Google: We Mostly Ignore Web 2.0 Links

Apr 10, 2014 • 7:50 am | comments (57) by twitter Google+ | Filed Under Google Search Engine Optimization
 

Google Ignored Links NotificationsIn a Google Webmaster Help thread, Google's John Mueller said Google mostly ignores Web 2.0 links, specifically calling out Pinterest, YouTube and others.

He wrote:

We're already mostly ignoring those links (just like we're ignoring the "web 2.0" / Pinterest / YouTube / article / etc links), but if you see them and want to make sure that they're not causing any issues, disavowing them is fine.

Yea, most of the "Web 2.0" links are nofollowed anyway, which is why Google is ignoring them, because they are being instructed to do so.

Most links on YouTube, Pinterest and so forth are nofollowed. But John also say "article" in his example.

In any event, figured I'd share this comment from John more widely.

Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.

Previous story: Daily Search Forum Recap: April 9, 2014
 

Comments:

Alex Genadinik

04/10/2014 11:55 am

I thought social media is a part of SEO, and is a big factor? So how can it be a big factor, and ignored? :)

me

04/10/2014 12:00 pm

google is not the search engines. it rank websites based on personal matt cutts opinion. Now it directory! Also today news show what google planning to create travel portal. So webmasters of all travel websites need to looking for new job, because google will bankrupt them.

Gene Eugenio

04/10/2014 12:06 pm

It makes sense. These are automated link sources and are already no followed. However, they are still worth doing. Don't do them for backlinks. Do them to build authority. Do them to impress the influencers you need to impress enough to link to you.

Josh Zehtabchi

04/10/2014 01:00 pm

Social signals are not directly the same as web 2.0. Likes, +1's, etc I would suspect fall more into social signals while YouTube links and Tumblr style links (being no followed) being more "web 2.0" links. A term, I never liked to begin with.

BooBear

04/10/2014 02:13 pm

Don't take a specific answer and assume it's general - the webmaster in question probably knows exactly what 'web 2.0' and 'article' refers to, because they paid for them in the first place (reading between the lines).

Myluit

04/10/2014 03:07 pm

..helpful update for the sites for Google SEO..thanks.

Ashutosh R

04/10/2014 03:47 pm

Sounds crazy info! :)

Craig Kilgore

04/10/2014 04:36 pm

No.

josh bachynski (SEO)

04/10/2014 09:08 pm

Of course they are they have been for over a year. This is what most spammers use for links. So of course they're ignoring it

Mark Warner

04/10/2014 09:19 pm

I feel like it would be rude to give Barry a hard time here, while it has annoyed me at times, it IS useful to be able to read about what John or Matt C have said throughout the web even when it might be a small comment. In this case, I wouldn't read too much into it.

Patrick Coombe

04/10/2014 10:05 pm

Any link that is: -easy to create -free -able to be made without moderation Isn't going to be worth much.

Matthew Marley

04/10/2014 10:12 pm

Social media links dont have any impact on your ranking, for now! However social media does have an indirect influence. The more popular you are and your content is on social media then there is more of a chance you are going to get people linking to your content.

Don Halbert

04/11/2014 03:03 am

this was something that became obvious to me and my team about 6 months ago however there is a catch here. In competitive niches yes its true they are pretty much useless but when used in not so competitive niches they can push SERPs around - either down when disconnected or elevated when reconnected. We've done enough of these experiments to know that this is true. Maybe not for all of you but in our studies they have an effect depending on the niche used in. Its worth noting though that as stand alones without their own backlinks to them they are dead weight however if you raise the authority of them then they serve a purpose albeit a small one.

Yogita Aggarwal

04/11/2014 03:16 am

Well said in simple words ..

Kim Ngoc

04/11/2014 03:29 am

@geneeugenio:disqus totally agree with you. I also don't use web 2.0 and social network website as a source of inbound links. Just a place to network, share my content and get natural traffic to my website. I hope to increase the percentage of my traffic from this source

Charu Rastogi

04/11/2014 05:45 am

This news made me crazy. Does it mean that we should not do web2.0 and articles submissions? Pinterest and youtube is for brand awareness so i am not worry about it.

Guest

04/11/2014 05:57 am

I agree with you Alex.

jasminjew

04/11/2014 10:16 am

Yes , It can't be ignored !

rob

04/11/2014 10:21 am

yes. google is really not a search engine anymore.

onreact

04/11/2014 11:01 am

Pinterest links show up all right in GWB so they don't get ignored completely.

Michael Martinez

04/11/2014 01:46 pm

"Does it mean that we should not do web2.0 and articles submissions?" Wow....

Patti Paz

04/11/2014 01:55 pm

I'm a bit confused here. In our niche market, personalized invitations, announcements, and stationery cards, there's usually at least one Pinterest results showing on the first page. So, if the links to / from Pinterest are all but ignored, how in the world does one or more pages of an entity's Pinterest page appear? Looks like we have different people smoking from different pipes . . . . .

