Too many link removal request ..why?

And that is probably the most disconcerting and bothersome thing about these requests.

Someone asks nice, says, "hey, would you remind moving my link"... Sure, fine.. Easy enough.

These automated and canned requests, especially the ones threatening me and my directory with HARM and assigning blame for their own mistakes on me; I'm gonna charge you for the hassle.

Yeah, that is the thing I love best. Blame the SEO guy. Well then make the SEO guy pay the removal fee. I can almost guarantee you with some degree of accuracy that the "SEO guy" charged them several several times what we charge to review and list your site. At the end of the day the people who created the problem are the ones that should be bearing the responsibility of remedying it.

 

That's cos ur clever

Bear in mind it is also a negative SEO tactic to attempt to have competitors de-listed from good directories. So when you ask for that "email from domain" (good way to cover your base btw), don't be surprised when quite a lot can't provide it


*edit*

I actually think in many cases that's part of the negative SEO tactic. Threatening people tends to produce results (sometimes) through fear. I know some people are genuinely nasty, because they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and they want to blame someone else, but as soon as it became apparent people could get their competitors de-listed with idle threats, people started making 'em.

 

Honour their requests, just confirm authenticity of their request first, this is very easily done if they send from a gmail account request that the same request is sent from an email address associated with the domain they want removed.

Doesn't matter whether google told them to or not, just do as they ask, it wont affect further paid submissions, but if you dont do it or request payment for removal im guessing that behind the scenes these webmasters are informing google of this and this might lead to a penalisation of some type, i dont know this part though, im guessing.

 

And therein lies another problem. Half the time I have no way of proving the person making the request is authorized to make the request since the requests come in from a different email than the one that signed up. Charging has become a sure fire way of insuring that the listing being modified/removed is authentic.

 

I think Google realised this and it is why they caved-in to the disavow tool request.

That way, the onus is no longer on you the directory owner (or whatever site it is that the webmaster is trying to have a link removed from) to prove whether the webmaster is legitimate or not. If they want your link not to count against their site, they can use the tool.

 

Require that they send and respond to an E-mail that originates from the same domain as the website listing. You can also request that they upload file a to the website so that ownership is authenticated. This is necessary as most link removal requests are bogus and coming from someone other than the actual owners or their representatives. These are the only ways to preserve the integrity of your directory and to ensure that those who have chosen to list with you are fully protected from competitor removal requests.

 

LOL right on the spot. In my case webmasters have hired "SEO experts" to spam my forums with signature links, now they're sending me messages to remove them.

 

thanks dude for your input and advise.

 

blame the seo guy ? I don't think they will pay for remove the links.
they will charge their clients back.. lol

anyway, how much you charge for removing link ?

 

I get your point, but I think this is the reason why Google took so long to get the tool out there.

I would highly doubt they want people thinking they can disavow a site from the actual SERPs. That's Google's job and their job alone. Will they have a flag in place if nnn webmasters all disavow the same website. Maybe. Maybe they'll have an engineer manually check the disavowed site to see what's going on.

The problem is, as identified in another thread, webmasters in general have no idea what constitutes a good link from any source. I've seen discussions where well known webmasters/SEOs will defend sites that are predominantly spam, because they have 1 or 2 pages of actual good content (whether that content is scraped/stolen or legit is anyones guess).

The fact that so many panicked when Google released the WMT messages should be a clear indicator to them that people really have no idea about their own link profiles if they lose the plot over a simple warning message.

The message from Google has been as usual very ambiguous, but MC downplayed the tool, in contradiction with the official google blog, by saying it should only be used if requests to remove links have failed. He then clarified further saying that links wouldn't necessarily be disavowed against a site even if the owner requests it. So... it's almost like saying --- go ahead and put your hand up and tell us your guilty, but we might just let you remain punished instead of disavowing the sites.

So. Who knows???

 

Google define link directory as Link Farm ??

 

Not directories specifically but certainly there is large number of them that are link farms. Generally speaking, any website that allows people to add their own links without any editing/moderating whatsoever is a link farm.

A lot of directories don't edit and as such they fall into this category.

 

Penguin or Panda? How To Determine Which Google Algorithm Update Impacted Your Website

 

Penguin is triggered via matched anchor text. Basically if you over built for the "money" keywords for your site and have a saturation of non-natural looking link anchors, you could get pinged. Depends on the variety (or colourfulness) of your link profile. Directories need to be very careful about the anchors on their OBL's. They shouldn't be spammy or over keyworded (most are).

Panda is content based. Weaker, scraped or thin content is what was supposedly targeted. There's been controversy with this one mainly because wafer-thin sites who are jack-of-all-trades, like eHow, and who have no real expertise in any of the topics they blab on about, have managed to hold down solid rankings in the SERPs, often with wafer thin 1-page content. Those sorts of sites are like a house-of-cards. They might look stable from a distance, but upon closer inspection you can see holes all through them. They just offer very little of any sort of value to the web.

Unfortunately. Panda can be seen to hit a lot of shopping type of sites. Sites with a lot of products but very little actual written content. It's sort of forced those sites to write a lot more about each product or product category in order to remain viable for each particular category that they are selling in. If they don't then the algorithm probably looks at the image to text ratio and figures its all ads and no substance.

Directories with weak category structures, and lack of listings could probably struggle with gaining SERPs ground. A good solid structure is required and the content should be useful and well-written (that's the directory editors job not the submitters... it's your content, you have control of it, so you need to be the one to edit it).

A directory with tonnes of empty categories, is like a supermarket with aisles of empty shelves. It's pointless.