Google Responds To Link Removal Overreaction

    May 19, 2014
    Chris Crum
    Comments are off for this post.

People continue to needlessly ask sites that have legitimately linked to theirs to remove links because they’re afraid Google won’t like these links or because they simply want to be cautious about what Google may find questionable at any given time. With Google’s algorithms and manual penalty focuses changing on an ongoing basis, it’s hard to say what will get you in trouble with the search engine down the road. Guest blogging, for example, didn’t used to be much of a concern, but in recent months, Google has people freaking out about that.

Have you ever felt compelled to have a natural link removed? Let us know in the comments.

People take different views on specific types of links whether they’re from guest blog posts, directories, or something else entirely, but things have become so bass ackwards that people seek to have completely legitimate links to their sites removed. Natural links.

The topic is getting some attention once again thanks to a blog post from Jeremy Palmer called “Google is Breaking the Internet.” He talks about getting an email from a site his site linked to.

“In short, the email was a request to remove links from our site to their site,” he says. “We linked to this company on our own accord, with no prior solicitation, because we felt it would be useful to our site visitors, which is generally why people link to things on the Internet.”

“For the last 10 years, Google has been instilling and spreading irrational fear into webmasters,” he writes. “They’ve convinced site owners that any link, outside of a purely editorial link from an ‘authority site’, could be flagged as a bad link, and subject the site to ranking and/or index penalties. This fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) campaign has webmasters everywhere doing unnatural things, which is what Google claims they’re trying to stop.”

It’s true. We’ve seen similar emails, and perhaps you have too. A lot of sites have. Barry Schwartz at Search Engine Roundtable says he gets quite a few of them, and has just stopped responding.

It’s gotten so bad that people even ask StumbleUpon to remove links. You know, Stumbleupon – one of the biggest drivers of traffic on the web.

“We typically receive a few of these requests a week,” a spokesperson for the company told WebProNews last year. “We evaluate the links based on quality and if they don’t meet our user experience criteria we take them down. Since we drive a lot of traffic to sites all over the Web, we encourage all publishers to keep and add quality links to StumbleUpon. Our community votes on the content they like and don’t like so the best content is stumbled and shared more often while the less popular content is naturally seen less frequently.”

Palmer’s post made its way to Hacker News, and got the attention of a couple Googlers including Matt Cutts himself. It actually turned into quite a lengthy conversation. Cutts wrote:

Note that there are two different things to keep in mind when someone writes in and says “Hey, can you remove this link from your site?”

Situation #1 is by far the most common. If a site gets dinged for linkspam and works to clean up their links, a lot of them send out a bunch of link removal requests on their own prerogative.

Situation #2 is when Google actually sends a notice to a site for spamming links and gives a concrete link that we believe is part of the problem. For example, we might say “we believe site-a.com has a problem with spam or inorganic links. An example link is site-b.com/spammy-link.html.”

The vast majority of the link removal requests that a typical site gets are for the first type, where a site got tagged for spamming links and now it’s trying hard to clean up any links that could be considered spammy.

He also shared this video discussion he recently ad with Leo Laporte and Gina Trapani.

Cutts later said in the Hacker News thread, “It’s not a huge surprise that some sites which went way too far spamming for links will sometimes go overboard when it’s necessary to clean the spammy links up. The main thing I’d recommend for a site owner who gets a fairly large number of link removal requests is to ask ‘Do these requests indicate a larger issue with my site?’ For example, if you run a forum and it’s trivially easy for blackhat SEOs to register for your forum and drop a link on the user profile page, then that’s a loophole that you probably want to close.
But if the links actually look organic to you or you’re confident that your site is high-quality or doesn’t have those sorts of loopholes, you can safely ignore these requests unless you’re feeling helpful.”

Side note: Cutts mentionedin the thread that Google hasn’t been using the disavow links tool as a reason not to trust a source site.

