Anatomy of a Google Filter/Penalty (or how not to do nofollow PR sculpting)

May 15, 2008 – 10:42 pm

OK, so after a long break, I’m trying to get back on track with posting. Had a great time in South Africa (owe an apology to Viperchill for not giving him a call, family business was crazy mate, but I get there about once a year so maybe next time?), had a great time in Eilat on my Marine Microbiology course and now it is time to get back to business.

It seems like Google are applying their penalties all over the place. Instead of manually punishing sites, they came up with all these red flags that can send your site into the depths of -60 / -300 / -950 penalty/filter. The penalties are site specific and it is very interesting to find out what triggers them and when they are lifted.

So, I know it sounds weird, but when one of our customers recently got hit with a severe loss of positions in Google SERPs, a part of me was obviously upset with the disturbance, but another part of me was excited due to the fact that I can analyze the change in locations and try and figure out what would cause this particular filter to be applied. At the beginning I was really flabbergasted by the weird nature of the filter, so I turned to several of my SEO friends for advice and opinion, but nothing could really replace the bricks and mortar approach of doing one change at the time while monitoring the locations. So to cut the long story short, I’m going to give a very concise list of the actions that led to the penalty and the reaction we got from SERPS:

  1. Customer decides to change the focus of his site to a different, but similar product. That move involves change in on-page optimization, so I am thinking, since there are changes about to be done on the site, why not throw in nofollowing of the majority of navigation links, according to the recipe – link love flows from homepage to all the inner pages and from inner pages only to homepage and pages I want ranked.
  2. Locations for the new keyphrase begin to change – on www.google.com, as seen from Israel, the site climbs from #53 to #26 and then to #8. On www.google.com as seen from the US (by using the gl=US argument) the site plunges to the neighborhood of #300, fluctuating from #283 to #345. The same is true for every other keyword that was introduced to the on-page optimization and is not represented in the anchor text of the existing links. The old keyword holds first page position on Google seen from any country.
  3. I remove the nofollow from the site navigation. After about a week, the site climbs to the area of #100 for all the new keywords on US Google. The Israel Google location is moving between #6 and #8. The old keywords are slowly slipping down but are still holding first page locations on both Googles.
  4. I tweak a few links from our sites + get a link from a relevant PR4 site using the new keyword as the anchor text. After about two weeks, the site is at first page locations for all the new keywords, while slipping to the second page for the old keyword.

The whole incident is summarized in a graph representing change in locations over time:

It is important to notice that when i refer to Israel Google, I do not mean www.google.co.il. It is the good old www.google.com but seen from the Israeli IP address. Similarly, US Google is www.google.com with the ?gl=US argument in the URL or www.google.com seen through a US proxy.

So what happened ? There are several things here that require attention:

  • This was definitely a filter and not an overall site punishment. Furthermore, it appears to be automatic and not manual.
  • The filter seems to be triggered by a combination of the implementation of nofollow and a significant difference between the on-page and off-page optimization.
  • The filter is keyword sensitive
  • The filter is country specific! This observations is in accordance to what quite a few other webmasters/SEOs were seeing in other niches. The big question is whether these filters are applied only on Google US as a rule or there is some kind of other input which will define the country on whose results it is implemented. I can think of Webmaster Tools localization, Analytics data or even Google toolbar data as examples of such possible input.

This is not the first time that nofollow has been nominated as a red flag for Google. Eric Lander has written about it on SEJ and there is a discussion on the Sphinn thread. I know that there is a big question about whether nofollowing your navigational links could serve as a signal for Google to punish you, however I don’t think that the nofollowing by itself was what has caused the penalty in this case. I think it was a combination of signals that caused the infamous red flag to be risen above the customer’s site

This is all very interesting as an observation, however without actual implications to my everyday SEO work, it would not be worth much:

1. If you are changing on-page optimization, do it gradually and hand-in-hand with addition of the incoming links targeting the new keyphrases.

