New Google Penalty For "Image Mismatch"

Nov 6, 2013 • 8:39 am | comments (97) by twitter Google+ | Filed Under Google Search Engine Optimization

Google Penalty CardsThere is a new Google manual action that you need to be aware of named "image mismatch." This manual action is when your images on your site don't match what Google is indexing and displaying in their search results.

Google has a new help document on this over here where it reads:

If you see this message on the Manual Actions page, it means that some of your site’s images may be displaying differently on Google’s search results pages than they are when viewed on your site.

As a result, Google has applied a manual action to the affected portions of your site, which will affect how your site’s images are displayed in Google. Actions that affect your whole site are listed under Site-wide matches. Actions that affect only part of your site are listed under Partial matches.

An anonymous reader sent me a screen shot of the notification he received for this on his site:

click for full size

It reads:

Images from this site are displayed differently on Google search results pages than they are when displayed on this site.

A form of cloaking or something less intentional like using hotlink protection techniques to prevent or discourage users from stealing your images?

Have you seen this manual action?

Forum discussion Google Webmaster Help.

Previous story: Reports Of A Google Update Between November 1st & 5th


Sam Thomas

11/06/2013 02:14 pm

So.. essentially Google are penalising websites because they don't display images the same way as the original website intended? That's what I got from this.. Doesn't make a great deal of sense!


11/06/2013 02:27 pm

a penalty for hotlink protection, i.e. a penalty for not allowing google to scrape your images and act as a medium for people to take them or burn your bandwidth. unbelievable!!!

Stuart David

11/06/2013 02:34 pm

It will be interesting to see how long before they then start removing sites from Google Images that don't let Google steal the bandwidth and images. As you guys say, thats a penalty based on you having hotlink protection, which up until this change of heart, they always said was perfectly acceptable, they have now amended all of their webmasters guide to say, don't do that, with no reference of the companies past thoughts on the subject. Open season now, would love their official line on this and why they think its acceptable, but they just launched and never said anything, not even an after thought, just penalizing upon penalizing.

Claude "CodeAngry" Adrian

11/06/2013 02:47 pm

Nobody is preventing you from blocking the in robots.txt. Assuming your images are neatly tucked in their own folder.

Martin Missfeldt

11/06/2013 02:56 pm

wow, evil. In my eyes Google is on a wrong way...


11/06/2013 03:00 pm

My suspicions were right! I knew that hotlink protection is something Google does not approve of.

Helmuts Meskonis

11/06/2013 03:05 pm

and who will do that manual work? ... cheap Indians whose mother tongue isn't English, of course... what next? penalise bloggers that write about stuff that Google things is bs? ... This is Pure Censorship!!!


11/06/2013 03:23 pm

They did previously though, and this is now November 2013, they launched that new hellish system in January 2013. So despite you having suspicions - they did take their sweet time about how they would handle and abuse.


11/06/2013 04:21 pm

google need more money, so more sites need to be penalized soon.


11/06/2013 04:23 pm

their abuse team is act like worldwide censorship. i still remember "google anti copa company", but what happens now?


11/06/2013 04:26 pm

Does anyone have an example of an image that has been penalized for rendering differently on the site than in Google image search results? I'd like to see what Google


11/06/2013 04:30 pm

If you don't want your site to display in Google, feel free to remove it. Pretty much that simple. You always have the option to remove your site if you don't want to play by Google's rules. Its their private website and they are entitled to do this. "Makes you wonder if the guys at Google have any real world experience of owning a website and the complexity of image serving" I'd bet a hell of a lot more than you! "would love their official line on this" Its not changed, if you are displaying a different image to the search engines than you display to users, then you are engaging in cloaking. Its that simple. The only difference is now there is a system in place to detect this. You can still use things to disable hotlinking, you just need to make sure it allows Google through (if you want your images to be in image search) If you want to be in the index for those images, then you need to allow Google to hotlink them. As for 'stealing' bandwidth and images, are you going to return all the traffic you 'stole' from Google? Because if it applies to Google, we can apply it to you as well. I may not be a big fan of this change, but your allegations are both baseless and ridiculous. It assumes me how certain people always seem to think that Google owes them something. It doesn't. They run a search engine, if you want to be in that search engine, you have to play by their rules. Complaining because you've only just been caught for breaking them is like a murder complaining 'well, you shouldn't jail me for this one since you didn't for the last 10' ;)