Googler Ryan Moulton weighed in on the link removal discussion in the thread, saying, “The most likely situation is that the company who sent the letter hired a shady SEO. That SEO did spammy things that got them penalized. They brought in a new SEO to clean up the mess, and that SEO is trying to undo all the damage the previous one caused. They are trying to remove every link they can find since they didn’t do the spamming in the first place and don’t know which are causing the problem.”

That’s a fair point that has gone largely overlooked.

Either way, it is indeed clear that sites are overreacting in getting links removed from sites. Natural links. Likewise, some sites are afraid to link out naturally for similar reasons.

After the big guest blogging bust of 2014, Econsultancy, a reasonably reputable digital marketing and ecommerce resource site, announced that it was adding nofollow to links in the bios of guest authors as part of a “safety first approach”. Keep in mind, they only accept high quality posts in the first place, and have strict guidelines.

Econsultancy’s Chris Lake wrote at the time, “Google is worried about links in signatures. I guess that can be gamed, on less scrupulous blogs. It’s just that our editorial bar is very high, and all outbound links have to be there on merit, and justified. From a user experience perspective, links in signatures are entirely justifiable. I frequently check out writers in more detail, and wind up following people on the various social networks. But should these links pass on any linkjuice? It seems not, if you want to play it safe (and we do).”

Of course Google is always talking about how important the user experience is.

Are people overreacting with link removals? Should the sites doing the linking respond to irrational removal requests? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Image via Twit.tv

  • PJ

    Yes – I have a link from a national newspaper, Daily Telegraph which was included in a story they wrote. My site still got hot massively so I used the disavow tool just in case Google considered it an advertorial of some sort.

    This is a perfectly natural link but who knows what Google thinks of these links right now

  • JanetHH

    They are creating their own issues here when a reputable site suddenly decides to no follow all of the bio links or content links. Suddenly their ranking graph is thrown off allowing less well liked sites to move up.

    Eventually 90% of links will end up being no follow and then what? They will start using no follow as well as a ranking factor and its the wild west all over again.

    As for me, I dont reply to those emails, I link to who I want, if it is relevant to my article I link, if some webmaster does not like it I really dont care at this point.
    I write for readers, not other webmasters and nor for a search engine.

    Disavow it if you dont like it for all I care.

  • Anon

    So Google tries to control and manipulate the internet through a direct campaign of scaremongering and threats, then tries to act all innocently and pretends people are “overreacting”?

    I guess it’s easy to claim innocence and ignorance when you’re making a million $’s a year, while the decisions you make are crushing the incomes of millions of people.

    Matt is a pompous, smug little twerp.

    • Dolce Vita

      “I guess it’s easy to claim innocence and ignorance when you’re making a
      million $’s a year, while the decisions you make are crushing the
      incomes of millions of people.” Amen!!! So many families incomes have been ruined by Matt’s team. It’s very sad.

    • Steve Gardner

      Anon, could not agree with you more! I just wanna punch that prick n the face

  • http://www.riverbedmarketing.com/ Todd Mumford

    Google needs granulate their messaging better in order to stop this recent madness and provide clearer understanding to webmasters on what a good link is and what a bad link is. I can attest for the fact that 5% of business owners we meet – even ones with a history of hiring and using SEOs – are not clear about what is valuable and what isn’t valuable.

    And unfortunately, still, to this day – even despite the Penguin clean up, there are many clear-cit cases of link spam happening in the index that we see that are not being dealt with. Business owners see this, and ask us, and we can’t provide a readily available answers as to why those companies still perform in search based on our experience that they should likely be, at a minimum, scrutinized for those types of tactics.

  • Dave Anders

    When all links have been destroyed, and the only way to get to any website is from the almighty google.com, then they will be satisfied with charging everyone for their sales dollars and the organic link will be dead.

    • Jared

      I think you’re right on the money there.

  • Jason Dupont

    This is all OK. Microsoft is actually doing something incredible smart, even for them. They are getting kids to use Bing in school when they are young by providing a search engine that does not track or have ads for schools. It could very well be the beginning of the end for Google. Of course it will take years upon years but MS has the money and patience to wait it out.

  • Bing

    Judge, Jury, Executioner and the fat gay guy in between.