2. Do not implement nofollow PageRank sculpting abruptly or at the same time when you are doing other big changes on your website (for example, I wouldn’t try doing it close to a hosting move)

3. Before you optimize your site, try and define where is your target audience going to search from. Then monitor locations on www.google.com as it is seen from each of your target countries. This task can be somewhat automatized by using Google Global Firefox extension.

Anyone else seen similar thing happen ?

PS. on unrelated note, does anyone know how to remove the Sphinn button code from Feedburner RSS ? It is driving me crazy!

Tags: , , ,

  1. 73 Responses to “Anatomy of a Google Filter/Penalty (or how not to do nofollow PR sculpting)”

  2. 1 Q: surely if you are coming from Israel to google.com there is a redirector in place to point you back to google.co.il and you are not simply put through a .com proxy?

    By Md-Xr1 on May 18, 2008

  3. Not a chance.

    1. This happens when you get to Google for the first time from an Israeli IP address, without any cookies. Then at the bottom of the homepage, there is a link “Got to Google in English”, or something, which transfers you to the regular Google. So, I think it is safe to say that this wasn’t my first time performing a search on Google :)

    2. It is pretty easy to discern google.co.il from google.com. google.co.il is right-to-left oriented so you have all the serps aligned to the right of the page.

    3. I checked the rankings from an US proxy in addition to checking it with ?gl=US

    By Neyne on May 18, 2008

  4. Good to know, thanks for the prompt response.

    By Md-Xr1 on May 18, 2008

  5. Google does not like change. I took a small PR3 website and changed the order of a few links. It dropped to PR1. Also they lowered my SERPS from 3 to 17. My traffic fell.

    It used to be that Google liked fresh pages and fresh content, but now they like old content and old links that have not changed in years.

    Case in point, I had an old web page with stale content dating back from the early 90’s that was position one due to massive number of links. I fixed a “mizpellin” on the page and suddenly I am down to posi 5 and little traffic. I put the old page back and climb back to one in a hurry.

    By seobro on May 19, 2008

  6. interesting post, not sure how much analysis you can do because like you said there were two major changes… but to be honest, my concentration wasn’t on the text but on the graph http://www.seo-scientist.com/images/filterchart.jpg, how pretty it is! what software do you use to produce a graph like this?

    By anon on May 19, 2008

  7. @anon
    not exactly the kind of comment I was expecting, but the graph is done in Excel 2007 and arrows were added in Powerpoint 2007

    By Neyne on May 19, 2008

  8. sorry, its just i thought they looked very nice, and you publish your content in a very clean manner. keep up the good work but try to increase your post frequency a little ;)

    By anon on May 19, 2008

  9. Changing old sites to fast could indeed be a red flag for Google, but I think there are to many factors involved to tell this precisely. Maybe competition has been linkbuilding or added new relevant content etc.

    By geld lenen on May 19, 2008

  10. We have also had these -30 and – 60 filters here in Finland. Most of them seem to be automated and many of them have also been due to combination of affiliate marketing and incoming links. When reducing affiliate links and incoming links they sites have been back in the index.

    Also we had a case when all “indie” ringtone sites where punished – 60. This all happened at the same day and the sites have nothing in common of things you mention. This case I believe could be a manual ban. Now only big players like Jamba, Zed and Celldorado are in top searches.

    By Nico on May 19, 2008

  11. Good example of why NOT to use nofollow or PR Sculpting on internal links.

    By Jaan Kanellis on May 19, 2008

  12. You didn’t provide enough information to support your conclusions about penalties.

    There have been a lot of changes at Google over the past few months.

    Nofollowing internal links is a bad idea because it doesn’t compensate for poor Web site design. All it does is restrict crawling and page anchor text flow from internal sources.

    I have yet to see anyone prove that keyword-specific filters are at work in situations like this. We know that Google does pay attention to some keywords more than others (because Googlers have said they do) but vague and unsubstantiated claims of keyword-specific filtering are unhelpful.

    What would be very helpful is showing when Google cache data changes (I would not rely on the reported caching dates). Because search results can be influenced by what other sites do and what changes the search engine makes while you’re doing your thing, it’s virtually impossible to know for certain what happened unless you revert all your changes to the changes and go through the process again.

