When Google Gets It Wrong By Changing The Titles Of Web Pages

Google doesn’t always use the HTML title tag of a web page, choosing instead to make its own title for a page, if it thinks it can do a better job. Here’s an example of it getting this completely wrong.

I was searching for Dana Point Jet Ski, which is a real business in Dana Point. Google instead listed the official page for Dana Point Harbor first:

Listing the wrong site first is a relevancy problem. But changing the title of the page to “Dana Point Jet Ski & Kayak Center” is a double-fail. That’s Google reinforcing its error, because it’s so sure that it’s right.

See, Google has long operated under the assumption that despite whatever the official title of a page is, Google knows better about how to describe that page. To be fair, there are good reasons for this. Sometimes people fail to properly indicate titles for their pages, so the rewriting can be useful.

Still, Google makes mistakes. That’s one reason why I’ve wished for years that Google would let site owners have something like a “Yes, I’m really sure I want you to use my title tag” tag. That would let publishers encountering this type of problem finally solve it.

This business, apparently, has long been suffering. After talking to them about a kayak, I asked if they knew about this problem that was happening on Google. “Oh, yes.” The woman I was talking with said she does all their marketing, and that they’d talked  to Google several times about it. And that it would get fixed, then come back. She said they’d “given up” at this point despite it being “really annoying.”

Who had she talked with? Their Google rep — in other words, apparently someone at Google who helps with their advertising.

The ad department, of course, can’t solve a listing problem. They’re disconnected with that, since ads and non-paid search listings are separate from each other. An ad person could, however, raise an issue like this for the listing team to explore.

Maybe that happened. Maybe it didn’t. But Google not allowing a publisher to say definitively that they want their title tag used certainly left this business without any real recourse.

Google: Don't Redirect All Mobile Users To A Single Page

There are two types of people reading this right now, (1) those who are like me and cannot stand when this happens and (2) those who really don't know it is an issue.

What am I talking about?

You go to a specific URL on your mobile device, an article or a landing page. Then all of a sudden, you are redirected to a home page of a mobile version of the web site - which has very little to do with the content you want to reach.

This is not only horrible for your end users but it is very bad for searchers.

Google's John Mueller wrote in an ongoing Google Webmaster Help thread:

However, one issue that I see is that you're redirecting all mobile users to http://www.ifly.com/mobile , regardless of the URL they tried to access before. This results in us not being able to pick up your content properly with our smartphone crawler. If you wish to promote your app, I'd recommend using the method mentioned over here.

Don't do this to your users and if you do, keep in mind, it isn't good for bots either.

Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.

Ignore That Last Google Webmaster Tools Notification: Googlebot CAN Access Your Site

In the past twenty-four hours, it seems as if Google sent out a message to thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of site owners, that there is a problem with their site.

Typically, you never ever want to ignore a webmaster tools notification but in this case, the messages were sent in error.

Google told these webmasters that "Googlebot can't access your site", that the site had connection failures and Google was unable to access your site.

Here is a sample message one of my clients received (although I received several):

Google's Matt Cutts wrote in the thread that this seems like an error on Google's side. He said:

Hey everyone, please don't worry about this message at this point. Enough people are getting this message that I suspect it's an issue on our end.

I've got an email out to our webmaster tools team, and we'll figure out what's going on. Thanks.

John Mueller of Google is asking webmasters to post example URLs so they can fix the issue.

The thing is, I checked this morning and webmaster tool's console does not show the error on these sites still, so maybe it was a Google error.

Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.

Q&A With Google’s Matt Cutts On What To Do If You Get A Manual Penalty

What to do if Google sends you a penalty notice, and you can’t figure out exactly what it’s for? Turn to Google’s webmaster help forum, says the head of Google’s Web spam team, Matt Cutts. If you’re still confused after that, you can file a reconsideration request where you might be given more details.

The issue of confusing notices came up this week after Mozilla received a “manual” penalty notice because of a single page of spam found on its site. This followed the BBC receiving an “unnatural link” warning last month because of links pointing to a single page on its site.