Andrea Moro

11/06/2013 04:32 pm

I believe you are missing the point. Once the image is indexed and cached from Google, the engine will not return if on an occasional way to check whether the image is changed. The clue here is about hotlinking toward different website, that yes they can steal bandwidth as you said by referencing the image from your server.


11/06/2013 04:33 pm

To simplify. tl;dr: The debate isn't about the free traffic or being ungrateful, the debate exists on the pulling of images and cost association, easy lifting, enabling scrapers and other such logistical problems. Get out of your mind about somebody being ungrateful. -------------------------- Save the 'you can use the robots.txt and remove it' speech. It's really not needed. I understand its their private website, thats not for debate. Its simply a question of transparency about why they take it on themselves to change the rules with regards to this. You clearly don't understand the technical aspects to it, so your comments invalid. RE: Allowing Google through is a much more difficult task now that they hide the refer data more often than not, the only guarantee is letting everybody hotlink your images. In addition to your ridiculous metaphor about breaking the rules, this is a rule that came into force less than 24 hours ago ... so being caught ... isn't really a thing, stop being so generic with your approach. As I say, you don't know what your going on about so drop out please.

Claude "CodeAngry" Adrian

11/06/2013 04:36 pm

Many wallpaper websites cloak images showing google a image but when the visitor loads it, they are redirected to an actual page with ads and such, where, if lucky, you'll find a link to download the wallpaper. It happens very often on wallpaper searches.


11/06/2013 04:43 pm

Yeah its just the constant pull on the images, few mb a time, and with the preload aspect. It's clear you understand the logistics of what's involved, and the expense that comes with it for zero return. Best to keep things simple round here though, as people like to pipe up without any real understanding of the issue at hand, ofcourse everyones grateful for the traffic, but on the flip the changes actually cause a huge swing in what Google gets out of it now

Andrea Moro

11/06/2013 04:51 pm

Hotlinking and robots.txt are two separate beast. Suggesting to use the robots.txt to prevent people doing hotlinks means don't know what that protocol is useful for.

Andrea Moro

11/06/2013 04:55 pm

Well, if the concern is Google and the mb they consume from your site for free, you can prevent them crawling over and over again the images by including an exclusion in the robots.txt They can still index your images though, thus meaning they will be able to check again whether the image is changed but at a less frequent ratio. I believe the outcome here should be to suggest your customer having the server in order. If you are preventing hotlinks serving a different image, don't do that but return a full 410 error code. If you want to prevent crawling to some robots that respect the protocol, use the robots.txt And finally make sure to have a server returning a proper 304 instead the 200 at all time.

Andrea Moro

11/06/2013 04:55 pm

They simply want you to keep your server in order.


11/06/2013 04:57 pm

No, its been a rule for at LEAST 5 years. The only difference is now they are enforcing it with regard to images. Try actually reading the web-master guidelines. Yes I understand the difficulties. Its very simple, you can lock it down via IP address (Google have a limited set) or if you are really really lazy, by user-agent. Referrer never helped anyway really so you are just making up excuses. Its you who clearly don't have a clue as to what you are talking about so perhaps you should take your own advice here.

Warren Chandler

11/06/2013 05:17 pm

Something like this is long overdue with regards to cleaning up SEO, but I do wonder just how it's accurately going to be enforced. Hotlinking on image searches has long been due some attention from Google, I just hope they get it right.