    By Michael Martinez on May 19, 2008

  13. Thanks for all the comments, they are more valuable to me than all the traffic (I should look into monetizing this crap)

    @geld – that is the first thing i thought but the competition is more or less the same on Israel and the US results. no reason for the locations to be different.

    @Nico – there are different things that trigger different filters/penalties. Hell, for all we know there could be different things that trigger the same penalty. I am trying to identify some of them

    @Jaan – i disagree. It is a good example of HOW not to do nofollowing, I still believe that on some sites it can be helpful.

    @Michael – the concept of proof is a little bit problematic in SEO. Unfortunately, the definitions need to be loosened up a little due to the restricted access we have to the inner workings of the system. The rule of thumb for me is whether it works repeatedly. I am sure you understand that due to the fact that these are clients’ sites we are talking about, the situation cannot be reversed. I am also not sure how should i get the Google cache data changes, when the only available data is the one you say i shouldn’t rely on ?

    By Neyne on May 19, 2008

  14. PageRank sculpting with nofollow is hard. I’ve “proven” that it works, but if not done correctly, you run the risk of killing your entire site, as you found out. I do NOT believe there is any kind of red flag raised with Google because of use of nofollow, I DO believe that wrong sculpting will take too much juice away from pages…

    How big was this site anyway?

    By Joost de Valk on May 19, 2008

  15. What you are experiencing is a form of the google sandbox. Its just stoping your links from passing authority. The reason why the drop occurs in the US IP results is because the algo does not apply to Google Israel (meaning your if your IP is recognized by google.com as in israel you don’t see the filtered results).

    Did you notiice that when you searched Google from US IP using allinanchor: your site does not seem to be affected. Also less competitve keywords and phrases are also not penalized.

    The solution is to build more authorty – less KW rich links and time.

    By Shalom Issenberg on May 19, 2008

  16. Interesting study – thanks for sharing.

    So, you NOFOLLOW’ed INTERNAL links? Or just external links?

    You said Navigation links, so that makes it sound like they are internal links.

    If that is the case, I don’t get how that could be a penalty?

    Step-by-Step:
    – You cut the chain of PR flowing through the site by using nofollow on nav links.
    – PR drops on all the subpage.
    – consequently rankings drop.
    – you get some external links and PR is pumped on those subpages again and rankings follow.
    – you take off no follow and pr now flows from the index page throughout the site and raises rankings.

    Where is there a penalty in that?

    By Brett Tabke on May 19, 2008

  17. I have been through some weird and sporadic downgrades/filters/whatever on one of my blogs and the common factor seems to be using nofollow and affiliate links (to Amazon). Of course, there is no way to know for sure, but that is No. 1 or No. 2 on my suspect list (use of Typepad for a blog with hundreds of posts being the other).

    By Glennabel4 nazzman on May 20, 2008

  18. @joost and @bret, theoretically you guys are right and if the PR sculpting was the only culprit i wouldn’t have been writing the post at all. The problem begins when ones takes into consideration the following:

    – the rankings have dropped for the new keywords only. old keywords have retained their ranking. If this was a case of screwed up PR flow due to nofollow it should have ruined rankings for all keywords, not just the new ones. So I don’t believe it is only a case of nofollowing problems.

    – it was seen only in Google US, on all datacenters. I did not go into this, but there were differences in rankings in other countries as well, although not as severe as Google US. For example, in the UK Google (again, using ?gl=UK in the URL, not google.co.uk) the site was at around #25-#30. A sudden 300 position drop tells me that this is more than just a regional SERP difference.

    I am not saying that nofollowing navigational links is by itself a practice which is frowned upon, unless Matt is becoming really mean in his deception techniques. I am saying that nofollowing your navigational links can serve as a signal, and in combination with other signals (such as big difference between on-page and off-page optimization), it can cause a filter to be applied. Nofollow by itself can be useful when done properly, like Joost and Rand showed in the past.

    Bret, I nofollowed only navigational links from inner pages to other inner pages that were not ranking. The PR flow from homepage to all inner pages was unobstructed as well as the PR flow from all inner pages back to homepage and 2-3 optimized inner pages.

