They damage rankings and ultimately may result in banishment from the search engines. However, before panic sets in, let us guide you through the basics of penalties and filters.

A penalty is caused by significant violations of a search engine’s website guidelines, such as:

Penalties can be issued after a person reviews a website or after it has been crawled and processed by search engines. They result in a website being heavily held back in the rankings, or removed from the search engine’s index entirely. A penalty is called a ban when a website is completely removed from a search engine.

To remove a penalty, a site needs to first correct the problem that caused it, then contact the search engine and request a reinclusion. It is important to note penalties are not common for business websites, particularly in Google.

1. In Google, this is done through a Webmaster Tools account, which can be set up for free.
    
2. MSN has just created a Webmaster Tools system like Google’s.
    
3. Yahoo does not have a defined reinclusion process.
    
4. A filter is caused by passing a search engine’s threshold setting for one or more optimization/link building elements, such as:
    
   1. Too many keyword mentions on a page’s body content (over-optimization).
       
   2. Too much keyword blurring between a site’s pages.
       
   3. Too many links with the same anchor text.
       
   4. Too much keyword-rich internal linking (can cause 950 filter).
       
   5. Too much link building in a short period of time.
       
   6. Too much link building using the same anchor text.
       
   7. Link building in bad neighborhoods.

Filters are common. They are issued automatically after the site is crawled and processed by search engines and result in a site being held back in the rankings.

1. Filters can be keyword-based or site-based.
    
2. Filters can be mild (held back a few positions) or heavy (held back hundreds of positions).
    
3. Filters can have a time element (like the normal Google Sandbox process, where a site is initially held back many positions and over time gets held back less and less until eventually it ranks near its allinanchor rankings).

In general, to remove a filter a site needs to first correct the problem that caused it, then wait for the search engine (s) to crawl the site again and find the corrections. The next time the search engine updates its rankings with the corrected data, the filter will be lifted automatically.

1. In some cases, like the Google Sandbox, you can simply outwait a filter. Websites commonly spend anywhere between a few months and a year or so in the Google Sandbox. The time websites spend in the Sandbox has significantly decreased over the last few years.
    
2. In some cases, you can remove a filter on a site by doing things that search engines like (such as getting quality links to the site from other respected websites in the same sector) to outweigh the things about the site or optimization they don’t like.

Filters are common, especially in Google.

1. The Google Sandbox is technically a filter. Google closely examines new websites for over-optimization to try and minimize spammy websites filling its SERPS. As a result, newer websites often trip filters when they start an optimization campaign using traditional SEO (lots of keywords on the page, keyword-heavy titles and description, keyword heavy anchor text in incoming links). This pattern of new websites getting filtered and eventually getting released from the filter is called the Google Sandbox. Websites can speed up their release date from the Sandbox by getting quality internal links and not going overboard with on-site optimization.
    
2. New websites are not the only targets. Older websites can trip filters when they go overboard with over-optimization

Being aware of how search engines assess penalties and filters is essential to avoiding them. Do not try to cheat the system, over-optimize or trick search engines. They are savvy to these tactics and punish those who attempt to take advantage of them. What may help in the short term will only end up hurting in the long term.

Being competitive in the SERP’s is important, and sitting idly is not a good strategy. If you must build links or optimize your website try to stick to the guidelines and use common sense.

Comment

Remember a couple weeks ago when Search Engine Land was outed for spamming? Several readers, in an effort to be helpful (I’m sure), pointed out that this particular trick was the Fehrer Image Replacement technique.

Despite what some commenters seemed to believe, most SEOs with CSS experience actually do know what the Fehrer Image Replacement technique is. I’ve used it before. However, by the strictest definition of “search engine spam,” it would, unfortunately, be considered spam. Showing a search engine something different than what you show your users is, by definition, not an “approved” technique.

Danny Sullivan (you know, Editor-in-Chief of Search Engine Land), I think, knows a thing or two about what search engines find acceptable, being pretty much the foremost authority on search for over a decade. In fact, what he said in response was, “We were totally hiding text and technically might be considered spamming the search engines.” He vowed to correct it after things calmed down from SMX.

Good news, Danny. You don’t have to worry about it. Barry Schwartz, writing on SERoundtable, points out a Google Groups thread on this very issue. Susan Moskwa, Googler (okay, part of the Webmaster Central Google Groups support team), replies:

If your intent is purely to improve the visual user experience (e.g. by replacing some text with a fancier image of that same text), you don’t need to worry.

Barry also notes, however, that Matt Cutts says this does bring you closer to the “gray area.” So, note, if you’re using Fehrer & its ilk, other marginal activities on your site might make the Googlebot mad…

Comments

Tag:

Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan made the discovery, and the text is neither a piece of malicious code or some amusing Easter egg; it’s just a typical small-print disclaimer.  “Volkswagen of America presents U.S. vehicle information, pricing, incentives, deals, comparisons . . .”  And so on.  You get the idea.

But, harmless or not, such text is verboten.  “Google has guidelines against using hidden text,” reported Sullivan.  “In fact, such use got a different car maker, BMW, banned briefly from Google last year.”

And, in case you’re thinking that someone at the search engine company should have caught on, Sullivan added, “Even Google has violated its own rules.  Back in 2005, text meant for internal indexing was showing up on public pages, causing one part of Google to file for a reinclusion request with another part of Google.”

That incident was rather embarrassing for Google, however, and this new “oops” may also spur some recriminations within the company; after all, Kevin Gough, a senior product and marketing manager, was enthusiastically praising the carmaker just last month on the Google Enterprise Blog.

One of the first interactions between Google and Volkswagen seemed innocent enough – they attempted to develop a navigation system.  The companies then shared a bit of laughter at the destruction of a Ford Focus, for which I can’t fault them.  But with their latest collaboration – or more specifically, the “invisible” aspect of that collaboration – Google and Volkswagen are starting to raise some eyebrows.