Claude "CodeAngry" Adrian

11/06/2013 05:29 pm

Do notice the OP said: "penalty for not allowing google to scrape your images". Not allowing GOOGLE to SCRAPE your images. So he's got a problem with Google, not the hot-linkers. I mean, I just read what he says... I don't read his mind.

Wendy Piersall

11/06/2013 05:38 pm

First Google DECIMATES my sites' traffic by switching their image search interface and hotlinking my images. Next, they make all of my high resolution images easy-for-the-stealin' from their result pages, while the images are protected from right click theft on my own domains. So now I'm left with two choices: either lose a full 25% of my (already diminished) traffic, or allow Google to continue to hotlink my images and watch my 5 years of hard work get stolen and republished all over the web. I didn't think I could take it up the a$$ any deeper. I overestimated Google once again.


11/06/2013 06:18 pm

"whose mother tongue isn't English" - said HELMUTS MESKONIS , the real englishman ... Isn't it enough, what your nationalism did to Latvia, where society is divided by the native language and economy was ruined partly because of that ? You moved to UK, seeking for job, same as tens of thousands of Latvians. How "cheap Latvians" are better than "cheap Indians" ? Just unbelievable, what nationalism can do to the human brain.


11/06/2013 06:22 pm

Thanks, I'll try that!

Takeshi Young

11/06/2013 06:38 pm

About damn time. I hate clicking through and not finding the image I was looking for. Those wallpaper and stock photo sites are the worst offenders of this.


11/06/2013 06:57 pm

Why don't you use watermarks ? Right click protection doesn't work with modern browsers. "Inspect element" in Chrome does the job. Watermarks do protect pretty well.

Wendy Piersall

11/06/2013 07:02 pm

My right click protection isn't javascript based, it works in all browsers. 95% of my site users aren't savvy enough to dig through my code to find the actual image to download. And watermarks/copyright notices are far too easily removed from my images - ask me how I know. :'(


11/06/2013 07:09 pm

Sure it's dependable, but I can tell you as the person who uses Google Images search daily - there is no reason for me to deal with copyrights/watermarks signs. Too much hassle.

Wendy Piersall

11/06/2013 07:14 pm

Perhaps it's the nature of the images on my sites, but they are stolen all the time. Yes, some people think the copyright notice is a hassle - and yet they still post my images on their sites with my copyright notice intact. And I still find my stolen images indexed all over the place, occasionally outranking my own. The problem isn't whether the source of the image is apparent - the problem is that Google is providing access to high resolution images that would normally be protected. And it's not feasible for me to go through and block access image-by-image to only high resolution files and not the thumbnails.


11/06/2013 07:19 pm

I'm not in the images business, just wanted to share my experience as the Google Images search frequent user )

Wendy Piersall

11/06/2013 07:20 pm

It's a good thing you aren't in the images business. ;)


11/06/2013 07:39 pm

Wow, I can't believe how much controversy there is around this. As a searcher, I expect the same image to be on a site as the one I get in the search result. If I click on a picture of an apple and instead I get an orange, I'm angry at both the website trying to bait and switch me, and at Google for putting garbage in the search result.

Wendy Piersall

11/06/2013 07:41 pm

This is more about sites showing watermarked images to Google and unwatermarked images to users. They specifically called out sites trying to block hotlinking, which is usually not a bait and switch. It is publishers trying to protect their high resolution images from theft.


11/06/2013 07:58 pm

I don't see anything about watermarks in the support document from Google. For your particular concern, I'd have landing pages that display a low-resolution image to both users and search robots, then a link to the high-resolution image blocked via robots.txt. Thus high-resolution images simply don't appear in Google's search results. You may not think your users are tech savvy, but ultimately if you don't want people downloading your images then don't put them on the internet.


11/06/2013 08:30 pm

Maybe you should re-evaluate how you do business. You're going completely against the grain here and getting stressed out.

Wendy Piersall

11/06/2013 08:37 pm

You are correct. But the only way to do that is to move from an ad-supported model to a pay-for-content model. Since I give out free worksheets to educators, it might be good for me... but it won't be good for them. It is unfortunate that as Google gets more greedy, the ripple effect is that it hurts users, not just site owners.