The good news for those publishers is that in both cases, penalties were only applied against those particular pages. But the notices didn’t make that clear, generating some visible concern. Moreover, as both sites have millions of pages of content, trying to figure out which page is the troublesome one seems very much a needle-in-the-haystack effort.

Google has talked about being more “transparent” with these types of notices, especially after last year’s mess of sending out unnatural link warnings that caused panic, then further confusion, when Google said they could maybe be ignored. Google has begun sending out example URLs, in some cases. It even said earlier this month people would get a “clear answer” about what was wrong with their sites, if they filed reconsideration requests.

Q&A On What To Do

Providing more specifics about what’s in violation at the time a notice goes out seems like it would save time all around, for publishers big-and-small, for volunteers who help in Google’s support area and for Google itself. I put that, along with some other questions, to the head of Google’s Web spam team, distinguished engineer Matt Cutts. Here’s the email interview:

Q. Why not tell people exactly what’s wrong with their site, to the degree you can do this and especially when it involves some specific URLs, when notices go out?

We’ve significantly improved our webmaster messages over time and we’ll continue to look at ways to make the messages more concrete and actionable.

Q.) If someone gets a notice, can they go back to Google via a reconsideration request and ask for more advice about what’s wrong, especially to get something specific?

If someone gets a notice about webspam that means that they have a manual webspam action. If the message is unclear and the webmaster wants more advice, we recommend asking questions in our webmaster SEO forum. After the issue is resolved, webmasters can file a reconsideration request.

After a webmaster files a reconsideration request, we do provide information about how the request was processed, e.g. if the request was granted or whether more work still needs to be done. We don’t have the resources to have a one-on-one conversation with every single webmaster, but we do reply to some reconsideration requests with more information and advice.

Q.) If people can’t expect to get specific advice, what should they do? What should someone like the BBC or Mozilla do to find that needle-in-a-haystack?

I think this is covered in [advice] about going to the webmaster forum

Manual Vs. Algorithmic Penalties

Now let me step back and take that advice above to put it in greater perspective.

First, Google has two types of penalties: manual and algorithmic. It actually prefers to call these “actions” or “adjustments,” but the end result is the same. If you’re hit with a manual or algorithmic penalty, some or perhaps all of your content won’t rank as well in Google as before the action was taken.

Google Now Reports “Practically 100%” Of Manual Actions is our article from last year that explains much more about both types, how to tell what you got and what to do if hit by an algorithmic penalty. How Google’s Disavow Links Tool Can Remove Penalties also covers dealing with an algorithmic penalty like the Penguin Update.

Figuring Out Why, Exactly, You Got A Manual Penalty

You’ll almost certainly know if you have a manual penalty because Google will tell you. It’s been doing that in virtually all cases since last fall.

With a manual penalty, you generally need to fix the problem, then inform Google of this by filing a reconsideration request. But what do you do if you can’t tell what the exact problem is, what the offending page or pages in question are?

Cutts says you should turn to the Google Webmaster Central help forum that Google maintains. There, volunteers offer advice about what they think might be wrong with sites that are submitted.

The volunteers don’t actually know what’s wrong with these sites. They’re not Google employees. They don’t have access to why exactly a site received a manual action notice. They’re effectively guessing at what might be a problem. They might make excellent, educated guesses. They might be off-the-mark.

The Forum Sounds Good, But….

In the case of the BBC, none of the volunteers could tell exactly why it got an unnatural link warning, as you can see in the discussion. Several said it was likely something the BBC didn’t need to worry about, despite the fact that Google has said on several occasions that if you get any type of notice, it is something you should worry about.

Ultimately, an actual Google employee had to step in, say that it was about links pointing to a single article, reassured that it wasn’t impacting the site overall and still never seemed to explain exactly what page was involved.

In the case of Mozilla, volunteers gave plenty of examples of potential spam on the site to the Mozilla rep who sought help, as you can see from the discussion. But none of them spotted the actual single page that was in question. It took a Google rep to step in and give a stronger hint about where to look, then Cutts himself ultimately stepped in to isolate the particular page in question.

