Yesterday I received my first link removal request. And, I'll admit that I was more than a little upset. My pet project was being targeted by Google and deemed a bad neighborhood? As Dan could attest, I was not a happy camper and a bit of panic set in. But, in a moment of sanity I wrote to the person making the request to ask if my site was specifically mentioned in the report or if another issue at play. Thank goodness I wrote that email! Turns out the problem really had nothing to do with my site but with the over-use of a keyword phrase in their link building strategy. In fact, by contacting them they changed their request from a removal to a request to edit their listing title/link. I admit that I have always been somewhat flexible about including keywords in the titles. I generally use the site name but when the submitted title was reasonable, I kept it. Anyway, perhaps directory owners who are receiving these requests could provide better service to their customers/listed site owners by offering to edit the title to their site name or URL rather than lose the listing entirely. It is a far better solution for everyone. The listed site doesn't lose their entire backlink profile and the directory owner doesn't lose some of their content.
Great move and good advice. These are one of those things that you learn from experience. Glad you kept your head in that situation. When doing business it is always best to think thing through and be thorough as opposed to taking things personally. Even though you do have a lot of heart invested in starting and keeping your business going, you have to run it with your head as far as the vital decisions you make.
As I stated when you contacted me about it. You've chosen a very reasonable solution that is of benefit to you, the site owner(s) and the web itself. For anyone panicking: Read This For directory owners wondering how they can be a part of the solution: Read This
I find it so disappointing that when anyone around here tries to start a conversation that discusses something that could help all directory owners, but involves some effort on their part, it is virtually ignored. I realize that many directory owners have abandoned DP. However, those of you that are still here should be working on ways to deal with Penguin rather than worrying about how much you can charge folks who ask for their listings to be removed. Have you been paying attention beyond your PayPal accounts? Do you know that one of the more recent statements coming from the GooglePlex invites site owners to report any other site who demands money to remove links?
When Google dropped the first domino regarding unnatural links, a wave of unintended consequences began. Competitors are now trying to remove listings from directories, links from blogs and anywhere else they can in an effort to improve their own ranks. I'm seeing canned removal requests on a number of properties, all apparently originating from the same bot build, requesting "link removals." The not so funny part about it is when you respond and ask them to prove who they are they disappear. Matt Cutts stated: While many directories do just "put links up," there are a good number that actually edit listings. Editorial review fees are structured in such a way that provides revenue for not just editing, but the ongoing maintenance of a directory. Fielding mostly fraudulent listing removal requests is not part of that financial equation, but yet someone has to bear the cost of providing security for those that have chosen to list in directories. And someone has to bear the cost of the time needed to actually remove listings from legitimate requests. Besides the problem of fraudulent listing removal requests, offering to modify listings at no cost also removes the deterrent that keeps some from repeatedly requesting changes to their listings because they are targeting something new. Identifying these types of people would be challenging by just changing website listings at will. Like anything else, it too would be abused and further consume a directory owner's time by taking them away from other tasks. Although I understand the reasoning behind what Google is doing, it has placed a large burden on webmasters. Speculation of a link disavow option being added to webmaster tools further expands this burden and will likely drive webmasters to focus more on their links then their websites. Unfortunately Google put the wagon before the horse on this one, and a new non-revenue generating task was thrown onto the backs of directory owners and any webmaster that links to external websites in the absence of such a disavow option. My advice to other directory owners is to treat each listing removal request with suspicion and require that the individual prove ownership on the domain level. When you see bogus removal requests come in, especially from websites which are ranking on the first page of Google for the keywords most emphasized on their website's, you know something is wrong. I've seen enough of these bogus requests already. And when you are paying an editor to spend a half hour or so to actually edit each submission, one has to ask how we should best cover the expense of dealing with this new security threat to those that have entrusted us with their listings.
well i dont think you should be upset, because google will not sand box your site only because one or two links from bad sites. so if you manage to remove some of the links it will also help.
You make some good points. It seems like they put things quit in favor of the people who are submitting to directories. This is a bit discouraging to the people who are putting their sincere time and effort into running a good directory. I think Google has plenty of prejudice against directory owners now any way with so many providing only spam. This is just another example how the bad rep that spammers cause is still effecting people who work hard at building a good site that is useful. All directories get equated with the negativity surrounding such sites and now people have to work that much harder just to do the right thing because judgement didn't fall in their favor.
