Comments on: Getting Past The Google Over Optimisation Filter – Hurahh!!

By: Paulus

Paulus — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:02:34 +0000

I think there’s a new filter (or changed filter) that became active in August/September 2009. As far as I can see now, it looks closer at the variation of your anchor text and drops the rankings if they are too similar. I think it’s the -50 penalty, but I also smaller changes as a result of this filter. It should be lifted within 2 months, once the links are natural again.

By: Kerry Dye

Kerry Dye — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:49:44 +0000

@James the Google link: doesn’t bring back anything like the number of links Google actually knows about. It has been deliberately crippled, perhaps as a way of reducing load from automated use or encouraging you to set up Google Webmaster Tools.

By: Jez

Jez — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:12:01 +0000

The thing about inbound links is not established, a lot of people believe it is possible to “Google Bowl” competitors with crappy links, others say it its just a part of Matt Cutts FUD campaign.

TBH I am not sure… initially I did not believe in it, then I came around to the idea… but now I am back to being a non believer…. largely after seeing a site profit from 3000 spam links gathered overnight.

Regardless of whether it can really be used as a negative SEO technique… 30 links wont do anything… but if you are using these methods to link, vary content and anchor text, otherwise only 1 of your 30 articles will hold in the main index.

By: KirstyM

KirstyM — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 08:43:23 +0000

Oh, I best add that you should vary your anchor text on incoming links to ensure the link growth looks more natural!

By: KirstyM

KirstyM — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 08:39:53 +0000

Hi James, I don’t *think* that what you describe is enough to trigger a penalty. I also don’t think an inbound link penalty is only a 3 to 4 place drop – it’s usually much bigger!

Perhaps this is just the natural ebb and flow of the SERPS at play. I don’t think you have a penalty.

By: James

James — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:45:06 +0000

Hi Kirsty, I received 20-30 new inlinks from article marketing and social bookmarking over a 2 day period. Is that enough to trigger a filter?

To find the increase in inlinks I use Yahoo Site Explorer. Is it safe to say that if Yahoo is recognising the inlinks then Google is as well. I ask this because when I do a search on Google using ‘link:http://wwww.xxxxxx etc…’ it does not show up any of the new inlinks.

Finally (!) the websites I am most concerned about have only dropped down 3-5 places. Is that enough to be a result of a Google filter or it is just that my competition is doing better?

Thanks for all your great advice on this post and your blog.

By: Kirsty

Kirsty — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:15:28 +0000

Hi James, rapid inbound link growth can indeed trip a Google filter. How many did you get? What anchor text was being used?

It will be important for you to analyse and definitively establish this is the cause. This is because the only way out is to get those backlinks removed and pop in a reinclusion request.

If you’re not ranking for your site name, and you should be… its a pretty solid sign of trouble from a Google-ward direction.

By: James

James — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:24:03 +0000

Hi Kirsty,
It’s very interesting that Google where penalizing you for over optimization. I am having a similar problem with some of my sites.

Basically I started on a campaign of generating inlinks to 3 websites, all done legitimately and mainly by article marketing. I have had some success but then noticed that Google suddenly dropped the websites down in its organic listings. One website has gone from 1 to 23!

Am I being penalized for having a sudden influx of backlinks? Has this happened to any one else?

By: matt

matt — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:27:01 +0000

Kirsty, good news & thanks as ever for publishing, I have realised I have a few pages that could do with some attention too. One in particular is bugging me, it’s 15th in serps for a nice phrase, as far as I can see those above it are no better and many are worse! Well it’s good to have a target, here goes ….

By: Kirsty

Kirsty — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:44:23 +0000

Hi Elaine – thanks, your comments to me via PM really helped. I too have seen the site ranking for more generic terms since the issue started to resolve itself. Probably due to a technique similar to your “waffling”. I’ll be focusing more on that in future also.

Jez – glad you too are getting out of Google jail. Hurahh!!