The concern here is that publishers — large or small — potentially enter the forums for advice about a penalty Google has sent, then get sent on a wild goose chase to fix things that might not be the actual problem.

Maybe fixing those other things highlighted is a good idea, but that’s not what the violation was about — and unless the violation itself gets fixed, it’s not going to be lifted.

If Penalties Were Traffic Tickets

To use a metaphor, it’s as if you get pulled over by a police officer and are given a ticket for something that’s wrong with your car. The ticket simply says that there’s something unsafe on the car, but it doesn’t indicate what exactly is wrong.

You’ve got to get the problem solved, so you go to a group of mechanics. Maybe they spot a broken taillight, and that gets fixed. Maybe they spot that you have low tire pressure, so that gets repaired. And if either of these are the problem, then when you go to court to show you’re fixed the problem, you’re fine.

But maybe the problem is a chipped windshield that no one spots. If that’s not fixed, then you’re still going to be in trouble.

Filing The Request

Given all this, you’d think that if Google is going to be issuing more tickets — something it hasramped up over the past year or so — it might want to get more detailed about what those tickets are for. If they’re involving a single page, just listing that page when the message goes out doesn’t seem that hard to do. After all, some human being at Google has already reviewed the site and decided for that specific reason to send out a notice.

But that’s the way it is now. You’ll get a notice, and that might not include the specific page or pages at fault. After this happens, you have two choices:

• Fix what you think is wrong, and file a reconsideration request
• Turn to the forums for advice on what’s wrong, if you’re uncertain, then fix what seems reasonable to correct and file a reconsideration request

Cutts didn’t clarify what he meant by things being “resolved” in the forums, especially when some questions might not get answered or may lack a “best answer” that’s been designated. My best advice would be to ask, see what you get and use your best judgment. If after a few days you’ve gotten nothing, file the reconsideration request with a note that you need more help.

Ultimately, Google should respond to a reconsideration request, and if it can see a good faith effort to try and correct things, then either the penalty should be lifted or you should get better clarification of what remains to be done.

Google Drops Instant Previews Over Low Usage

Google has officially dropped the Instant Previewsfrom the search results due to "very low usage" by searchers.

Instant Previews launched in November 2010 and was tested with AdWords Instant Previews and evenSitelinks Instant Previews - heck, Google even made a feature in Webmaster tools to preview instant previews.

Now, Google has dropped the feature.

Google's Jessica said they removed it to "very low usage" and said removing it will streamline searches. She explained in the Google Web Search Help forums:

As we've streamlined the results page, we've had to remove certain features, such as Instant Previews.

Instant previews saw very low usage by our users, and we've decided to focus on streamlining the page to benefit more users.

Like with any feature Google removes, it upsets users. So there are a bunch of people not happy.

With this change, Google has changed how you access the "cached" page and how you share results. There is now a down green arrow that contains the "cached" link and "similar" link, when applicable and if you are logged in, it will also show a "share" link to share the result on Google+.

Forum discussion at Google Web Search Help.

Google Will Send Notifications To WWW & Non-WWW Webmaster Tools Accounts

Google's Matt Cutts said in the ongoing Mozilla penaltydiscussion at Google Webmaster Help that Google will generally send the webmaster tools notification to both the non-WWW and WWW verified Google Webmaster Tools account.

Matt Cutts said the reason is because even though "that example.com and www.example.com are different hostnames and technically could be different sites, but in practice they're almost always the same." Since that is the case, Matt said they send it to both verified accounts in most cases. Matt wrote:

We wanted to avoid the case where a site owner verifies www.example.com and then misses out on a message about example.com. So when we send a message about example.com, we typically send it to the verified owners for both example.com and www.example.com, just so a site owner doesn't miss out on getting a message.

Not only that, Matt said Google will "continue to look at ways to make the messages more concrete and actionable though." As they have been, but sometimes more details but not full details can be less confusing than fewer details.

Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.

Happy Birthday Google's Penguin Update

Today is the one year birthday/anniversary of the release of Google's Penguin update - it was released on April 24, 2012.