11/06/2013 09:29 pm

we need to make new penalty for google, later can do wordpress plugin. Plugin analyzing visitors from google, if less than 10 visitors daily at site - plugin will send to google error for any googlebot request: 999 Go Away, Google, Until minimum 10 visitors daily on site. Lets make their index little bit smaller :-P


11/06/2013 09:31 pm

but it google blackhat, because nobody allowed him to display this image remotely. Owners NOT NEED to put any special strings at robots.txt to prohibit google stealing this picture. If you know here is DMCA and similar things, but google think it better than it.


11/06/2013 09:34 pm

if you don't want google find you and put your photo in the search results under your name/email, never visit internet :) i like that logic :)


11/06/2013 09:35 pm

fill DMCA form at first at google, at second at law office.


11/06/2013 09:39 pm

world is really stupid, peoples need to be real internet citizens!


11/06/2013 09:40 pm

Might be a stupid question, but any thoughts on how appended URL parameters would affect this? For example a google image search returns an image with the url: and opening that URL displays the correct image, but when you click the button on the google image search to visit the page containing the image, the image has a parameter appended to it like The image is the same with or without the parameter appended to it. I can't imagine this could be considered cloaking but hey you never know these days.


11/06/2013 09:42 pm

it not correct. you not need to remove it if you not want to display it in google. Who give to google right to index everything? Is here some law??? I think it must be different, webmaster must submit site for indexation or put special file/xml what allow google to index it. Also here is NO any free traffic in this game for LONG time. You pay for it anyway, just by different way.


11/06/2013 09:46 pm

so, according to you - google webmaster guideline is law.


11/06/2013 09:51 pm

Same as with the text - duplicate content. And again this is on our heads. Google gets stupidly rewritten URLs somewhere, indexes them and then blame you because of the duplicate content. But until you can't afford to forget about Google, you have to fix this. Make sure your server will not return misconfigured URLs and use rel=canonical.


11/06/2013 10:00 pm

I think you're missing Wendy's point. She wants Google to have her pictures, place them on Google Images, and reap the benefits of free traffic. If she didn't, it's super easy to block access to googlebot.

Wendy Piersall

11/06/2013 10:32 pm

You're so cute. You think this is about free traffic. Heh.


11/07/2013 12:51 am

they constantly do it, and unable to recognize where is bad and good links. I just checked very old site for disavow. Oh, if i can have that links... But google just penalized it.


11/07/2013 12:56 am

Wendy, you need some script to use web cookies to protect your hq images. Like when visitor opened page on your site - cookie is generated, and visitor with cookie can open hq images. If visitor from google come for hotlinked image - script will display him - go visit my site to get cookie and watch the hq photos and will redirect him to your site.

Soni Sharma

11/07/2013 04:40 am

People do lot of spam with image search results. I have noticed that in some search results when we click image URL. It land to the webpage where that image not found. Mainly with backgrounds and wallpapers sites.

osman musa

11/07/2013 07:38 am

A few days ago I started getting 1,000 visitors a day on one of my Galaxy S4 posts. Could this possibly be due to other people getting penalized and traffic coming to me?

SEO Expert - Rahul Trivedi

11/07/2013 08:18 am

This is the time when people have to pay more attention to image optimization.

Zeshan Noor Wahgra

11/07/2013 08:19 am

I do not think so as Images bring few visitors to a normal site.For more Media based sites surely they need to pay more and more attention on it.