    • Anon

      Smug fat guy begging for a smack in the mouth, too. I hate that c**t, I really do.

  • wertwert

    Google has never been easier to weaponize.

  • Mike C

    I am getting tons of requests to remove links. None are the result of spam. All are from my own web spidering — which is exactly what google does.

    Sounds like predatory monopolistic practices to me. Anybody for a class action lawsuit?

  • http://www.skinnbeautycare.com/ Bindal

    It is not the overreaction but fear created by the Google in webmasters’s mind. I have a content based website and never beleived in link exchange. Numbers of web pages of my web site were on first page in Google search but for the last few months I am getting about 2% traffic from Google that I used to get. I have not been able to find the reason.

    • Anon

      You’ve displeased the almighty Google God, time to sacrifice a Virgin in a Volcano in hopes of appeasing the angry dictator.

  • Xangis

    Dear Google, please stop breaking the internet. Links *are* the internet.

  • https://restore.solutions/ Numus Software

    “Remember, Google doesn’t own the Internet, they just crawl and index it for profit.”

    Is what Jeremy Palmer said… considering we have been so incredibly hurt by Google over the last 10 years. employees lost houses.. livelihoods.. its no joke.. and i am afraid hes wrong.. we live in fear of putting a foot wrong.. we have had a competitor post 25,000 plus purposely bad links, all over hacked sites.. we had to shut our site down.. and we actively ask legitimate natural links to be removed… Google controls the net, runs it owns it and has us scared of Google.. our best site ranked 8,000 on Alexa 4 years ago, its now shut down. 20 people lost their jobs.. we now live on crumbs of traffic.. we have sites with 1.2 million pages and Zero errors, i would give you guys a link to look at our newest… but you know what… that may be seen as a bad link.. .. this site scores 95% on most pages on Google speed rank tool for user experience.. on a mobile device, and 95 -100% on the desktop tests. there are No errors on any pages according to the w3c tools, every page is minified.. the severs cache the content.. have active gzip compression.. and run on 32 processor state of the art server architecture..a site that out ranks us.. has no authority to speak of.. no links and has 4 header tags in the code, and has been spliced together.. it is an abomination.. i would link to it to show you guys but hey.. it could end up positive or negative SEO …. THE NET IS BROKEN , unless you are Walmart … and do you know why its like that??? because that’s exactly what the big corporations want.. that is what Google wants..

    “Remember, Google doesn’t own the Internet, they just crawl and index it for profit.”

    So true and so not true

    • Steve Gardner

      “Google is always talking about how important the user experience is”. WHAT A CROCK OF CRAP AND IT STINKETH!!!. 100% RELEVANT SITES ARE TAKEN DOWN WITH NO RECOURSE OR EVEN A FAIR SHOT AT RECONSIDERATION. PUKES!!!

    • Jared

      Unfortunately, while it’s true that Google doesn’t own the internet, it owns almost 90% of the market, which is a near complete monopoly. It is an unelected, unmonitored, unrestricted corporation that has already become the most powerful corporation on this planet, with no oversight and no real international legal framework to operate within.

      Google could hit a button tomorrow and wipe out millions of people’s livelihoods overnight, and absolutely NO COMPANY ON EARTH should have that power.

      • https://restore.solutions/ Numus Software

        I stupid question but lets pose it… if a site that sells widgets has 1million stupid spammy links to it all all saying widgets and if.. that site sell widgets / talks about widgets… or a bad SEO company has been paid a lot of money for smammy links.. or a good SEO company has written some good articles.. done the work.. if no matter how those links were gained… does that not mean that site has put a lot of time effort and money into linking to their widget site.. IF the user is now looking to read about or buy or wants some information on widets.. surely the site that the user wants to see is the site relevant to widgets.. the one DEDICATED to widgets… the one called widgetsdotcom (that is not our site i don’t even know if its exists) surely the page on Walmart that states in small writing at the bottom.. the small print … that they do not include the widget in its item. should not out hit the widget site!!!! this is a true example .. changing the names to protect the innocent.