Don't most general directory owners only accept submissions from sites on their own domains? i.e. no Etsy, Artfire, blogger.com etc? Seems a fairly easy thing to deal with then. If the domain and email don't match, send a canned response. Shouldn't take more than a minute or two. And to those directory owners mentioning how much time they are spending with removal requests...if you are still accepting/activating listings with titles like "Buy Running Shoes Online" perhaps you need to tighten up on your editing and truly earn your 'review fees'? These are the sorts of phrases that one would guess Penguin targeted and as a directory owner you should never accept.
I had a removal request today from an 'agent' who's email address was the same domain (but different person@) as the submission. I told her no problem to remove the link but I need an email from the site domain to verify, I even gave the example: . Then she replied to say the person who submitted the listing had left (which was irrelevant) and that the link is not in her clients interest, I guess that's why she ignored the part about an email from the site domain - too embarrassed to ask them to send an email to remove a link which her company had submitted on their behalf and at their expense.
That's definitely the way to handle it. Form submissions and E-mails are being spoofed in an effort to trick webmasters (not just directory owners) into removing listings. Always reply to such contacts and request a confirmation from them residing on the same domain. @YMC It's not the fact that it only takes a minute or two for a response. It's the problem of so many illegitimate requests that are being generated. A two minutes response to a removal request times say 1,000 directory/website owners is roughly a couple 2,000 minutes each day, 14,000 a week, 56,000 a month and precisely 730,000 minutes a year (12,167 hours). That's the response part of it. Now we can't overlook the time needed to actually perform the task of removing listings or links in the case of webmasters. Many websites and some directories are built with HTML files and it is a lot harder then clicking a button to remove a listing/link. Let's assume the removal process, or the reply back saying the listing/link is removed, takes another two minutes and doubles the man hours needed for the entire listing/link removal process to be performed and now totals 24,334 hours. With 8,760 hours in a year, 2.77 years have been collectively lost to this task alone. Apart from lost productivity, which is rather large when one looks at how many webmasters this impacts, removing listings directly conflicts with the sole purpose of a directory to review, edit and categorize listings. Anyone that owns a directory, and really cares about the work he or she is expending in trying to make it a quality resource, has every reason to fear that Google's policies will narrow their opportunities to expand in the future. Furthermore, many webmasters are now fearful of not only who they link to but from those that link to them. This has a chilling effect on a medium, which by design creates a "web" formed by people linking to each other, and may restrict the opportunity for referral traffic in the future. And if webmasters link out to fewer websites, out of fear (warranted or not), this causes a greater reliance on search. While this may be good for search engines, the lost productivity is a heavy burden to place collectively on webmasters around the world.
snowbird, what are you talking about? Do you own 1,000 directories? What does it matter to you if 999 other directory owners are getting removal requests? We all have to change how we do things, or at least evaluate how we do things, each time Google does one of these major shakedowns. It's simply become the nature of working on the web. Dan and others have talked for years about not allowing keyword phrases as title text. Many directory owners and submitters didn't listen. This is a bit of a reap what you sow situation. In the case of the listing on my site, sure it was a keyword phrase, but it was also one of their major product lines. If I were running the web, I would see that as common sense marketing, not an effort to spam. Unfortunately, Google sees it otherwise. Running any site is a learning experience. Most honest directory owners would admit that some of their earlier listings wouldn't make the cut today or would be more edited before approval. Most directory owners don't want to hear about hand audits and editing listings once they are approved. They whine that it's too much work. I see it as an opportunity to have a better website with stronger content. If directory owners are not willing to change as the web changes and continually up their game, they ARE going to see their sites become obsolete. The point of this thread was to suggest to directory owners that they offer to change the link text of people who received these notices from their keyword stuffed titles to their company or site name. That way everyone wins - you keep your content, you improve that content, the site owner keeps the backlink and Google can take both of you off of their naughty list.