CaptainKevin

04/11/2014 02:03 pm

Not only does Google ignore web 2.0 and article links, but they also ignore small businesses! Just look at Google's search results, for most products, and you will see a compilation of Fortune 500 companies. These big corporations also get the top organic listing bonus if they are advertising with Adwords. Google has become synonymous with vomit, in my opinion.

tomshark

04/11/2014 02:08 pm

Some folks still don't realize that web 2.0 became popular (one reason) because of all the bottom feeders posting garbage anonymously and with no regard for others (the community).

Craig Kilgore

04/11/2014 02:35 pm

Wikipedia wouldn't lie to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Search

Mohammed Saimon

04/12/2014 09:58 am

Now what to do?

Robert Gaines

04/13/2014 01:31 am

Google stated awhile back that they were going to start ignoring DoFollow links contained within blog articles. They did this because unscrupulous SEOs were using guest blogs and comments as a way to farm links. As for other Web 2.0 links, they are treating the NoFollows as NoFollows and they are most likely ignoring any DoFollows that they associate with spam. In the end, I think that the majority of DoFollow Social Media links are still passing juice and that the NoFollow links are still passing the same limited value that they pass everywhere else.

Robert Gaines

04/13/2014 01:36 am

A. Generate and promote content that people will link to and share based on it's own merit. B. Generate DoFollow links on other reputable websites. C. Do not spam links within comments. D. NoFollow any link that you post on a blog.

Robert Gaines

04/13/2014 01:40 am

This is not entirely true, through extensive keyword research you can frequently find low competition mid-traffic keyphrases to target. Alternately, if you are good at promotion and come up with either highly valuable content or a unique service you can rank with those. Of course, those options are not always possible, but they are possible within the general scheme of things.

Robert Gaines

04/13/2014 01:45 am

The links that go to Pinterest count, it is the links from Pinterest that are debatable. I for one maintain that they still have some value even though they are NoFollow. It is the spammy DoFollow links that either have no value or actually hurt your ranking. At the very least, NoFollow links are probably used by Google to determine trending content.

Robert Gaines

04/13/2014 01:47 am

That is a valid point when you read the article. Even if he didn't pay for the links or intent to acquire them, he is generally in a very nasty situation. The term "bad neighborhood" comes to mind.

Robert Gaines

04/13/2014 01:51 am

Social media more falls under SMO than SEO, but generally you are right. Although most social media links are NoFollow and Matt Cutts stated that Google does not take into account "Social Signals," social media links may still be taken into account when it comes to trending content. Furthermore, many SEOs maintain that NoFollow links still have some small value.

Guest

04/13/2014 09:04 pm

If everyone is making his external links to nofollow it means no editorial do-follow links = links won't matter anymore. Think with your brain, you look like a google employee to me. When everyone will stop to use links they Google with start using social signals and then the social spam will begin.

Guest

04/13/2014 09:05 pm

Communist propaganda - "Everything is fine!".

Guess who you really are

04/13/2014 09:06 pm

Hey Matt, what's up? :)

I am curious

04/13/2014 09:09 pm

I can't understand how links coming from Twitter, Google+, Facebook, Pinterest, LinkedIn profiles can be ignored? Wasn't there a list of 200 social sites which are giving more power to a website if you create links there? I am not talking about a crappy PR2 social website with several hundred customers and that is running on a shared hosting or a server in someone's mom basement. I am talking about the BIG social websites PR6+.

Johnlenard

04/14/2014 05:46 am

Then where we can create links? If they treat all links as No follow?

Rahul Mishra

04/14/2014 08:11 am

I think, we should focus on our website content. Post a unique and informative content on your websites and share it on all SMO channels. When Google will crawl, surely it will give some advantage to our website. Is it right or not??

Gracious Store

04/15/2014 04:02 am

So if the links from Pintrest, and other social media are nofollow links, so how do these social networks contribute to the ranig of a website? So apparently the social networks are simply good for publicity and not for link building

Credit Cards

04/16/2014 03:38 pm

Spam within comments?

Tonberry_King

04/22/2014 06:09 am

So should I abandon my AOL chatroom and Geocities link strategy?

Michael Ciocca

04/30/2014 03:46 pm

Why would anyone ever think these types of links would be worthwhile for ranking purposes. It's the lowest hanging, most non relevant links possible. It's blatantly obvious that google wouldn't bother with these for any ranking purposes. This has been obvious since these sites have existed.