    By Neyne on May 20, 2008

  19. How did you PR sculpt? Was it pushing all PR to a single page (“abusive” sculpting) or was it just sculpting some pages that you do not think need PR (i.e. “about us” or “shopping cart”)?

    By Kalman on May 20, 2008

  20. @kalman should I nofollow a link to rankabove ? hmmmm :)))))

    anyways, it was something in between. i wouldn’t call it abusive, since the majority of the pages that got nofollowed links were pdf’s and pages like about us and contact us. However, i would say that the percentage of followed pages was much smaller than the nofollowed ones.

    In any case, I understand that the nofollow should have been done in a different way, however, it still does not explain the different locations for different keywords.

    By Neyne on May 20, 2008

  21. @Neyne is this better? :)

    Thanks for the additional info. I agree with you on the keyword specific point.

    I was simply trying to point out to people who want to translate this entire blog post into “PR sculpting will get you red flagged” is that doing anything “abusive” will get you red flagged, whether it is PR sculpting, spamming keywords into content, .etc.

    And in my humble opinion, and you seem to agree to some extent (“I understand that the nofollow should have been done in a different way”), that having more internal links sculpted than internal links non-sculpted is somewhat abusive.

    By Kalman on May 20, 2008

  22. @kalman I am definitely not saying that PR sculpting will red-flag you. I have made that clear that in the post as well as the comments.

    Again, your point about doing something extensively is 100% valid, however it does not explain the different locations for different keyword. Do you think that doing something extensively will red-flag you only for some of the keywords ? And if yes, which ones ? Wouldn’t it be the ones that have the less-natural ratio of the onpage vs. offpage optimization ? I would say yes. So these two signals are the ones that have caused the filter, so we get back to my initial point.

    Nice one with the Linkedin profile link :D Are you having some reputation management problems ? :D

    By Neyne on May 20, 2008

  23. @Neyne

    1) I was not pointing at you when saying people are trying to translate this entire post into PR Sculpting = Bad. It was at the comments. People are trying to simplify this great post into something it is not.

    2) What are the actual filters? Is it the less-natural ratio of on-page vs. off-page optimization or is it Google just knocking the latest addition to the website to get your attention?

    Whatever the filter is, it did get your attention :)

    As of May 20, 2008 @ 1:00 pm GMT +2, I do not have any reputation management issues, but that could always change. :D

    By Kalman on May 20, 2008

  24. @kalman thanks for the compliments. that’s what I was fishing for :)

    that is an interesting take on this situation. It definitely did get my attention in a shape of a vexed client. But all is good now.

    Thanks for the great discussion…

    By Neyne on May 20, 2008

  25. Interesting case. I agree with Michael that there’s too little information to assume penalties. Here’s my theory:

    “Customer decides to change the focus of his site to a different, but similar product.”

    Is the main keyword the only thing that you changed and not the content of the page itself? Change of keyword focus without (real) changes to the content itself might have lowered the trust in ranking for the new keyword phrase.

    “I remove the nofollow from the site navigation. After about a week, the site climbs to the area of #100 for all the new keywords on US Google.”

    By removing nofollow on your internal links, the internal links to your page with the new keywords might have increased, explaining the rise in rankings. It all depends on how you organized the internal nofollows.

    “I tweak a few links from our sites + get a link from a relevant PR4 site using the new keyword as the anchor text.”

    A link from an authority site confirms that your page is really, really about the new keywords, increasing the trust of your ‘new’page. Hence, higher rankings.

    By Bert van Heerde on May 20, 2008

  26. @bert

    Interesting case. I agree with Michael that there’s too little information to assume penalties

    True. It is peculiar though. And it behaves exactly like other (Google confirmed) filters did – loss of location in a keyword specific manner. I think we are all getting a little confused here with the definitions of penalty vs. filter – penalty is site wide, filter is usually keyword (and in this case country) specific.

    Change of keyword focus without (real) changes to the content itself might have lowered the trust in ranking for the new keyword phrase.

    The content has changed, but I don’t think one can tell whether it was a “real” change to the content. Is there a scale ?