Zeshan Noor Wahgra

11/07/2013 08:20 am

Can you please share the date when you start observing this change?There is one probable update rolling last week or some big refresh.

osman musa

11/07/2013 08:29 am

Zeshan, it started Thursday October 31. Analytics shows a big spike exactly at November 1 and climbing everyday until now where it is showing almost 3 times as normal traffic and 70% of that traffic is from just 1 article. Whatever Google is doing is pleasing me.

osman musa

11/07/2013 08:33 am

Yep, when I look at analytics, it's hard to know if a search query came from an image search and not just regular web search.

osman musa

11/07/2013 08:34 am

Yeah I noticed some sites pull in visitors with images that break frames from Google images or don't even exist after a user clicks through.

osman musa

11/07/2013 08:36 am

Wendy can file DMCA against sites using her images without permission as Google clearly states in image search results "Images may be subject to copyright" this is exactly why I always do an advanced image search for commercial license free images, so I don't get into copyright trouble. So if Wendy files a DMCA, it's not Google that's in trouble it's the sites that use her images and believe me it's in her best interest to file DMCA. Sites that get hit with DMCA go down in rank.

Zeshan Noor Wahgra

11/07/2013 08:43 am

Google Refferal traffic. "Google Image search, Google webmaster forum, listings, or static pages etc".

Nikhil Raj. R

11/07/2013 09:05 am

Do you have any idea about the number of cheap Indians working on Google whose mother tongue isn't English? Ask Amit Singhal! or Even Avinash Kaushik!


11/07/2013 09:53 am

As regards appearing in the Google search results, yes it is. If you don't care about appearing in Google, then no, do whatever you want! :)


11/07/2013 09:59 am

Yes actually, you gave Google the right to index it. You did that when you made it public. Exactly the same way you can legally take a picture of a billboard.


11/07/2013 10:28 am

Yes it works the same as with text, as in the least valuable of the two pages (in the case of identical pages, the least viewed/visited one) just get filtered from the search results. There is no ranking penalty here. The main page will display in exactly the same position either way. So basically this won't affect your rankings at all. Still best to tell Google about any valid parameters in webmaster tools, that way the credit from all of the pages should combine giving you an even stronger ranking.


11/07/2013 10:39 am

public? it very questionable definition. You get everywhere some flyers, some promotions with lot of know-hows, pictures & videos. But it not a "public domain".


11/07/2013 10:42 am

i can see lot of different examples. So it not law, even if you appearing in the google search results. Also "white hat" not protect you from google penalties, I have seen lot of good sites which was unfairly tanked, but google not cares, they follow their evil path.


11/07/2013 11:45 am

Yes, any website that anyone can type the URL in can go to is a public website. Privately owned but it is public. Exactly the same as a restaurant is public but privately owned.


11/07/2013 11:52 am

By that definition, no law exists since there are numerous examples of people getting away with breaking every law in the world. Its very simple, if you want to appear in the Google SERPs, then you need to follow their rules. That simple. You sound like you are just butt-hurt because your site isn't doing very well as you haven't managed to make a single logical argument yet! Oh and if a site is truly 'white-hat' AND has unique content in it, then it should be doing well. We have over 100 sites of different sizes that we look after (mostly smaller businesses) and they are all doing fine, because they all follow the Google guidelines. I think a famous quote may apply here to a lot of the sites that are tanking: The problem dear brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Look at your own site before blaming Google immediatly which a lot of people seem to do (even after proven its justified amusingly) :)


11/07/2013 02:53 pm

Not sure how making sure the image search displays the actual images searched for is 'been greedy'. Btw, the majority of scrapers use tools to scrape sites and grab images. Your 'protection' does absolutely nothing to prevent that. Its completely useless against the majority of scrapers, they don't even access it via a browser. Hence why your images still get stolen all the time. I'd put money if you give me your site URL, I'll run my scraper on it and have an exact copy of your site including all the images ;) Ok, I know what I'm doing more than most scrapers but its the tool that pretty much does all the work. Why not instead use low-quality versions of the images on the site and then offer the hi-res ones via payment. Achieves the best of both worlds then. I disagree about watermarks, a well done watermark is almost impossible to remove. The crap ones are easy, but a good watermark should do more than just put a little image in the corner like some of them do.


