I have long been an advocate of the great things that Google has done not only for improving the ability to search for information, but also for the hundreds of thousands of people in the world that enjoy gainful employment as a result of the search engine marketing industry. Today however I have to take some time to examine one of the flaws that is evident in the way that Google is grading and penalizing Web site owners for real or perceived search engine optimization link building tactics.
Let’s say my car license plate gets stolen, and the driver using it on another car gets involved in a high speed chase, subsequently escaping. What would you think if the district attorney came after me and a judge immediately suspended my right to drive? Now, then let’s imagine the only way I could get my driving privileges back is by finding the guy who took the license plate, and asking for it back. If the thief didn’t comply, I would then need to prove to the D.A. that I had asked nicely, but still hadn’t been able to get it. Then I would get my driver’s license back.
Sound absurd? That’s because it is. Unfortunately, this is very close to what is happening currently within Google’s complicated site reconsideration request process. I have a friend who manages some Web sites and one of them was sent the dreaded unnatural links notification within Google Webmaster Tools.
(Image Source: http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/keep-calm-google-it-wasn-t-me/)
Imagine trying to decide exactly what links are “unnatural” (Jim did a fun quiz on this topic back in 2008). Then imagine penalizing a Web site because it had links pointed to it that seemed unnatural. To get back to the analogy about the car license plates:
Imagine if someone stole your site content, which contained links within it that pointed to other pages on your site, and posted it on another domain. Now, imagine being given an example of a bad link in your reconsideration request communication with Google and it IS ONE OF THOSE LINKS within your content that was stolen!
This really happened. In fact I Tweeted about it and others had seen the same thing. Scrapers who steal your content and post it on site that seems bad in Google’s eyes or perhaps across enough sites to cause suspicion, can directly affect unnatural link counts. This is nothing new, but it has been kept rather quiet, based on some searches for this topic. I did find an interestingly detailed example with more hard questions that has gone unanswered at Google’s Webmaster help area for nearly a year. From that:
“We’ve never participated in a backlink program, are constantly battling content theft by sites who steal our copyrighted work or include our RSS feeds without permission, and truthfully have never considered page rank as being important because we rely on organic search and social network distribution to have our work seen.”
This isn’t just an issue for scraped content – Naylor drew the connection between the perils of this classification and RSS feeds as well. Does this mean that every Webmaster that has set up an RSS feed could be subject to a “bad site” publishing the content? If so, this is pretty bad for Google’s unnatural link penalty system and frankly they should strongly consider going back to the drawing board. At least make rules that prevent your own content from hurting you!
According to Naylor, the Disavow tool is not the answer to handle this situation, per his testing. This makes sense since it is known that the disavow tools only works for Penguin-ized (penalized through algorithmic means) links, and not to help with unnatural links as specifically called out via a Webmaster Tools letter. The next question for practioners of “negative SEO” is obviously “how can I do this to my competitors?” I welcome more examples in the comments below.
Google is becoming increasingly transparent in the decisions they are making and are going even further in trying to help Webmasters help themselves out of a hole. Part of transparency is that sometimes you can see kinks in the system. Please Google, give us a way to get around this?
Comments
Excellent point…. link bombing and stolen content should not be a reason for Google penalizing your own site. Not sure what the answer is to the best ranking algo but having a site penalized for links you may not have even built yourself is unfair.
Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale @NinjasMarketing http://t.co/bPyrg0LT8g by @boggles
Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale @NinjasMarketing http://t.co/HOm0ynLWH8
Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale http://t.co/k1s17hYdgY (really bad kink in the system)
Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale @NinjasMarketing http://t.co/EN3CrSXd9D
IM Ninjas: Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale http://t.co/4PCbOa3XRj
RT @davenaylor: Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale @NinjasMarketing http://t.co/uYPXHcgI6O
Great post from @Boggles on how the #WarOnLinks can cause collateral damage http://t.co/yI35qHWbbc
Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale ~ Via @NinjasMarketing http://t.co/O69Pz8GdBi
RT @DaveNaylor: Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale @NinjasMarketing http://t.co/EN3CrSXd9D
RT @boggles: My latest blog: Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale @NinjasMarketing http://t.co/zSiHkILBsC #unnatura …
RT @DaveNaylor: Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale @NinjasMarketing http://t.co/EN3CrSXd9D
Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale @NinjasMarketing http://t.co/r3INaMzuBj
Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale via @DaveNaylor: I have long been an advocate of the… http://t.co/cQi79y6Eiq
Reading: Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale http://t.co/YKhYA5xXLD by @boggles
Good post by @boggles -> “Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale” > http://t.co/TFr8MoiuAa
Insiders’ Host Review liked this on Facebook.
David Martin liked this on Facebook.
Mark Canning liked this on Facebook.
Web Development and Design liked this on Facebook.
Dino Gomez liked this on Facebook.
Tim Smith liked this on Facebook.
Najee Avant liked this on Facebook.
Cre8asiteforums liked this on Facebook.
more on rss and google http://t.co/EN3CrSXd9D
Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale http://t.co/UGMoGemOkY
Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale http://t.co/WfUgEsRXsF
RT @graywolf: Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale http://t.co/j2UIlgBb83
RT @DaveNaylor: more on rss and google http://t.co/EN3CrSXd9D
Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale @NinjasMarketing http://t.co/NL53DL4fA7
Great post and good analogy. I just copied the content from this post and published on my site with a crappy link (only joking).
It is crazy that negative seo exists. I’ve experienced first hand from link spammers taking down my sites and it’s not nice. Also it seems so easy to do. Then disavow takes ages and no guarantee to fix it.
Yet they tell us negative SEO doesn’t work | RT @graywolf: Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale http://t.co/NvnTdiT9d0
Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale http://t.co/fiACUs1diS
“@stuntdubl: Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale http://t.co/4PSO76e7Yg”. If you’re in the search industry read this
Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale http://t.co/ldb3pems9u
RT @NinjasMarketing: Perils of Penalizing the Pure and Pristine: A Google Tale http://t.co/QRxIKN7jKi