    By removing nofollow on your internal links, the internal links to your page with the new keywords might have increased, explaining the rise in rankings. It all depends on how you organized the internal nofollows

    As i wrote, the links to the pages with new keywords were never nofollowed.

    A link from an authority site confirms that your page is really, really about the new keywords, increasing the trust of your ‘new’page. Hence, higher rankings.

    That is also an interesting take. So trust is keyword specific ? Furthermore, trust is country specific ?

    By Neyne on May 20, 2008

  27. This article is really interesting.
    And i really need your help. We will pay you money to help our website out.
    One keyword in google suddenly drop at the beginning of April.

    And now we totally have no idea about the reason.

    Please contact me

    By Yonghui Chen on May 30, 2008

  28. > the rankings have dropped for the new keywords only.

    Sure – page rank has a history element to it. Remember all the talk about domain age? The xlates into keywords as well.

    By Brett Tabke on Jun 5, 2008

  29. Neyne,

    I’ve never really cared about this issue (first link only) enough to really test it myself. There are so many variables that Rand and Vandemar didn’t look at their tests were just unbelievably sloppy.

    I’m not saying the conclusion is incorrect. It’s completely plausible that a U.S. Google parser might just put each unique link it finds into a queue and discard subsequent links to the same destination, whereas a U.K. Google parser might not. We know that Google isn’t running just one set of software.

    However, for these tests to be conclusive and credible people need to define replicable conditions. I suggest the following:

    1) 2 sites that are both most likely in the Main Web Index (anchor text doesn’t pass from Supplemental pages and may not pass to them). Your test seems to have satisfied this condition.

    2) Cache data history needs to be published showing how frequently Google updates the sites’ data, so that we can be sure of what time frames are involved.

    3) Control link anchor text tests showing how quickly it takes Google to process all the links on the page (because, given a list of 10 outbound links, Google may pass anchor text from the 3rd first, the 6th second, and never from the 1st).

    4) Reversing link order (which you did) and repetition of the test.

    5) Confirmation that the test results were stable. Stability means the search results have to remain consistent for at least a week to ten days. About the best you can hope for here is to use dated screen captures of Google SERPs. However, screen captures can be faked so I generally don’t trust them (although I have used them myself).

    By Michael Martinez on Jul 4, 2008

  30. For what it’s worth, I dropped a couple of links onto the front page of Xenite.Org pointing to the SEO Theory blog. Both links appear to be passing anchor text, although for the first link I get a full listing for SEO Theory whereas for the second link I get a URL-only listing for SEO Theory.

    This is not a formal test, but both sites’ main pages are recrawled and recached often and I’m reasonably sure both pages are in the Main Web Index in Google.

    The search results for the first link on Saturday evening (less than 48 hours after I posted the links) are visible in this query:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=seo-tests-galore

    The search results on Saturday evening for the second link are visible in this query:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=seo-theories-galore

    Anyone else clicking on those links may or may not see both sites listed. I have no intention of leaving the links permanently in place but I’ll keep them up for a few days.

    Google typically jumbles its search results over the weekend and come Monday morning (U.S. time) either query or both may show entirely different results.

    Nonetheless, for at least a brief time frame you CAN get two links from one page to pass anchor text to another page — at least where you can be fairly certain that both pages are included in the Main Web Index, where the links are dropped just prior to a weekend update, and where both pages are crawled frequently.

    There is insufficient evidence to show that this effect would occur for most sites/pages.

    By Michael Martinez on Jul 6, 2008

  31. Perhaps it is difficult but right to predict anything for Google but it is a very difficult to learn. I can say all SEO strategies change from man to man and blog to blog.

    By Martin on Jul 7, 2008

  32. This article is really interesting.
    Thanks for all the comments, they are more valuable to me than all the traffic. ;)

    By Andres on Aug 18, 2008

  33. Great article, you have some of the best data. Thanks for keeping up with the science side of a theory based service.

    By science questiosn on Sep 26, 2008

  34. I’m not quite sure if simply moving to to change the focus of his site to a different, but similar product may be the reason for a penalty. Remember, if you move to another product there may be already stiff competition on that product and maybe you just ranked lower than other sites in this competition for that specific product?

