OK, say my site has a lot of backlinks (approx 6,000) , and most are not of my theme. Some are sitewides that I paid for. Should I ask for them to be removed? The plus is they helped me get #1 in Yahoo, the minus is I fell a few notches in Google. I think it is because Google is putting the value more and more on relevance. I can't really get enough relevant ones to overcome the old scenario. and . . . You can't force somebody to NOT link to you. That being said, seems like someone else could buy non relevant sitewides to your site to lower your Google rating? This can't be true. Interested in comments.
Stop paying for the site-wide links. Especially if they're not relevant. Google > Yahoo as far as traffic and search relevancy goes. Google puts more weight on relevancy because that's what a search engine should be doing Your irrelevant backlinks won't necessarily hurt you - No one can really sabotage your website like that (there are ways, but they're very mischievous and not worth telling). They may trigger Google's sandbox as they see a mass amount of inbound links in a short period of time (that's why site-wide links are stupid, IMO). So, I wouldn't bother asking the website owner to take your link down. I would just stop paying for the irrelevant backlinks and wait it out.
There won't be any negative weighting applied to non-relevant links. Worst case would be that they are worth nothing (therefore not worth paying for). Relevant links are always best...
I actually tend to disagree with Cryo. Having links that are non-relevant and that are a site-wide can have a negative impact. If you want to dig yourself out of this mess with a minimal amount of loss you need to start an aggressive SEO campaign right away. I don't know how many site-wides you have but DO NOT drop all of them at once. You will be in a world of hurt. Start slowly and get some article marketing and some press releases out to buff your site up. I have dealt with plenty of people with this issue. If you want PM me for some professional help.
Hey Guys, thanks for the advice. So to sum up, non relevant links may or may not have a negative impact in Google, but they will help you in Yahoo, and we all agree Google is greater than Yahoo. So, I should gradually let the Non Relevant links go by the way side. work on my relevant links, do some article marketing and some press releases, which I am doing. So how to prove if non relevant links have a negative impact in Google. I have read Jim Boykins blog regarding sites with 50 good links beating sites with 1000 bad links. So, will 50 good links and 1000 bad links beat 50 good links. Good meaning relevant in this case?
Tough Question... It's like asking if Google employees all run around on Segways to get around campus? You'll never know unless you go....
Matt Cutt's has said incoming links cannot hurt you... but SEO experts like Aaron Wall believe there is some sort of ratio used in their algorithm (I think he guesses 50-1) of poor quality links allowed vs. one quality link. I think google ignores almost, if not all, irrelevant links - but think there is truth to some sort of ratio is used. I don't like sitewide links (they don't look natural). The hard part of the decision is that what is good to do for google, isn't the same with yahoo. Yahoo's algorithm is certainly less concerned about relevancy - but this seems to be shifting over the last few months. Yahoo certainly isn't where google is, but they seem to be moving in this direction. If your yahoo listings are bringing you good traffic, I would probably just let the links expire (vs removing them) and concentrate on adding some quality relevant links. Google position shifts are the norm, and it's really hard to prove a single factor was responsible - and it may be nothing more than an algo shift.
I used to aim at all 3 search engines at a time, hoping to rank high in all. Well, it's rather hard. Now I take an easy way. Some of the sites I own, I simply target at Yahoo! for higher rank. You don't need to worry about penalty for links unlike Google. Google got a better filter to detect junk backlinks.
I agree with Smokedog. What you want to do is delete the irrelevant links slowly over 6 to 9 months, but make sure that you replace them with good, more relevant links.
This is an interesting concept and although some of your logic is true, there are other factors influencing your Google drop. First and foremost, your page needs to have the proper on page optimization structure. If this is a go, then we can move on to off page factors. I don't care what anyone says, a link is still going to help you (today) whether it is relevant or not. Relevant links are more powerful, but a link is still a link. This is how I run my business and how I get top 5. Sitewides are ok however I would not put a lot of weight on them. The reason being is that you want Unique IP links... the more links you have from the same site, the less valuable they become. If you focus on a good number of links with the anchor text of your choice, have the proper page structure, and get a couple high PR links you will be just fine. Things that influence the Google flux include other sites ranking for that word, the normal updates they do (don't panic and start changing your strategy just because you drop a couple), if you do things right, just ride it out and you will eventually come right back to where you were. Hope this helps some,
I agree with ajenterp. Once you are done with on-page, you can concentrate on the off-page. A irrelevant back link is of no use. Try to get one-way and theme related back links. They helps you a lot in your rankings.
Wonder what defines a theme related link. I had a guy about a year ago ask for this type of link. He wanted me to upload a seo'd page onto my site which had links to his site within the context of the page, and put a text link from one of my nonlinks page to this new page. Personally I thought it was a pretty good idea. Makes it seem like a themed link?