfollowers.com/ buy google+ followers

    Connecting is the big secret of seo but it shouldn’t be. If you use the same concepts to the Online that you do to regular promotion, you’ll be able to get some highly effective hyperlinks that will increase your position by using google sending warnings.