  • http://THGMwriters.com David Leonhardt

    The problem is that the links are only Google’s business within the context of their algorithm. Links are part of the Web and belong solely to the linking party (free speech). If Google doesn’t like a link, they can discount it in their algorithm – that’s what an algorithm is for – not whip up a frenzy of shotgun censorship by the linked-to parties.

    At no point should anyone feel compelled to ask someone to stop linking to them just because that link (or the linking page) is of “poor quality”. Seriously, in the real world would a company would ask someone, “Please stop talking about us, because we believe you are a poor quality person.”

    What Google should be clearing up is that it is not in the censorship business, that any link is 100% legitimate (unless it is spammed without the website owner’s knowledge/permission), and that Google can decide for itself what links to value, as can everybody else.

    When that has been cleared up, everybody can go back to their regularly scheduled business.

  • Mark Lamendola

    As the Google ad spam server system continues to abuse its near-monopoly and steamroll over organic search, it is increasingly looking like at least a few federal agencies have a legal mandate to intervene.

    For example, the FTC could ban Google from the Internet to prevent it from further destroying legitimate e-commerce. The IRS could simply seize Google’s assets, based on the many tax games Google has played over the years (contributing in no small way to its 2 trillion cash reserves or whatever that is now). You can go down the list of federal agencies and find one after another that, if it does its job, will shut Google down.

    But we don’t have a federal government that’s concerned with actually going after evil, abusive, destructive companies like Google to protect consumers and retailers from predatory practices. So it’s up to us to do what we can to pressure Google to reform.

    Playing Google’s link removal game is a losing proposition. Even if you remove all kinds of links, Google will show many of them in your profile even two years later. And try to get Google to remove blogspot or diigo spam that a competitor created just to damage your link profile–not gonna happen for a very, very long time.

    What we can do is refuse to advertise with Google. Refuse to click on Google ads. Refuse to use the Google spam ad server. Spread the word. Talk it up in your customer newsletters and on your site and with friends you correspond with. Spread the word and get people to use alternatives to Google. Keep the pressure up until the mismanagers at Google decide that “do more evil” is no longer a good central strategy for Google. Then treat Google the way they treated spam victims: leave the knife in for a long time so they feel the pain and promise never to do it again.

    Do I hate Google? You betcha. And I don’t mind telling people why. Google could change its behavior, but chooses not to. We need to do what we can to show Google that discarding its “do more evil” strategy is in its best interests. The one thing that protects Google from complete demise is the share of mind it has in the USA. At one time, Google actually deserved this. Obviously, they are far from deserving it today. But old habits die hard, and most people “google it.” We need to help them kill that habit, so that Google can no longer engage in gross misconduct with such utter impunity.

  • bob Teal

    Its all a distraction to keep you busy while they rape your family. Thought you knew this as its all PPC now and just because you pay per click does not mean they will send you more traffic just charge you money for nothing lol. They say you have the wrong keywords or you could have better ones. Well cool How bout a world without Google. Now there is an idea I love.

    • Jared

      People still don’t understand the rigged game. You cannot compete with a corporation with bottomless pockets in PPC, and all you are doing is driving up the price while Google walks away with fat pockets. If you pay Google for advertising, you are destroying your own business and paying this corporation for the privilege.

  • David Hurley

    If Goggle does determine that a link is spam, they will simply ‘devalue’ the link so it will not pass pagerank on to your site…for Google to actually penalize you for having spammy links is not that common, you have to have really a lot, like all your links are coming from a link farm or something like that….if you happen to pick up a stray link or two that aren’t the best quality you shouldn’t have to worry about a thing….

    • Jared

      Or, they’ll do what they did to thousands of users of other services and devalue their sites and issue warnings to them when all they did was use partner up with someone for a guest blog post.

  • FrankLuska

    “The main thing I’d recommend for a site owner who gets a fairly large
    number of link removal requests is to ask ‘Do these requests indicate a
    larger issue with my site?”

    You just have to love Google, always throwing the ball at someone else, the problem could never be caused by them.

