Exact match anchors, should I dilute them? Or disavow?

[mj22]

How long did you monitor things before building the generic/brand to bring it back? Any chance the partials were still just causing the typical 'google dance' before settling down higher than #7?

I would have to check the seo log for that project, but if i remember correctly i waited it out for 30 days before i got back after it.

 

[googlealchemist]

I would have to check the seo log for that project, but if i remember correctly i waited it out for 30 days before i got back after it.

Appreciate the response...that makes sense to me as a proper wait period for something like that.

What kind of relative volume of the exact/partials did u do compared to your existing baseline total of non exact/partial links?

 

[mj22]

What kind of relative volume of the exact/partials did u do compared to your existing baseline total of non exact/partial links?

I had around 40 rd (niche edits and guest posts) to the target url. I ran 5 guest posts with 4 partial match anchors, blue widgets on sale, blue widget details here, ect. and that was it. I wasnt expecting it to react the way it did but after double checking everything and waiting it out, that was the only thing that made sense that caused the drop. Like i said, after i built it back out, the page recovered, was a pretty simple fix.

 

[googlealchemist]

I had around 40 rd (niche edits and guest posts) to the target url. I ran 5 guest posts with 4 partial match anchors, blue widgets on sale, blue widget details here, ect. and that was it. I wasnt expecting it to react the way it did but after double checking everything and waiting it out, that was the only thing that made sense that caused the drop. Like i said, after i built it back out, the page recovered, was a pretty simple fix.

Interesting, thanks...especially since the domain was 1.5 years old vs -1. Those initial 40 were all brand anchors then? Does the brand contain a relevant keyword in it?

I wonder if it would have been different with a higher overall volume of rd where the partials weren't making up 10% of the total.

It's curious how they will tank it so quickly but then take 2 months to bring it back, though I suppose that makes sense from their end as far as spam prevention/deterring seos/etc

Seems to match up too well to be exactly what you speculate though vs a coinciding algo update/walkback

Appreciate the feedback.

 

[mj22]

Interesting, thanks...especially since the domain was 1.5 years old vs -1. Those initial 40 were all brand anchors then? Does the brand contain a relevant keyword in it?

I wonder if it would have been different with a higher overall volume of rd where the partials weren't making up 10% of the total.

It's curious how they will tank it so quickly but then take 2 months to bring it back, though I suppose that makes sense from their end as far as spam prevention/deterring seos/etc

Seems to match up too well to be exactly what you speculate though vs a coinciding algo update/walkback

Appreciate the feedback.

When you get to the next level, come talk with me. will be good times. I am not here to teach the masses.

 

[googlealchemist]

When you get to the next level, come talk with me. will be good times. I am not here to teach the masses.

Will keep that in mind thanks...I might (most likely) get back into affiliate or national stuff again, or my own products or brick and mortars in the future, but right now I'm enjoying raping and pillaging the local countryside in my vertical.

 

[Grind]

What amount of exact match anchors is generally considered to be overoptimized?

Two.

Kind-of-jokes aside, it's a how long is a piece of string equation. Fred got rolled into Core and Core is what continues to fuck everyone on these 'link spam' updates.

Fred established a sliding scale of of relationships between sites and the anchor text 'penalties' are wrapped up in that.

Gross oversimplification but:

Super strong site linking to super strong site, you can get away with absolute murder on the anchor text.

Substitute a medium quality site on one side of the equation above, now you're playing with fire chasing exact (or phrase or LSI the way 99% of you use them. Protip: stop words don't stop bad shit from happening to you).

Got medium quality on both sides of the equation? You better be more careful than an Amish girl at a gang bang on Rumpsringa or you're getting gaped.

Low quality on one side or the other? Bros don't let bros get low quality links. The weaker your site, the smarter you have to be at this game.

I'm team Disavow here but it's a worthless activity unless you can:

1) Get all the links. Ahrefs gets about 30% on the dozens of these I've done. YMMV.

2) Get them crawled/indexed consistently or you're waiting 6-8 months to see anything significant. It's possible. It's expensive. No, I'm not telling you how. Sorry.

But if you figure it out you can 'fix' sites in 7-28 days, depending on whatever bullshit shenanigans Google is up to at the time.

I'm on an island with this take in the SEO world but if you're a big brand or receiving lots of affiliate traffic, protecting your link profile is probably the highest value SEO activity you could be engaging in. Small sites about dog snuggeez need not apply.

Grind