Google engineer Matt Cutts uploaded a couple new videos recently focused on specific link building tactics and what Google thinks of them. I transcribed a couple of the vids and wanted to share one here along with a handful of thoughts and observations. I numbered (in red) behind the sentences I wanted to comment on.
Video title: What is Google’s thinking about links from article marketing, widgets, etc?
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=chuhSmwsL7s
Transcription: Video length 2:48
Matt from Mountain View asks, ‘What is Google’s current thinking about getting links from article marketing, widgets, footers, themes, etc?’ (1)
Yeah, I’m really glad to talk about our current thinking which is about the same as our past thinking. But let’s be a little bit more explicit about it. Whenever you get a link from just a WordPress footer or just a random footer or you know when someone installs a widget or they install some theme on their content management system, it’s often the case that they’re not editorially choosing to link with that anchor text. And so you sometimes see a lot of links all with the exact same anchor text because, you know, that’s what the widget happened to have embedded in it or something like that. And even if it’s not the exact same anchor text, it’s like a, you know, it’s relatively inorganic in the sense that the person who made the widget is deciding what the anchor text should be rather than the person who’s actually doing the link by including the widget. (2)
And it’s the same sort of thing with article marketing. If you write a relatively low quality article, just a few hundred words and then at the bottom is two or three links of you know, specifically high density anchor text, (3) then the sort of guy who just wants some content and doesn’t really care about the quality might grab that article from an article bank or something and he’s not really editorially choosing to give that anchor text. So as opposed to something that’s really compelling, when you really like something, when you are linking to it organically, you know, that’s the sort of links that we really want to count more.
So it’s always been the case that these sorts of links that are boiler plate, it’s not really a person’s real choice to really endorse with that particular link or that particular anchor text, those are links that typically we would not want to count as much and so we either use algorithms or we have other ways of saying, okay at a granular level this is the sort of link that we don’t want to trust. There are some people who say I just want links, I’m just gonna take shortcuts, I’m lazy, I’m going to do the bare minimum that I can to get the links that I want to get, and they’ll fall back on some ways where, you know, I’ve mentioned this example before, but if you’re a K-12 school teacher in Pennsylvania and you are trying to get a web counter, you don’t realize that it has mesothelioma hidden in the text of the web counter, that’s not a link that we necessarily want to trust at all let alone give that much weight to.
So the sorts of links where people are really choosing to editorially link to you and not just because they’re paid, but because they think your site is good, those are the links that we are more likely to count more. (4)
My thoughts:
(1) I raised an eyebrow (and laughed) when I watched Matt ask and answer this question, he must really want to make a point here.
(2) Matt said: …” And even if it’s not the exact same anchor text, it’s like a, you know, it’s relatively inorganic in the sense that the person who made the widget is deciding what the anchor text should be rather than the person who’s actually doing the link by including the widget.”
My bold to focus on two points.
One draw back to using widgets (and badges) as a way to build links is the issue of footprints. When people want to put a widget on their site, they copy and paste a block of code from the host site to theirs. The code they copy is what makes the widget “go”, it also has a link back to the host site for attribution, navigation and in some cases, link building.
Given the cost and time involved in badge/widget creation, most webmasters make one or two versions which means the code and URL behind the widget are repeated over and over as people upload them. If the widget is popular, this can become a problem since all roads linking back to the host site say the exact same thing or point to the same page. A lot of the same anchor text phrases linking back to a page (especially an internal page with little content) over and over is probably not a natural occurrence so they are ignored or work against you. You’ve spent a lot of time and money creating a tangible asset that is now a liability or at very least, a gilded snitch.
The most interesting part of the video (for me) was this sentence:
even if it’s not the exact same anchor
Now I get why he asked the question and made the video.
First, I think he’s trying to tell us they don’t only look at/find anchors as a way to determine manipulation, they look at the content around it as well. What is around the link in a widget that would be super easy for an engine to detect? The code. Code trails for a code driven algorithm is like Diet Coke to this addict, if it’s out there, I will find it.
Second, he’s also trying to reinforce the point offering different versions of the same anchor won’t escape their notice. You can develop multiple anchor text versions of a badge or widget but chances are the coding will be the same or similar which again, makes it uber easy to detect.
I have heard various Google reps stress the importance of editorially awarded links in the past, since widgets and badges using clean links back to host sites are not considered “editorially awarded” you may want to think hard before investing a lot of time or money into their creation. (Clean links = those not using the nofollow attribute or tracking software)
(3) Matt said: …”at the bottom is two or three links of you know, specifically high density anchor text …”
I can speak to this issue first hand, Google will ding you with a love note if they find your bio has all keyword phrase (high density) anchor text links in it instead of links to your website.