    By Andy Base on Oct 8, 2008

  35. This article is great. I mean, I do not know much about SEO, but I am learning every day a bit more about it. Thanks.

    By lenen on Oct 15, 2008

  36. Interesting post and thanks for sharing.
    Perhaps it is difficult but right to predict anything for Google but it is a very difficult to learn. I can say all SEO-strategies change from site to site and blog to blog.

    By Autoverzekering on Nov 16, 2008

  37. Its an interesting point you make but I’ve seen little evidence of dropping exactly 30, 300 or 950 places for any of the sites I’ve worked on

    By uk links directory on Nov 20, 2008

  38. This is very a interesting article. I have been testing out the whole PR sculpting concept and I think it does work if implemented properly.

    I don’t think that what you encountered was much more than a slight over optimization penalty for doing so much at once though, which you noted later in your article. It could have also been just a reindexing of the old backlinks, and the changed content that took a while to readjust in the index.

    Either way, I do believe in the different default penalties you noted that are issued to websites offending the rules. I am sure that at this point they actually switch some on manually depending on the severity.

    By wvo conversion on Dec 3, 2008

  39. GOOD :)
    thanks!

    By Transportadora on Feb 12, 2009

  40. In addition to post, the free utility synonymbase.com for selection keywords and as similar(wow!) keywords ;) Search over 200 million keys.

    By mike on Mar 8, 2009

  41. I can not understand what is no-follow.

    By Peter on Mar 15, 2009

  42. Nofollow is a thing i slapped on your spammy links, Peter.

    By Neyne on Mar 15, 2009

  43. Is it possible to ask Google for explanation why you get a penalty?

    By lenen bkr a2 on Apr 2, 2009

  44. I realy Like This articel I didn’t ever was realy atracted too it but now I see what its all about I am Getting More And More Intresterd in it, and The Articel it self is very good formulated and got Lots of falluw information,
    thanks for it I will keep on chekking this blog.

    By Kinderstoelen on Apr 25, 2009

  45. First of all thank you for this article, it was a interesting read with good up to date data. Defiantly don’t agree on every point, pointed out, I’m not sure if the reason of the penalty was the switch and change of focus on product. Should be interesting information to get feedback on. I’ve been trying different SEO strategies on various sites with all heights of PRs, but can’t say I ever changed a focus. Looking forward hearing feedback, with best regards,

    Doorlopend Krediet

    By Doorlopend Krediet on Apr 25, 2009

  46. Duplicate content has become the big area of misinformation with everyone concerned that they have hit a “duplicate content filter”, or been penalized for duplicate content. Chances are you haven’t been banned or penalized unless you really have very little unique content on your entire site. For this reason, I’d thought I’d dig a little bit further into dupe content and remedies so I have a reference document for later.

    By forex online essentials on May 14, 2009

  47. Interesting post, although it’s a bit old :-)

    I’ve seen this happening a couple of times to my site when I didn’t change anything about it… The only reason I can think of is that I got an extra backlink which in Google’s opinion came from a bad neighbourhood or something…

    I sometimes think you should stop optimizing once your ranking is good, and only start with it when your falling down. A small step in optimizing can break your rankings…

    By Santhos Webdesign on Jul 22, 2009

  48. I disagree. Optimisation should be continuous and Google would not punish you with drops in rankings for receiving a couple of links from bad networks. At the end of the day, they realise that you will more than likely not have control over such links – else SEO firms could sabotage each others’ campaigns!

    The graph within the article is an interesting one, and does well to provide an insight into the workings of the Google algorithm. Unfortunately, even though you monitored the changes you made to the site in terms of SEO, there may have been contributing factors for the sudden drops/improvements, behind the scene.

    I’ve seen some similar positional fluctuations for one of my projects, and at times I think it’s most probably due to minor changes in the algorithm. It is important to remember that whilst we only really hear about major changes to the algorithm, Google makes hundreds of amends each year – and any one of them could disagree with your site, resulting in significant positional changes.