YMC, you are so focused on a small detail of penguin that you are overlooking the bigger issue that may adversely impact the entire internet. As it relates to a directory, the entire business model is based on reviewing, editing and listing websites. Directory owners now have people contacting them to remove listings. Considering how Google has so swiftly altered the opinions of many webmasters, how many listing opportunities will this cost you in the future? When you are a large and dominant search engine, your policies can have broad impacts on the web and the actions of webmasters. Some webmasters are afraid of who they link to and now they are afraid of who links to them. What kind of impact will this have not only directories, but on other websites? Do you think the user behavior of webmasters will be altered in such a way that they simply will do less linking to other sites? I do, and the proof is in the removal requests many have received. As most know, Bing is no match for Google. Google's largest competitor, outside of popular social networking websites, is referral traffic. Referral traffic originates from one website linking to another. Do you see where I'm going with this? Less referral traffic creates an environment where end users and webmasters become more dependent on search engines. And which search engine stands to benefit most from webmasters getting less referral traffic? You were disappointed when few responded to this thread. I took the liberty to respond in such a way that treats directories as businesses. When you treat a directory as a business, one must overlook the shallow implications of Google's actions and look at the bigger picture. You are not looking at the broader implications of Google's actions YMC, and there is nothing I can do to change that. Bogus listing removal requests, wasting time removing some legitimate sites, lost listing opportunities in the future and being threatened with a loss of referral traffic might be something the directory hobbyist would approve of. I don't and for reasons that extend well beyond the directory industry. My comments in this thread are constructed in such a way to open the eyes of those that truly want to run their directories/websites in an ever oppressive environment. For anyone to formulate a "defense against penguin," they must first understand how algorithmic and policy changes at Google will impact their websites not just today, but well into the future. Have a good day everyone. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web
Please don't mistake this thread and my comments here as some sort of Pollyanna-ish world view of what is going on. Trust me, my eyes are wide open and have perhaps been so for a lot longer than many others here. I spent several days in something of a state of mourning over the implications of links now being able to harm a site and having to slavishly follow even more edicts being handed down. I questioned whether or not I was going to yet again have to find another way to earn an income. As a directory owner and content writer, I saw both businesses going down in flames as the web would shrink to only the players with the deepest pockets. I considered what life would be like without my directories, my content sites or the income I earn from my online endeavors. I had several epic emails with Dan and he could tell you that I was very disheartened by this update. Ironically, it was receiving that email requesting a listing removal, which I originally saw as final the nail in the coffin, that got me thinking about how this situation may not be as it seems and that this update might actually turn into a good thing. I don't understand how you have jumped from what I have suggested in this thread to such a statement. I think Google has gone off the deep end on this one. I see nothing positive from what I hope are only unintended consequences of what Google has said and done since April. It is my sincere hope that their intention was/is to stop folks from submitting their sites to 1000s of directories, spamming countless blogs and buying forum signatures to obtain thousands of backlinks for a single keyword phrase. Unfortunately, in an effort to penalize those folks, they have created an environment that invites disgraceful behavior among competitors. My point here is that everyone should perhaps take a deep breath. Sure this could be the beginning of the end for all non-corporate/multi-million dollar websites or it could simply be a bit of fulfilling a threat. How long has Google been telling everyone that they should not be 'gaming' their system by un-naturally building a backlink profile with an over-abundance of what are obviously SEO-driven anchor text choices? How long has Google been telling everyone to diversify their backlink profiles? How long has Google been telling webmasters they don't like people buying links and PR? The problem for directory owners is that we are in the middle of all of those edicts. Have we been complicit in helping folks ignore Google's threats or have we listened and protected ourselves and the site owners who participate on our sites? Have we learned from those directory purges several years ago or simply returned to business as usual? I might be overly optimistic in suggesting that this is simply Google finally making good on those threats. But, until they completely turn the lights out, I'm going to do what I can to keep moving forward. That means dealing with this latest round of nastiness between competitors in the best way we can. We can either give up or figure out strategies to deal with it. For better or worse, Google is steering the future course of the web. We have to either get on board or be left behind.
Today I've received message from my hoster: Why these people have contact my hoster, and not me? Stupid way to remove the link from the directory.
It is a DMCA issue ONLY if you are using images or text that appears on their site which may include a screenshot depending upon which lawyer you ask. If you are displaying none of those items on your directory, both your host and the "victim" do not have a leg to stand on. Unfortunately, I doubt your host would care and simply take your stuff down. However, Hostgator or GoDaddy or both have both gotten this one right. There's a thread around here somewhere that mentions them specifically. You might want to see if you can contact David of phpLD, he might have some correspondence on the issue from them that you could use as ammunition. I suspect they are trying the DMCA route to avoid paying fees for a removal. Your host should have told them to jump in the lake as it is not a DMCA issue.
I thought hosts are siding with us it means soon i l recieve a DMCA notice because i am already recieving these link removal requests too much...And i according to a thread started here in DP was not giving shi* to it.Because all the good reputed members were saying so. Now should i remove them ? Advice will be appreciated from all.
I think that they use this method only for this (I do not take payment for removal of listings and respond to all inquiries in 12 hours.)