I got a love note recently for my Alliance-Link site, seems Google thought my hyper linking the term “link building training” repeatedly was a problem. I guess it would be if I was actually dropping that anchor but I wasn’t, I have never, ever, EVER (channeling Taylor Swift)…. built links for my Alliance-Link site in the 12 years I’ve had it.
Ever. First off I’m lazy and second, I’ve never had to so why would I, after all these years, suddenly start dropping high density anchor text phrases on a bunch of crap sites?
Two minutes (seriously – 2 minutes) worth of investigating and I found my Search Engine Land (SEL) column was the culprit. Seems a number of my articles had been scraped, including the bio which is featured, using the term “link building training” at the bottom of the page.
The fact my keyword rich bio sits on SEL is no problem, SEL is an authority site, I am known in link building circles, I’m writing on the topic of link building and I’m posting in the link building section of SEL. If my bio stays on SEL it’s fine, but if it gets picked up and circulated on crappy blogs? Not so much. Never mind the fact someone else was stealing my content, I got the love note, the anxiety that comes with it and had to do the work to make things right. Sucketh to be me in this case.
Two take-away’s here:
- Don’t exclusively use keyword rich (high density) anchor text phrases in your author bio and
- Don’t stick all your bio’s at the end (bottom) of blog posts.
(4) Matt said: …”links where people are really choosing to editorially link to you and not just because they’re paid, but because they think your site is good, those are the links that we are more likely to count more.”
If you read the comments under the video you’ll see a lot of people saying things like
you need to look natural in your linking
and
…be natural; a constant state of SEO leading from well written useful content.
I don’t disagree with either statement but even if you write the most wonderful, thought-provoking, life-changing-Pulitzer-prize-winning content ever, it has to be promoted to see any benefits. This isn’t about being natural, it’s about where you promote. It’s always been about the “where”, not the how.
In the future, links embedded in things like widgets, badges and WP templates won’t count for much since they come with the territory and are not editorially awarded. I also think things like sponsored links (as in buying a sponsorship or donating to charity and getting a link for it) paying for a directory submission where the directory doesn’t have strict editorial guidelines for regular and sponsored links, and even (gasp!!) guest blogging links (see my #3), might not count for much either. I think going as far as saying the link “won’t count” is wrong, just like it’s wrong to say links using the nofollow attribute are not counted. Both, in some respects are counted, as a number if nothing else.
Now more than ever it’s important to incorporate offline tactics, promotional partnerships and use traditional media as a way to build links, drive traffic and promote your brand. If Google doesn’t think the link pointing to your site has been given on merit, there is a strong chance the link won’t carry much weight. Old methods like article marketing don’t work as well now because many of the article directories lack editorial process. If you find a good one, great! Just don’t use the same keyword rich, “high density” anchor text over and over in your bio 
Thanks for stopping by. 
Thank you for the great work, really enjoyed reading this articles. Keep up the good work.
You’re right that old tactics like article marketing are going out the window. We saw that with the Penguin update. People need to look outside of SEO, and offline marketing and partnerships are great ideas. SEO isn’t dead, but by focusing on other ways to promote our way, we end up not putting all eggs in 1 basket, and ironically, improve our search rankings.
Hi Debra, thanks for the break down on the videos (and the channeling of Taylor Swift!). I’m a web developer and typically give myself a little one-liner credit/link at the bottom of sites I build. Of course, the link (and the same anchor text) can grow like wildfire based on the number of pages/posts in a site. Your post has me pondering whether that’s a good practice.
Debra – Regarding your situation – I’m curious to know how you managed to whittle down the problem to the repetition of a specific keyword… considering Google give most webmasters practically nothing to go on, do you have any tips on how best to discover what precisely is the problem when Google slips you a ‘love note’ (I like that term!)
A great post.. first one of yours I’ve read and I want to read all of them now!
This is particularly interesting to me because of Google’s algo updates this year (primarily Penguin) and the possibility of negative SEO. Not to mention their new disavow tool. But more specifically, the way anchor text links are treated/handled since the end of April.
I sometimes feel that Cutts isn’t revealing the whole story, which leaves us all guessing and simply hoping for the best. Even staying strictly “white hat” isn’t clearly defined. What works today may get banned tomorrow. What’s ethical/recommended right now might be frowned upon next week. One can only wonder what big G has in store for us down the road. It certainly keeps things interesting (and frustrating!)
Thoughts?
The consequence is probably the best seo is when you do not think about seo. However for all seo agencies and consultants this will be a tough challenge. So my take away since a longer time is don’t try to hard but stay focussed
Alexander
In my situation, I was dinged for repeated use of the phrase “link building training” in a bio which was positioned at the end of a blog post which had been copied repeated times by less than desirable sites. The blogs that picked up the content appeared to be keyword splogs and there were a bunch of them. It could very well have been those blogs were already targeted (by Google) and when my little link showed up, I was deemed a spammer as well and got a note. Or it could have been my little A-L site, which I do nothing for and accumulates links at a much lower/slower rate, suddenly was the recipient of a ton of links from crap sites. Who knows which one or if both were the culprits, point was, if my content hadn’t been stolen and reprinted none of this would have happened. The fact the term was repeated suddenly and with numeric force was the issue.