11/07/2013 06:28 pm

it really funny talk. It also true what if you follow their rules you also can not get any ranking. Even if you have good white-hat site with good ranking, negative seo can destroy it easily. Google give a honeymoon period for new sites and also lot of bonuses if you registered in local, have address in contact page, etc. But not everybody want to do it. Also - "you must follow"/etc. Google is king of internet or just a search engine??? Search engine just UNABLE to dictate such things, because it created to find what people looking for.


11/08/2013 05:49 am

The image mismatch can be a another form of spam


11/08/2013 09:18 am

If its on your webserver in a zone that isn't protected, then its not protected. Hotlink and right-click prevention are useless to stop people stealing them. Unless you protect them via authentication, then they aren't protected, you are just making yourself think they are.


11/08/2013 09:27 am

What? They don't stop you appearing on the web if you don't follow their rules just on their search engine. That is their right. Its their search engines and their results. Also, I've looked at literally thousands of sites for SEO as part of the help I give on the webmaster forums. I've seen 2-3 out of that entire number where they were ranking poorly that hadn't screwed up or been in breech of the guidelines and that was the cause of their rankings drop. Don't confuse your inability to build a good site with Google's ability to rank good sites. And yeah honest, Neg-SEO can destroy good sites, honest....... Neg-SEO is a rumour put out by dodgy SEO companies who want to scam people. In real life it almost never happens, I've never seen an example of it AT ALL in the thousands of sites I've looked at. If it was possible, don't you think Coke would do it to Pepsi and visa-versa. (Millions more examples here) To be honest, I'm fed up of arguing with you since I'm 90% sure you are just a troll who is getting his kicks out of this. I can't believe you honestly believe half the stuff you are saying, because to be quite frank, if you do then you are completely retarded and I'm impressed you managed to find the power button on your computer.

Wendy Piersall

11/08/2013 02:38 pm

You clearly don't know my readers like I do. I know of several specific instances in which the theft of my images by specific competitors stopped once I changed the right click action on my images. It is you who are fooling yourself into thinking that there is only one way to stop a thief.

Wendy Piersall

11/08/2013 02:40 pm

Image search displaying congruent images isn't greedy. Hotlinking high resolution images to keep users on Google's site instead of referring the traffic to the owner and creator of those images is greedy. And borderline illegal.


11/08/2013 02:45 pm

No, its better for users. Hence why it was done. The new image search is far easier to use than the old one. Its also no-where near illegal, I would check up on 'fair-usage' if I was you. If you are in the image business you should already have a decent understanding of copyright law. There are several ways around this that have already been suggested, however you decided to dismiss all of them, that your issue and is nothing to do with Google really.


11/08/2013 02:52 pm

Never claimed I did or there aren't Luddites who have no clue how to use a computer. A two foot high fence would stop a disabled burgler, it doesn't mean your house is burglar proof however does it? I said its not really protected by doing that, at best its an illusion of protection. OK, illusions will fool some people but its still not really protected. You can claim differently all you want but those are facts, any scraping tool will pull all your images straight down without any difficulties. The only way to stop it is to protect the images with a authentication or simply not display them or display lower-res versions. Any video, music or image that is playing on the user's computer is EASY to copy if you have the slightest clue. Its literally a matter of installing the right program on your computer. Thats a simple fact.

Wendy Piersall

11/08/2013 03:09 pm

Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, "The court found that US search engines may use thumbnails of images (size limits not determined), though the issue of inline linking to full size images instead of going to the original site was not resolved." Fair Use, specifically "Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". The scope and scale of Google's hotlinking has caused a loss of millions in ad revenue for publishers. That's why I say 'borderline illegal' - because I truly believe that if this new image search interface were scrutinized in court, it would change the legality of hotlinking as a whole, specifically in regards to the "Amount and substantiality of portion used" fair use factor. Also, if you had participated in any of the discussions in the Google product forums, you'd know many, many searchers complained about the new interface. Specifically the new interface lacks context for the images (especially for educators and professional researchers), images load slower, and search tools that used to be automatic or one click away, are now buried and difficult to find Don't confuse what *you* think is better for users with what is actually better for users.


