Many, many site owners have received warnings similar to this, and whilst a few are willing to help hints, many (like Scott’s) add sites and links that evidently do not infringe the discipline Google’s published.Here’s a screenshot of Scott’s reconsideration request:(note that the red content was updated by Scott as a follow-up to himself)As founder, house member, andmajority shareholder of Moz, that owns Moz.com (of that YouMoz is a part), I’m here to discuss it Google that Scott’s couple from the YouMoz post was surely editorial. Our content group reviews every YouMoz submission. We reject the immeasurable most of them. We publish usually those that are of worth and fascination to our community. And you examine every frickin’ couple .Scott’s link, ironically, came from this post about Building Relationships, Not Links .
It’s a great post with willing to help information, great examples, and a summary that I strongly support. I also, absolutely, encouragement Scott’s pointinga couple back to the Photography SEO residents and to his page inventory business books for photographers (this couple was recentlyremoved from the postat Scott’s request). Note that “Photography SEO community” isn’t just a detailed name, it’s moreover the authorized brand name of the site. In both cases,Scott related the way I think content creators should on the web: with detailed anchor content that helps surprise a reader what they’re going to find on that page. In this case, it might overlie with keywords Scott’s targeting for SEO, but I find it silly to harm usability in the name of tiptoeing around Google’s future overenforcement. That’s a one-way sheet toa indeed inorganic,Google-shaped web .If Google doesn’t wish to tally those links, that’s their business(thoughI’d dispute they’re losing out on a willing to help couple that improves the couple chart and the web overall).What’s not OK is Google’smisrepresentation of Moz’s couple as”inorganic” and “in breach of our high quality guidelines”in their Webmaster Tools.I unequivocally wish YouMoz was an outlier. Sadly, I’ve been saying more and more of these frustratingly dubious warnings from Google Webmaster Tools.( around this twitter )Several months ago, Jen Lopez, Moz’s executive ofcommunity, had an email review with Google’s Head of Webspam, Matt Cutts . Matt postulated us consent to publish portions of that discussion, that you can see below: Jen Lopez:
Hey Matt,I done the inapplicable designation of emailing you whilst you weren’t responding outward emails for 30 days. I longed for to bring this up once again even though since you have a subject going on in QA correct right away about the topic. People are disturbed that they can’t guest post on Moz: since they’ll obtain penalized. I was extraordinary if you’d similar to to burst in and respond? Or give your thoughts on the topic?Matt Cutts: Hey, the partial answer is that if a site A links to spammy sites, that can start site A’s reputation. That shouldn’t be a shock–I think we’ve talked about the hazards of joining to bad neighborhoods for a decade or so.
That said, with the definite example of Moz.com, is to most segment it’s an example of a site that does great due diligence, so on median Moz.com is joining to non-problematic sites. If Moz were to descend its high quality standards then that could finally start Moz’s reputation.The factors that make things safer are the matter-of-fact things you’d expect, for instance adding a nofollow will remove the joining situation completely. Short of that, keyword abounding anchortext is aloft chance than maritime anchortext similar to a person or site’s name, and so on.”Jen, in particular, has been a winner of high standards and non-spammy guest publishing, and I’m very approving to Matt is to thoughtfulreply (which matches our beliefs). Her speak at SMX Sydney” Guest Blogging Isn’t Dead, But Blogging Just for Links Is “and her post” Time for Guest Blogging With a Purpose “helps notify Moz’s location on the subject (one I think Google shares).I can guarantee that our high quality standards are usually going up (you can read Keri’s post on YouMoz policies to obtain a clarity of how severely you take our publishing), that Scott’s couple in particular was wholly editorial, organic, and intentional, and that you take great stairs to protection that all of our authors and links are delicately vetted.We’d admire if Google’s webmaster review group used the same caring when reviewing and mission out links in Webmaster Tools. It would help make the web (and Google’s looking engine)a improved place.Tags:scott’s