In guest blogging, you do A post with unique content and you get A link back to your site. Not a large number like I had using the same content and bio term over and over, that’s the difference. For me the bigger issue here is how easy it was to get dinged… and how the idea you are supposed to be given “credit” for original content and not have it held against you when it’s reposted all over creation. That content was stolen and I took the heat. Sucked.
You know that old saying “you can run but you can’t hide”? How many times did you play hide and seek and not get found? Probably more found than not right? Same thing here, you try and fool them they’ll catch on and you have a harder time getting out of it.
I use the same bio repeatedly and will continue because it’s part of who I am. I don’t think you should recreate your signature every time you write, the inconsistency doesn’t help your marketing. Language is the only time I’d change that thought process, I’d change the bio to be country friendly if I was translating but that’s the only time.
In the end where you place your guest post is what matters. My bio appears on SEL a couple hundred times (if not more) and has never been an issue. The same article and bio show up on splogs and that IS a problem. It’s never been about what you do, it’s always been about where. Thanks for chatting Miguel!
Debra, great idea to post your thoughts on the video. But I’m pretty uspet and worried about what Google is saying about what they consider bad links. They are basically describing guest blogging, which is one of the few “clean” types of links out there that anyone can obtain. I meant clean, and effective that is. So now guest blogging is bad if you use keywords to link in your bio? Even if its relevant? What if you create a unique bio with unique wording for each guest post? Does this remove the “footprint” enough for Google to think that these links are editorial?
Lyndon, so you are saying that its OK to use footer links as long as its branded anchor text?
I haven’t heard Google speak to the idea of branded anchor text versus kw rich, have you? I wonder if they discern this when factoring in template/widget type links?
Hey Lyndon
Yep, location is key. Which site and where on the site are the two biggest issues as far as I’m concerned.
Nothing really new there (then again, he did say “… is about the same as our past thinking …”).
It’s a tough subject … as G doesn’t tend to give us any real insights.
At the end of the day, you should be free to Market and Promote without fear.
The problem is – it may be hard to tell the difference between M+P and Link/Relevancy Manipulation.
The keys boil down to perceived intent, and location.
If you guest post, push an article, release some press etc. to/on Quality, Trusted, Authoritative and Popular sites,
then you should be safe.
On the other hand, shove stuff up on garbage sites known for spam and possessing no trust, then you may find G having a closer look at.
Then you have the “fear” – due to Penguin.
If G had stepped up years ago and started being more visually active against link manipulation, we wouldn’t be where we are now.
But instead, we are left with site designers, theme creators and widget builders scared that they may be harming themselves/their cliets by following long standing, well established and pre-dating Google actions – the Credit Link.
In the past, when I’ve spoken to people like John Mueller – the general response was not to worry about Credit Links at the bottom of a site. G would generally either devalue or anull them … there would be no harm.
But now … people aren’t so clear.
Should they be nofollowed?
Why – it’s still a trusted site … that’s simply G induced Fear causing people to use a Google created BandAid fora Google deficiency.
Should they be used for Ranking?
No – and that is where the problem starts.
It’s all well and good putting a link to your company with your company name …
[a href="www,example,com] CompanyName [/a]
… at a push you could include the sector/industry as well …
[a href="www,example,com] Designed by CompanyName [/a]
… but when you start getting to this point …
[a href="www,example,com] Designed by CompanyName, a design company based in X, near to Y and Z, providing affordable NNN [/a]
… then you have crossed a line.
The same applies for things like PRs and Guest Posts.
Don’t laden the text.
Don’t go “heavy” with the links.
Clean, crisp, clear … nothing that appears “manipulative”.
That “should” keep you safe.
Whether it does or not … only G can tell (which is a pain, as it means that some of us may be paying for other peoples malpractices and G’s inefficincies).
The whole thing about being natural in link building is the same as fashion models who apply make-up to “look natural”, once that blush or eye shadow hits the face your skin is no longer natural. Your guest posting to build relationships is pretty much the same, if you include a link back to your site for any reason, any reason… you just stepped into the SEO world. Maybe not intentionally but the hyperlink doesn’t know that nor does the Google and Bing bot.
Thanks for the comment Susan
Interesting analysis. Your last paragraph just makes me think, does everything we do online have to be connected to pure SEO? I guest post because it helps to build relationships and it is still a form of promotion even if it doesn’t “count”.
This is the part of SEO that is the most difficult for me to understand, link building. And when I see advice to build a “natural” profile, is that not the same as saying, let people link to you when they feel like it. *lol* Sorry to be so naive here, but I am.