• FScharnell

    This is a great article, super great process thanks for the tips. What I really enjoyed though was:

    “On the other hand, this process lets me sift through 30,000+ links in less than 3 hours. Which means more Skyrim time – a win-win.”

    Gotta have our priorities straight. lol

    Thanks again!
    Frank Scharnell
    http://www.ethicalseoconsulting.com/

  • https://serps.com Scott Krager

    Really great post to distill links down to a 1-10 score. I would say though that while much of that process can be automated, the crux of getting a link removed often remains at the hands of the site where the link was posted. So you have to ultimately rely on someone else and their timeline to get the link removed. 

    It’s funny, I think the better the link, the easier it probably is to get removed. But the crappier the link (think comment spam or something like that) the more challenging it can be to get removed.

  • http://twitter.com/notifymenowtext Notify Me Now

    What methods do you use to get your link removed?  What if the spammer simply says no..?

  • Adam Machado

    Very nice techniques, but a waste of time.  Any link that Google thinks is artificial/spammy would just be devalued anyways.  There is no need/benefit to go about trying to remove them.  Getting the unnatural links detected message means nothing.  Google has been finding and devaluing untrusted links for a very long time.  All the notification is meant to do is scare webmasters.  Fear is the only tool Google has against “unnatural link building”

    The argument, that some are making, that it is a good preventative measure to remove spammy looking links is poor advice at best.  All you are doing is hurting yourself. 

    Google doesn’t penalize a website purely for having some “spammy” looking links.  Any ranking losses that are experienced would be from previously valued links being devalued.  A short 30-90 day trust loss can occur if there are a ton of “unnatural links” detected but that almost never happens to sites with other “Natural” looking links, social signals, quality content etc…

    If you are an affiliate site with fluff content, zero natural links, no social signals, etc… Than yes you will probably be “penalized” if a ton of “Unnatural” links are found.  But again, this has been the way of the world for many many years. 

  • Shahzad Hassan Butt

    What a great post. Kind of research approach. A wonderful bunch of tools for better analysis. A complete SOP for Pruning the links. And a great warning, ”
     improve SEO and build a lasting information asset for your company. ” 

    thumbs up and hats off

  • Dannish Abby

    Excellent analysis and words .you have nicely covered  the warning part which is a must now a days to be saved from getting spammed or earn negativity . great work keep it up

  • kedar singh

     best link building services provided

  • kedar singh

    good blog for seo
    inda

  • kedar singh

    good blog for seo
    india.
    http://rajlinkbuildingservices.com/

  • SEM_Blog

     I totally agree. I recently created a post on how google is causing unneccessary panic among seos. What do you think about it: http://bit.ly/HuRaOW

  • Kit Pierce

    SEO blogging par excellence! Literally one of the best articles I’ve read in months. Thanks for the advice Ian; I hope I don’t need it any time soon. ^_^
    Oh and…. Skyrim ftw.

  • http://ianhanson1979.blogspot.com/ Ian hanson

     This paranoia is hurting the SEO community. I do not understand why somebody (Matt Cutts for example) comes out with a proper explanation of ‘over-optimization’.

  • http://twitter.com/vengat_owen Vengat Owen

    Nice post and useful information to make up.