  • Cheese

    I’m sorry but this is just the next thing that Google will use to force websites to use PPC. My site was viciously spam attacked by a competitor. We were filled with Chinese and porn sites. We did the Google link penalty dance, went out of our way to contact sites we NEVER had anything to do with because that is what Google demands, and we still did not do enough to remove the penalty.

    Before you ask, yes I supplied proof of ALL sites contacted (email addresses, emails and multiple dates) I did my disavow list properly and groveled saying how sorry we were.

    I’m just not sold that this is the way “Google” is gonna fix everything.

    Sorry Matt but I think you lie.

    • https://restore.solutions/ Numus Software

      We closed a site that ranked 8,000 in Alexa after it was killed by Google for the same reason… no matter what we did.. no matter how many requests we put in.. the sites was re-written every page changed.. at considerable cost.. i am talking +50k in costs. The site never ever lost its penalties.. it was a 8000 in Alexa before it was attacked an penalized we closed it when it dropped out of the top million… disavow does not work, and the process to have penalties does not work.. Hey but wait.. if your a very big company and in the club.. your be fine.. do what you want

  • http://seanpratt.info/ Sean P. Pratt

    Fuck Google. That is all.

  • Verdad Sojourner

    Key topic: Google ‘Search Quality’ fiasco —

    GOOGLE HYPOCRISY & Predatory Corruption
    re: obscene fraudulent nonsense-string (scraped names) WebSpam
    that is prevalent in Google Search Results
    > Question:
    Is Google deliberately abetting
    corrupt obscene fraudulent Israeli/Russian-jewish organized-crime WebSpam
    & WebSCAM porn for profit ??

    Related, significant info. re: Google Corp.
    (see Link, July 2013)
    “Google gets Lowest Score Ever in Customer Satisfaction Survey” =>
    > also, view:
    “Customer Service Scoreboard” site (note: Google Corp. has ‘Terrible” rating) => http://www.customerservicescoreboard.com/Google
    Please be aware that…

    (‘Google groupie’) Ashley Berman Hale serves as an operative shill for Israeli/Russian-Jewish organized crime protecting their ‘Porn Empire’
    — this explains why her comments are uselessly snarky and she is deliberately unhelpful to the victims of corrupt, obscene, fraudulent (scraped names, phone#) WebSpam sites —
    corrupt (random nonsense-string) Spam-Junk sites which are clandestinely abetted by Google Corp. (for profit) and which ludicrously proliferate in typical awful-quality Google search results.

    * please note: I am honestly reporting the above
    info. — I myself am jewish heritage & I’m the
    daughter of holocaust survivors —
    however, the public should realize it is a FACT that many criminal-scam websites perpetrating ‘search abuse’, (including obscene & fraudulent scraped names, phone# etc.) WebSpam sites, are controlled by Israeli/Russian-Jewish organized crime — and are harbored/facilitated and protected or even promoted by Google Corporation.

    ASHLEY BERMAN HALE provides ‘cover’
    for Google Corp. harmful corruption
    & lack of responsible business practices…

    please note: I assuredly guarantee that Google Corp. affiliates immediately remove any corrupt WebScam listings that mention themselves !
    > Google Corp. affiliates protect themselves
    but not YOU — the general public —
    from corrupt obscene fraudulent WebSpam (scraped names, phone#, etc.)
    that is creepily, awfully abundant in typical Google search results !
    => Google’s HYPOCRISY
    & deleterious corporate practices !
    Google’s so-called SPAM REPORTS are
    apparently USELESS wastes of time!

    Please note: Ashley’s prior “Webmaster Central” comments are not relevant,
    because as I stated, I already prevously submitted Google Spam Reports several times —
    And… the (supposed) Google standards-violating
    corrupt obscene WebSpam site is quite BLATANTLY & OBVIOUSLY using randomly SCRAPED Names & words, as displayed by Google in the
    crappy search results NONSENSE-String SNIPPET (shown below) !

    WHY has Google ‘search quality’ apparently
    DETERIORATED, in general ??