11/08/2013 03:19 pm

Well given the court didn't rule on it, its still currently classified as fair-usage. Same as if you review a film, you can use a full size, full resolution image from the film as fair-usage. "Also, if you had participated in any of the discussions in the Google product forums, you'd know many, many searchers complained about the new interface" I did! I was there, I also saw as many if not more people liking it. Name ONE change over the past 20 years in ANYTHING that hasn't had any complaints. People complain about any change, that doesn't mean it wasn't an improvement. In fact almost all the complaints I saw were from people hosting images NOT from the actual searchers. Given the number of times I've clicked 'view image on page' and been sent to a page with a completely different image on it, I'm happy with this change and I think most searchers will be. If you aren't and you aren't willing to do any of the alternatives that have been listed, then feel free to remove your images from image search. Thats your right. If you want to be in Google's search however, you have to play by their rules. Same as pretty much everything else in life.

Wendy Piersall

11/08/2013 03:23 pm

If you were there, you would not be saying "I also saw as many if not more people liking it." Clearly, the paid shill for Google will defend them no matter what. I'm done.


11/08/2013 03:31 pm

I wish I was getting paid! Perhaps your bias made you dismiss the ones that liked it. Or you only looked at the threads slagging off the change? Given you've only posted a total of 66 posts on the entirely of the Google product forums and I've posted over 3000 posts (and thats just the new forums, not including the old ones) I'm damm sure I spend a hell of a lot more time looking at them than you do. But hey, let your bias rule you if you like, it'll be your downfall not mine! Try looking at things from a neutral perspective once in a while, it might help you.


11/08/2013 05:05 pm

cool answer, but total nonsense. If you not see negative seo, it mean what you living in some another world. Your example about Coke and Pepsi 8-O I think what it you are troll (may be even google troll), because you dispute lot of things here which most of peoples on this site will find as correct. Or may be you are member of internet coalition and all your sites rank well because of it.


11/08/2013 05:13 pm

not sure where is my reply. but i think you can be google troll or just a member of internet coalition. It why you have 100 sites network and all of them ranks well.


11/08/2013 10:49 pm

this system not give me to reply you. i just think you are google troll or member or internet coalition.


11/08/2013 10:50 pm

100%, troll of big G


11/08/2013 10:53 pm

you need to join G contributors team. there is lot of unhappy peoples on google forums, they need somebody who will send anger back for them.


11/11/2013 09:26 am

I assume by 'internet coalition' you mean some sort of link scheme. If thats what you mean the answer is no. I'm a regular on the webmaster forums. Google agree that Neg-Seo is virtually impossible, so do most of the experienced SEOs on the webmaster forums. Even if the vast majority of people believed in SEO, that doesn't make it true. Remember at one time everyone believed the earth was flat and the centre of the universe with everything revolving around it. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it so. If neg-seo was even possible, let alone easy, do you REALLY think the big companies wouldn't be using it heavily? Are you really that naive? Tell you what, how about instead of throwing accusations, how about you try making an argument about what I actually said instead.


11/11/2013 01:08 pm

1. internet coalition is google+amazon+almost all biggest sites, which now in top10 everywhere. Are you sure you into IM if you don't know such facts? 2. For my own experience - I see negative seo almost everywhere. Some strange blogs link your articles with strange anchors (not even generic), some sites get lot of exact match links from blogs, some get from spammy articles brand links which later changed to exact match, etc. I see it in the lot of sites, it really so big problem now. 3. because google protecting big companies. For example you can spam wikipedia as you wish and not get any results. Same for other sites which in google whitelist or have big domain authority. Negative seo work only on small and medium sites, check forums and you will know it in details. 4. Are you troll of google?


