MOST webmasters of medium-sized and bigger sites are getting hit by one of these schemes right now…and some of you are getting hit by all three. And just because you’re not seeing a precipitous drop in traffic (yet!) doesn’t mean your backlink profile isn’t edging its way over the precipice where Google starts losing trust in your site.
Photo courtesy Tom Brandt on Flickr
Continue reading 3 Train Wreck Link Schemes You Didn’t Even Know Had Hit You
I discovered TripleChecker
recently, when they did a freebie intro scan of my site and found a whole bunch of typos and broken links.
Their interface makes it easy to see what’s wrong, and links to the page with the problem. Super helpful at keeping your site clean, professional, and functioning as it should. Have it check your website monthly (up to 1000 pages) for $14.99/month, or weekly (up to 2,500 pages) for $19.99/month.
Sure, you can manually do a crawl test regularly with something like Screaming Frog
to find the broken links, and you can go page by page and feed the text into a tool like Grammarly
, but this wraps it all in a neat package that you don’t have to remember to do each month. I liked it enough, I added it to my Resources menu, and to my standard set of site audit recommendations.
This podcast with Stan Ventures is a Q&A with me talking about negative SEO
, what patterns we’re seeing, neg SEO vs. hackers/scrapers, why many backlinks tools cannot see the negative SEO, etc.
‘s 3 big takeaways from his one-on-one with Google’s John Mueller
is information all technical SEO folks need to hear.
Video courtesy our friends at Moz
UPDATE: I had always (wrongly) thought that Google wouldn’t index pages that were blocked in robots.txt. But John Mueller clarified this for me (thank you John): robots.txt will control the crawling BUT NOT the indexing. Good explanation of that is here
Google is now sometimes indexing pages DESPITE explicitly being blocked in robots.txt:
The screenshot above is from the new Search Console index coverage report, and shows that Google is choosing to index 36 pages that they see are explicitly blocked in robots.txt.
Have you taken one of the quizzes from Women.com on Facebook lately? Been impressed with your brilliance…got 100% on the quiz?
Well, maybe you ARE brilliant, and maybe you DID get 100%. But if you have a creepy feeling you’ve been used–you’re unfortunately right.
Women.com has been putting up a number of quizzes lately where, if you get anywhere close to most of the answers correct, it’ll report you as getting 100%. Why would they do this?
Well…so you’ll share it on Facebook. If you scored 65%, you probably wouldn’t be proud enough to share it. So, by faking your score to make you look like a rockstar, they greatly increase the chance you’ll share their quiz on your timeline.
I’ve done this quiz (and a couple of others they’ve run), and deliberately answered 3-4 questions incorrectly, and still….100%. I then tried answering all of them deliberately wrong, and didn’t show 100%. I’m guessing they did this to make it look legit for someone who either was testing them, or knew they knew hardly any of the right answers.
They’re using you, by deception, to market their site for them on Facebook, for free.
One of my clients discovered this latest dirty trick for ranking, and it’s being used by dirtbags who have pirated content from legit publishers.
If you do this search
, you’ll see the 3 of the top organic listings are from a very trusted domain…Google.com.
The problem is, each of these is a user-generated MyMaps page, and it’s just a crappy page with a link to the download and some text.
Reporting this to Google now…and, the publisher of the legit content is submitting a DMCA take-down.
I did a post for the Moz main blog on XML sitemaps, all the ways people do them wrong, and how to use them to diagnose indexation issues.
Read the full post here
Here’s an interesting case of Google’s local organic algorithm failing to produce the right results, and it tells us a bunch about how they’re trying to produce those local results in the organic results outside of the 3-pack.
I’m sitting here near Sunriver, Oregon, and I search for “restaurants near me”. The 3-pack looks pretty good…it’s got the pushpin very accurately located for me (within yards, in fact, despite the fact that I’m on a PC connected via my cable internet provider, not my cellphone with GPS).
Continue reading Outside of the 3-Pack, How Does Google Find Local Results?