    Unfortunately, Google ‘search results’ are chockfull of corrupt, harmfully fraudulent, erroneous & meaningless nonsense-string (random scraped words/names hodgepodge) listings — including ludicrous & obscene SNIPPETS that display people’s full names & business names, fraudulently mis-used within WEBSPAM SEARCH ABUSE !!

    see egregious example —
    this type of sleazy WebSpam which Google Corp. seems to abet…
    Note: Ashley Berman Hale thinks that the fraudulent mis-use
    of randomly scraped names is not problematic for… other people
    (for the ‘peons’), but let’s see how she likes to be exploited
    by Google Corp. sleazy corrupt recklessness
    when it happens to her:

    droom design …
    … homes.com http://www.for rent las.com http://www.vegas.comwww ……
    ASHLEY BERMAN HALE Cisco … teacher leani may mp jocks.com
    http://www.oral sex pastoralopenings.com http://www.sk marine …

    WHY is Google Corp. seemingly promoting &
    proliferating this obscene and fraudulent scraped-names nonsense garbage ??
    — Exactly WHO is profiteering
    from deliberately awful-quality, crappy & sleazy search results !!

    Attn: Alan Eustace, Amit Singhal, Matt Cutts
    and GOOGLE ‘Search Quality’ Team

    See example of corrupt obscene nonsense-string (search abuse) WebSpam
    that is fraudulently & erroneously
    mis-using my full name, which is displayed in Google snippets.
    Note: I don’t have any connection whatsoever with this disgusting corrupt website, which has obviously scraped my name and other contents of random names & words…
    (see problem snippet below) = Google Corporation’s typical crappy, misleading
    & fraudulent OBSCENE SPAM-JUNK ‘search result’ SNIPPET =>

    !!LOOKING FOR CASUAL SAFE SECURE SEX!! droom design … http://www.gaymafia.info/217.html‎
    … homes.com http://www.for rent las.com http://www.vegas.com …. Matt Cutts … teacher
    leani may mp jocks.com Larry Page http://www.oral sex pastoral openings.com http://www.sk marine …

    corrupt Google WebSpam … Amanda Rosenberg … AmitSinghal …
    typical Google crappy search result … homes.com http://www.for rent las.com
    John Mueller http://www.vegas.com ….Matt Cutts … teacher … leani may mp
    jocks.com Larry Page http://www.oral sex pastoral openings.com Sergey Brin
    http://www.sk marine … Sundar Pichai ….. Alan Eustace

    –> Attention: GOOGLE EMPLOYEES
    REMOVE THIS (Fraudulent Search Abuse) Snippet
    The Google ‘Web Removal Tool’ procedure has been USELESS
    Also, I have tried filling out Google ‘Spam Report’
    form several times to no avail !
    This is the specific ‘Search Abuse’ WEBSPAM site =>

    I recently discovered to my shock that the above-listed (corrupt fraudulent obscene) website is a Google Corp. ADVERTISER which actually posts advertisements on Google+ (Google Plus) pages !!!

    > Google Corp. in recent years conducts itself in a deleteriously callous
    manner toward the general public.


    • https://restore.solutions/ Numus Software

      Google purchased the 7 largest robotics companies in the world a while
      back… if you ask me they know their market is going to decline and
      there is something afoot.. probably something along the lines of the
      Digital ID and the rights to publish by individuals on the net is goign
      to stop .. okay maybe you will be allowed to put comments on twitter (as
      long as they are not offensive to anybody) forget free speech! .. or
      maybe Facebook.. but to talk with anonymity on the net i think is going
      to disappear. links will become irrelevant as only the CHOSEN
      pre-selected big corporations will be able or allowed to publish.. There some very bad laws hidden in
      The Trans Atlantic trade agreement.. the
      net / Google really is moving away very quickly from the idea of small
      companies and people having the freedom to talk what they wish to..
      express their opinion and compete on a level playing field with the big

    • http://pislamonauseacentral.tumblr.com/ Gary Rumain

      Yo, kook, get back on your meds.