    By Zulu Digital on Jul 22, 2009

  49. @santhos – that is an interesting approach (discontinuous optimization) although i agree with Zulu that it cannot be one link that did it for you

    @Zulu – were your changes country and keyword specific ? Since the post was written, I’ve seen at least two more cases with the exact same filtering applied (country + keyword specific). In both cases the reason for the filter was keyword abuse in the anchor text of the sitewide link pointing to homepage. After seeing this, I went back to this post and it looks to me like what happened was that slapping nofollow on so many links increased the amount of link juice going through the over-optimized link pointing to homepage, thus triggering the overoptimization filter. As you can see from the dates in the chart, all of this happened at the end of 2007-beginning of 2008, supposedly before Google killed the whole on-site nofollow sculpting. Obviously, I cannot prove this, but it fits the scenario better than the initial red flag story i thought it was.

    By Neyne on Jul 22, 2009

  50. interesting article and evidence. not sure what conclusions i can draw but i will definitely keep it in mind about making on page changes slowly, i think i’ve seen a fall at times because of that too. since i don’t use the no-follow at all, that hasn’t been a factor.
    thanks again

    By michaelj72 on Jul 22, 2009

  51. I am reading this post with interest, I have spent many hours gathering related links and creating unique content, with the end user in mind. Our site had held a page one rank one position for many key word searches for at least two years. The site has just received a -60 penalty/filter. I have removed new content added within the last month, hoping that the site will regain its original positioning, which it hasn’t as yet. The front page is holding pr2 at present. http://www.sdccleaning.co.uk

    Regards

    Spencer

    By Spencer Davies on Aug 2, 2009

  52. An interesting follow up would be to see how far you can go, before you get a penalty.

    By Vanessa on Jan 25, 2010

  53. Good post! Unfortunately, Matt Cutts has recently admitted that PageRank sculpting has become useless. The algorhythm doesn’t work that way anymore. Nofollow is only useful fcr blog comments nowadays actually.

    By eRage webdesign on Jun 12, 2010

  1. 21 Trackback(s)

  2. May 19, 2008: Anatomy of a Google Penalty Filter
  3. May 19, 2008: Cartoons » Blog Archive » Daily Search Coverage & Link Finds: May 19, 2008
  4. May 19, 2008: How Do I Improve my allintext? - WebProWorld
  5. May 19, 2008: Google SERP ripples are now continuous waves - Page 2 - WebProWorld
  6. May 20, 2008: SearchCap: The Day In Search, May 19, 2008
  7. May 20, 2008: SEM News: SearchCap: The Day In Search, May 19, 2008 - Search Engine Marketing
  8. May 20, 2008: searchenginemarketingvox » Blog Archive » SearchCap: The Day In Search, May 19, 2008
  9. May 20, 2008: Penalties and NoFollows? | Greenlane Blog-O-Matic
  10. May 20, 2008: Verlauf einer Google Penalty | tekka.de
  11. May 21, 2008: PageRank Sculpting - Google Approved Or Penalty Material? 10 SEO Experts Respond. » UK Search Engine Marketing
  12. May 26, 2008: SEO Experiments - Google 950 Filter in action? | SEO Ibiza - Superior Small Business SEO
  13. Jun 5, 2008: Underground training lab
  14. Jun 5, 2008: SEO блог » Blog Archive » Анатомия фильтров Google
  15. Jun 6, 2008: Анатомия фильров Google
  16. Jul 31, 2008: SEO-дайджест: май 2008 г. | Все для новичка в SEO
  17. Aug 19, 2008: Анатомия фильтров Google | Все от создания сайтов до раскрутки.
  18. Aug 19, 2008: Google, Yandex, Rambler… » Blog Archive » Анатомия фильтров Google
  19. Jan 11, 2009: Page rank de google : le PR Sculpting | Revolution80
  20. Feb 13, 2009: SEO Experiments | SEO Ibiza - Superior Small Business SEO
  21. Mar 11, 2009: Google-Filter | Roman Zenner
  22. Oct 21, 2010: links for 2010-10-20 | Stéphane Thibault

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.