Making anchor text look more natural
-
Hi there,
I have recently been approached by a company looking to do some SEO work for them, having had a look at their link profile, they had being using a lot of exact match anchor and have seen a drop in the rankings, no surprise there.
I was thinking of asking the website where they have placed these links and changing them, so there is a mixture of exact, phrase, brand etc, what do you think? would this be best practice? or just leave these as they are and start building fresh links?
Kind Regards
-
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the link, very good read.
I also read this:
Clearly, after Panda 3.3, Google implemented some sort of threshold for what they feel is an appropriate ratio of anchor text that any website should have. Websites with a higher ratio than this threshold saw the value of all of those links completely discounted — it was as if they didn’t exist anymore
Does this mean going back to these websites where the exact match anchor text is a changing it to lets say phrase or brand will not make any difference?
-
Hi Gary,
I am currently working on a link profile which is very heavy in exact match anchors, by going deeper into this problem i noticed that there was such are large amount present because of footer, blogroll or site-wide links with the exact match anchor.
I suggest you use Open Site Explorer advanced report tool and filter on the exact match text which you would like to focus on, once you have the CSV export you can go through the list of domains linking in on that anchor, then you could use SpyOnWeb to check how many sites share the shame IP address, should you find that site shares the same ip address as a lot of other sites it's most likely part of a link farm and it would be best to request the link be completely removed. (You could also examine it's link profile and content to check its quality).
All good domains you find linking in you could request them to change the anchor slightly to something branded or even just the URL, although i would probably just leave the quality links alone and create good content to make people link in which would be 100% natural and would balance your link profile.
Kyle
-
I would say keep them if they are good links, but you would probably want to look at changing percentages of anchor text and adding in some more "natural" terms such as brand names and generic terms.
A good guideline to a natural backlink profile can be found here:
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/post-penguin-seo-link-building-the-naked-url-truth/
Been referencing this one a lot recently as I find it's a great way of explaining types of anchor text.
-
Hi William,
They are actually placed on good websites, however they have just been excessive in using exact match anchor text which has done them no favours.
Let's say I go and change 40% of these to brand, phase etc would it not be suspicious to search engines that nothing on the page itself has changed apart from the anchor text?
Kind Regards
-
Are these sites spam sites? If they are legitimate links, there is rarely a chance it will effect rankings. If you however, get these and requested these links, it would negatively effect you at the end and you might want to just remove those bad sites and keep the good ones.
If sites are all good and just happens to have same match throughout, I would just contact the site to have them change it up a bit, whether it is a 4-5 word anchor text or simply the URL(very normal).
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Low text-HTML ratios
Are low text-HTML ratios still a negative SEO ranking factor? Today I ran SEMRUSH site audit that showed 344 out of 345 pages on our website (www.nyc-officespace-leader.com) show an text-HTML ratio that ranges from 8% to 22%. This is characterized as a warning on SEMRUSH. This error did not exist in April when the last SEMRUSH audit was conducted. Is it worthwhile to try to externalize code in order to improve this ratio? Or to add text (major project on a site of this size)? These pages generally have 200-400 words of text. Certain URLs, for example www.nyc-officespace-leader.com/blog/nycofficespaceforlease more text, yet it still shows an text-HTML ratio of only 16%. We recently upgraded to the WordPress 4.2.1. Could this have bloated the code (CSS etcetera) to the detriment of the text-HTML ratio? If Google has become accustomed to more complex code, is this a ratio that I can ignore. Thanks, Alan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
How to make Google index your site? (Blocked with robots.txt for a long time)
The problem is the for the long time we had a website m.imones.lt but it was blocked with robots.txt.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | FCRMediaLietuva
But after a long time we want Google to index it. We unblocked it 1 week or 8 days ago. But Google still does not recognize it. I type site:m.imones.lt and it says it is still blocked with robots.txt What should be the process to make Google crawl this mobile version faster? Thanks!0 -
Best anchor text strategy for embeddable content
Hi all We provide online services, and as part of this we provide our clients with a javascript embeddable 'widget' to place on their website. This is fairyly popular (100s-1000s of inserts on websites). The main workings of this are javascript (they spit html iframe onto the page) but we also include both a <noscript>portion (which is purely customer focused, it deep links into a relevant page on our website for the user to follow) and also a plain <p><a href=''></a></p> at the bottom, under the JS. This is all generated and inserted by the website owner. Therefore, after insertion we can dynamically update whatever the Javascript renders out, but the <noscript> and <a> at the bottom are there forever.</p> <p>Previously, this last plain link has been used for optimisation, with it randomly selecting 1 out of a bank of 3 different link anchor texts when the widget html is first generated.</p> <p>We've also recently split our website into B2B and B2C portions, so this will be linking to a newer domain with much established backlinks than the existing domain. I think we could get away with optimised keyword links on the old domain but the newer domain they will be more obvious.</p> <p>In light of recent G updates, we're afraid this may look spammy. We obviously want to utilise the link as best as possible, as it is used by hundreds of our clients, but don't want it to cause any issues. </p> <p>So my question, would you just focus on using brand name anchor text for this? Or could we mix it up with a few keyword optimised links also? If so, what sort of ratio would you suggest?</p> <p>Many thanks</p></noscript>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | benseb0 -
Does Automated High Quality Content Look Like Low Quality to Search Engines?