11/11/2013 01:22 pm

1. Not related to any of them and never heard them referred to that way, there again, I don't do random conspiracies with no evidence. 2. Any evidence or are you just assuming neg-seo when a site drops in ranking. All the sites that have claimed neg-seo on the WMT forums had other problems which are almost certainly what caused the problem, not neg-seo. 3. Any evidence of this? Again, all the small/medium sites I've seen that reported this dropped for other reasons (such as spam links been devalued). 4. If trolling is telling the truth then yes, otherwise no. I know the truth may scare and frighten you, but hey, not my problem. If neg-seo happened, you would have a link warning in your webmaster tools account. If you don't have this warning there, then your links won't have caused your site to be penalised, the links simply get devalued. Some people see this as neg-seo as they get new links, then they lose value, the truth of the situation is they have just lost value to their spammy links. I suppose if a competitor did make a load of spammy links to your site, which got the other spammy links devalued, that would be a 'kind' of neg-seo, but all that really happened is links that shouldn't have counted anyway no-longer count, which is actually correcting the SERPs, not neg-seo except in the vaguest possible sense of the word.


11/13/2013 05:35 pm

you want me to disclose you urls, and backlinks for lot of sites? Sorry, but no. And you know it well what nobody not will disclose you this information. But again - lot and lot of sites under negative seo attacks now, and many owners even don't know it. Just check this Scritty post and check forums like webmastersworld, etc.


11/14/2013 09:27 am

How about the official webmaster forum for Google were every claim of neg-seo has been found to actually be something else? Oh right, I forgot, if it doesn't agree with you, you just dismiss it. "And you know it well what nobody not will disclose you this information." Errr lots of people do, see webmaster forums, you can't get help if you don't give our your URL. Without the URL, there is no evidence of anything.


11/14/2013 11:50 pm

because at other places, than in google webmaster forums, webmasters usually tell truth. Sure, it also about your words. But in comments on this site we can find lot of peoples who get negative seo attack to their site(s). what about urls, - it really kiddish. Oh, if you not show site you are not real men. Women things.


11/18/2013 12:34 pm

This guy must be on Google's payroll. NO ONE has the right to be that stupid and/or that dishonest. Oh, wait... Google is hotlinking to people's images. That's UNETHICAL (AND **ILLEGAL** in several countries (France and Germany?). One question for you: If YOU or I or ANYONE were to hotlink to Google's images or copy, ahem, **HOST** its content on our own sites, what do you think would happen? Could you or anyone tell Google, "If you don't want it to be hotlinked/copied, er, HOSTED on MY site, well, make sure we can't access your content. And Google, of course, would accept that. Of course. There wouldn't be any lawsuits or removal from Google's search results or ... Once again, NO ONE has the right to be either that stupid or that dishonest. Not even you.


11/18/2013 12:43 pm

Ah, so anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid/dishonest? I see..... Its not illegal in any country (yet) and you are provided tools to remove yourself or your images from the index if you wish it. However you want both the free traffic and not having to let Google use your images, you can't have it both ways. Google are quite happy to show someone's images are are willing to let them hot-link through image search even if you aren't. You expect Google to provide FOR FREE, their bandwidth and storage space to send traffic to YOU. If you don't want it, block it. That simple.

Spook SEO

11/23/2013 09:08 am

Hello Barry, This Google Image mismatch penalty is their action against unethical image optimization. Google is getting tougher against spammers and expect that there will be more controlling measures in the future. It seems that they are really serious in cleaning their house.

Robert Foto

12/09/2013 02:00 am

LOL, google just try but until now, 10k sites (and more counting day by day) use scripts WP-PICShield ... and google must accept that hotlink is not allowed, hotlinking is stealing bandwithd, use server cpu, "fllod" requests ... that cost money. So, penalty under "bad rules" a.k.a hotlink is illegal, and google can be sued to pay for such anticompetitive practices ;)

Robert Foto

01/14/2014 05:34 pm

The hotlink protection can not be penalized, is illegal, and Google can be sued for such practices !!!

blog comments powered by Disqus