mobjustice1

05/02/2014 06:10 pm

Robert Gaines, until recently i was able to target keywords like SEO Strategy, Freelancing, and Freelancing Jobs. in Google and i was succeeding the problem however is that every end of the month, my website cannot be seen anywhere in google results pages. and then after a little after a week everything comes back online, i am suspecting subbortage but the problem is Google own Webmaster tools does not even indicate any problem whatsoever with my website. so i can tell you this it is not possible within the generak scheme of things

mobjustice1

05/02/2014 06:15 pm

not really, Wikipedia do not write their own articles

Robert Gaines

05/03/2014 10:48 pm

That is a bit odd. It sounds like the "Google Dance" that sometimes hits new or recently updated pages, but that doesn't make sense on pages that have been out there for awhile. By "cannot be seen anywhere in google results pages" do you mean that the listing is disappearing off of the first results page, is disappearing from the entire search result for a query, or do you mean that it is disappearing from Google altogether? You can check the later by searching for "site:yoururl.com" directly after your listing disappears. It could be that you're getting hit by a Panda refresh or a refresh of one of the other algorithms that Google regularly runs through it's database. Even when one of these refreshes doesn't penalize you, they can cause some temporary turbulence. As for Google Web Master Tools: There are problems that won't get displayed. One final thing you can check is http://mozcast.com/ it will tell you if a lot of other websites are seeing SERP position shifts.

mobjustice1

05/03/2014 11:24 pm

Everything dissappears from the practically viewable pages but still in the index cause when i search using site:url.com it shows up. but i cannot find the site even up to page 50 for all the keywords. then after a while everything comes back, and always with silghtly different pages listed and for slightly different keywords. so i am stuck. this happens every end of the month.

Robert Gaines

05/04/2014 12:17 am

I could be way off, but my guess is that, unless http://mozcast is showing a major spike during the shift, individual pages are getting hit by a refresh and then another page from your site is taking it's place in the SERPs. If that is the case your best course of action is to determine which algorithm is nailing you. Is there anything listed under the "HTML Improvements" section of Web Master Tools? Also, cross refference the dates listed on http://moz.com/google-algorithm-change with the shifts.

mobjustice1

05/04/2014 07:42 am

Thank's i think i found my answer there, everything correlates whenever i get a change in listings there's always a correlation with mozcast, so i am sure now that it is because of Google. So this is my next question how does one do business in this environment, and don't tell me you can't because there has to be an answer somewhere. I was just about to give up and you showed me this, so i think someone got to have figured out how to minimize the jumping up and downs that i am experiencing any ideas.

Robert Gaines

05/07/2014 10:27 pm

"social sites which are giving more power to a website" -If you're talking about social sites that provide more than the usual PR based link juice, there were a few examples of that in the past, but as far as I know none of them effect Google anymore. Google, Twitter, and Facebook have not been getting along for awhile at the corporate level and I haven't seen Google show interest in acquiring social ranking signals from any of the other networks.

Robert Gaines

05/07/2014 10:41 pm

From my understanding, the only links that are getting treated as NoFollows are: NoFollowed links, links stemming from blog entries, links associated with link schemes (such as link farms and link rings), and links associated with spam. There are still some DoFollow Web 2.0 links that are being counted, they are just few and far between. Depending on how many Web 2.0 DoFollows you can find, it might be more efficient to focus on other backlink building techniques, such as "broken link building." Also, keep in mind that some experts have stated that NoFollow links may still pass some sort of ranking signal and that Web 2.0 links are probably used as a freshness signal.

Robert Gaines

05/07/2014 10:52 pm

First of all, not all of the social links are NoFollow - just most of them. Furthermore: if a social network (Like Twitter) is getting aggregated or scraped you main gain some valid backlinks. Although Google is no longer looking at "social signals", a sudden influx of nofollow links probably still counts as a freshness signal. Some experts maintain that NoFollow links still have some small effect of ranking. By promoting your content on social media, you increase the chances of it getting linked from other DoFollow sources.

Robert Gaines

05/07/2014 10:56 pm

Once upon a time Google was using social signals in some form or another and up until recently blog article links were still solid. But of course you are right, anytime something is open to SEO abuse, it will be abused. Anytime something is abused for SEO, it is downgraded or ignored.

Robert Gaines

05/07/2014 11:08 pm

Make sure you get the right look: http://www.wonder-tonic.com/geocitiesizer/

Robert Gaines

05/07/2014 11:34 pm

"So this is my next question how does one do business in this environment, and don't tell me you can't because there has to be an answer somewhere." -That depends on a few things. First of all there are certain niches that are usually going to be volatile. Those include niches that feature a lot of spam, a lot of blackhat techniques, trending content, or a high level of competition. Outside of that, the volatility of your website is going to depend heavily on what techniques you use to achieve rankings. Your best course of action is to determine exactly what updates or refreshes are hitting your site and then correct whatever it is that they are picking up on. In the end, most techniques that allow you to quickly gain an inorganic advantage are going to cause you problems somewhere down the line. The question comes down to how much manipulation you can get away with and, if you choose to use questionable techniques, how long it will take Google to nail you. I operate off of: “Slow, steady, and cautious wins the race.” but I know that doesn't work for every situation. "I was just about to give up and you showed me this" -I'm glad that I could help.

mobjustice1

05/08/2014 11:20 am

Robert thank you very much. just do me one favour check your messages in Google Hangout

William Forrest

05/20/2014 06:09 am

Well, Google is pretty anal when it comes to links. The only reason is that many people are abusing to drop their links even though what they're posting is irrelevant to the main post.

David James

06/04/2014 10:00 am

http://taomeditation.eu/tao-meditation/

blog comments powered by Disqus