I have 1,000+ pages that all have very similar writing, but different results.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi5
Example:
Nr of days on market
Average sales price
Median sales price
etc etc etc All the results are very different for each neighborhood. However, as per the above, the wording is similar. The content is very valuable to users. However, I am concerned search engines may see it as low quality content, as wording is identical across all these pages (except the results). Any view on this? Any examples to back up such views?0 -
On site links triggering anchor text algorithmic penatly?
I'm trying to figure out why a drop in ranking occurred and think it may be related to an increase in on site links. I've attached images of the SEO moz report showing a jump in links from a few hundred to around 15,000 within the space of a week. I think this may be due to some on site work I did when I created categories (I use wordpress) for a large number of cities and towns in the UK. I soon realised I'd run into duplicate content issues and removed all these categories within a few days. As I added categories I also ran into 'too many on page links' warnings as each category I added created a new link and I ended up with hundreds on each page. If you look at the analytics reports I suffered a huge drop in rankings on the 10th March and think this could be due to an on site anchor text problem that was caused by adding the categories and in turn creating many on site links. SEO moz found these links on the 11th and 25th Feb but my guess is that Google found them around at the same time but if these links are the problem then why didn't my rankings drop until the 10th March? Surely they would have dropped sooner? Would this cause a drop in rankings? I've recieved an email from google saying that no manual penalty was applied to the site after I submitted a reconsideration request. Therefore it must be some kind of algorithmic penalty. Could this be the problem and if not what else should I look at. My baclink profile appears to be okay and I've been careful to vary my anchor text with inbound link building. I'm at a loss as to what to do next. Any help will be much appreciated! UXsMLYS.png Ov9AOs8.png
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SamCUK0 -
Can use of the id attribute to anchor t text down a page cause page duplication issues?
I am producing a long glossary of terms and want to make it easier to jump down to various terms. I am using the<a id="anchor-text" ="" attribute="" so="" am="" appending="" #anchor-text="" to="" a="" url="" reach="" the="" correct="" spot<="" p=""></a> <a id="anchor-text" ="" attribute="" so="" am="" appending="" #anchor-text="" to="" a="" url="" reach="" the="" correct="" spot<="" p="">Does anyone know whether Google will pick this up as separate duplicate pages?</a> <a id="anchor-text" ="" attribute="" so="" am="" appending="" #anchor-text="" to="" a="" url="" reach="" the="" correct="" spot<="" p="">If so any ideas on what I can do? Apart from not do it to start with? I am thinking 301s won't work as I want the URL to work. And rel=canonical won't work as there is no actual page code to add it to. Many thanks for your help Wendy</a>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Chammy0 -
Looking for re-assurance on this one: Sitemap approach for multi-subdomains
Hi All: Just looking for a bit of "yeah it'll be fine" reassurance on this before we go ahead and implement: We've got a main accommodation listing website under www.* and a separate travel content site using a completely different platform on blog.* (same domain - diffn't sub-domain). We pull in snippets of content from blog.* > www.* using a feed and we have cross-links going both ways, e.g. links to find accommodation in blog articles and links to blog articles from accommodation listings. Look-and-feel wise they're fully integrated. The blog.* site is a tab under the main nav. What i'd like to do is get Google (and others) to view this whole thing as one site - and attribute any SEO benefit of content on blog.* pages to the www.* domain. Make sense? So, done a bit of reading - and here's what i've come up with: Seperate sitemaps for each, both located in the root of www site www.example.com/sitemap-www www.example.com/sitemap-blog robots.txt in root of www site to have single sitemap entry: sitemap : www.example.com/sitemap-www robots.txt in root of blog site to have single sitemap entry: sitemap: www.example.com/sitemap-blog Submit both sitemaps to Webmaster tools. Does this sound reasonable? Any better approaches? Anything I'm missing? All input appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AABAB0 -
Looking for an opinion on Buildmyrank.com
I am looking to sign up for 20-50 links per month. Does anyone have an opinion negatively or positively on this service? Thanks in advance for your help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | newcitymoving0