  • JC

    came out right after I got ticketed by Sheriff Google who put a block on my site
    for suspicious links. Funny they picked out links from my archives 1-2-3 years
    ago. Did they just now scan my site for the first time for heaven’s sakes? I
    have several websites and out of all my websites which I manage the same as the
    one flagged down (Blocked by Google but not by Bing/Yahoo)

    looking through some of the links I realized that the sites in question were
    actually my own sites referring to another one of my sites. There were a couple
    of questionable ones, grant you, but why now? Why not when the content was first
    posted? Why 1-2-3 years later? Glad they are able to keep their employees busy
    so they can keep their jobs doing this kind of surveillance even if the content
    is now 1-2 years old…some were 3 years old. Why did I get blocked for
    something so OLD in the archives? Attention Webmasters: How long do you keep
    archived content now for your customers since Google must have missed the links
    in years prior and just flagged me now for them. How did this happen?

    for the article! It came in right after I just cleaned up over 500 links on my

    think we need the Feds overlooking Sheriff Google and their domination attempt
    to control the Internet. They are getting away with “murder” right now and
    hurting a lot of people who are struggling to make a dime on the Internet yet
    only to jump through more hoops Sheriff Google, Uncle Google, Auntie Google
    throws out at us to jump through.

    And I fear retribution in posting this. That
    is a “darn” shame to run a business like this. I feel like a pinball not
    knowing which way to turn for new changes up their sleeves. Why is Google being
    allowed to take so much control and truly missing the true meaning of Freedom
    and Democracy in the U.S. or anywhere else.

    a frightened owner and webmaster I can only assume the role of one of the three
    little pigs and Governor Google as the big bad wolf. I thought it was supposed
    to be the Feds being the big bad wolf and Bing, Yahoo & Google playing the
    role of the 3 little pigs. Of course that is what GrandPappy Google would want
    us to believe……..them as one of the three Innocent Pigs. And as usual,
    Godzilla Google finishing the Bedtimje Story like they always do……….. in
    control **SMASH** “BAM*

    the webmasters running for their lives!

    Then, Waiting for Fairy GodMother Google

    to finish the next Chapter………………..

  • Sites N Syllables

    This is why the new ‘SISTER SEO SYSTEM” is so revolutionary. It doesn’t
    need back links at all. No monthly upkeep also means greater savings for
    the client. Chris Crum, you should really do an interview with me.. I
    will amaze you within 10 minutes! Anyone else interested in seeing some amazing SEO talent feel free to contact me…
    Who am I?
    If you Google the terms “Custom Website Experts”
    My company (SitesnSyllables.com) is number one!
    (also in Yahoo and Bing)
    A 10 minute phone call will leave you with your jaw on the ground and shaking your head!

  • BobP

    Respond to this!

    On Google/YouTube when users post content that contains links, the links are truncated and made nofollow. When the content goes out by feed to G/YT third party API publishers a review of the two source codes finds the part of the link after the domain including the nofollow has been removed making the links dofollow. We get many requests to remove these links on our G/YT video search site that are actually part of the content posted to G/YT. Some claim they were told by Google these are low quality links, who knows as there is no where to verify this nonsense.

    It also doesn’t help Google downgraded a sizable percentage of PR-1 through PR-3 sites to PR-0 turning sites G formerly liked into “low quality” sites G’s victims are now scrambling to get away from.

  • Alex

    Webmasters community need to massively stop to use Webmaster Tools, remove Google search from website, remove Google analytics, shut down complete Google account and use yahoo mail, zoho, hotmail etc. Then google can’t use our data / analytics against us!


  • Bob

    People will moan about anything and everything. Its no big deal, chill maaaaaaaaan.

  • Jo Gonzalez
  • Spammed

    As someone who owns an online yellow pages site I guess Google could consider me competition. I have wondered if this is why I have been getting messages from companies to remove links. Most are from two link removal companies. I sent them messages today asking them to stop spamming me.
    When the messages are actually from site owners and I tell them what my site is they say “nevermind”. Too bad people ask for link removal without ever visiting the site the link is on.