Since then, we've had two additional updates of it on May 24, 2012 and then on October 5, 2012. Now we await the fourth update which is expected to be really big sometime this year.

This update was felt by more SEOs than the Panda update. In fact, our polls (very scientific ones) said 65% of SEOs were impacted by the update. And our polls also show that94% didn't fully recover from the Penguin update. So this update is serious business for SEOs, webmasters, businesses and of course, Google.

Here is a birthday video one webmaster made for the Penguin update:

Now, I know joking about this update is insulting to many SEOs and webmasters. But sometimes, we need a smile. I hope anyone impacted by Penguin or any Google update finds their way back to making a lot of money via Google.

Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.

Want To Report Spam To Matt Cutts? Use Hacker News.

A Hacker News thread has an interesting post about some of the templates comment spammers use to inject those almost, but not really, real but spammy comments on your site. You know what I mean, if you read them, they will look like a real person wrote them but they make absolutely no sense in the context of the blog post.

To an untrained eye, they often are left on the blog but they are really spam.

You'd think that stuff would be automated but one person in the thread said that a "large marketing company" would hire teams of interns at minimum wage to write up these things throughout the day. The content then would be used to spam Google and other sites.

When this guy posted about it, Matt Cutts of Google, their head of search spam, asked "What's the company" that does this?

Typically, it is hard to get Matt Cutts to personally review spam but Matt is an active user on Hacker News - for now - and it may be your best bet. That is until SEOs and webmasters are flock there and flood it with questions for Matt.

The thing is, you never know what Matt will read and response to on Hacker News, let alone other sites on the internet. 

Forum discussion at Hacker News.

Google Has Manually Penalized Mozilla

Mozilla.org, the non-profit organization behind Firefox, Thunderbird and tons of developer oriented tools, was penalized by Google.

Christopher More, Mozilla's Web Production Manager, posted the details of the penalty in the Google Webmaster Help forums. You'd think Mozilla, an organization that is/was mostly funded by Google, would have other means to get the issue resolved.

The penalty was a "manual penalty" due to extremely spammy user generated content. The penalty notification read:

Google has detected user-generated spam on your site. Typically, this kind of spam is found on forum pages, guestbook pages, or in user profiles.

As a result, Google has applied a manual spam action to your site.

So where is this spam? John Mueller of Google responded showing him. Just do a site command search for [site:mozilla.org cheap payday seo] and you will find some samples. It seems to be coming from spammers abusing the blog comments and the addons section, amongst others.

This is a case of Mozilla allowing anyone to come into their home and make a mess and not clean it up - it happens all too often and it is sad to see.

John offers some advice, for the comments, you need a spam filter and someone to monitor them. For the add-ons section, John said:

For these kinds of sites, it may make sense to allow the community to help with comment moderation (eg. allow them to flag or vote-down spam), and to use the rel=nofollow link microformat to let search engines know that you don't endorse the links in those unmoderated comments.

John also added that in these cases, Google tries to go as "granular as possible with our manual actions." So in this case, Mozilla is not fully penalized, just the sections or pages that have this spam on it.

Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.

Google's Cutts With Tim O'Reilly On Government Regulation

Sorry for the animated GIF, I bet it is really annoying. But I wanted to notify you of a chat Matt Cutts, Google's head of search spam, will be involved with today at 11am PT / 2pm ET.

Matt Cutts will be on Tim O'Reilly's Reinventors on Google+ on the topic of Reinvent Regulation. The talk will be about government regulation changes needed today in the world of the internet. Matt Cutts said on Google+ that he will bring his "point of view from working on webspam."

Other speakers include Peter Leyden (the host), Sophie Raseman (U.S. Treasury Department, Director of Smart Disclosure, Office of Consumer Policy), Jason Tan (CEO, Sift Science) and Matt Cutts of Google.

To be reminded about the event, go here.

I'll hopefully be listening for any search related discussion points.

You will be able to watch it live on Google+.

Forum discussion at Google+.

Google: Disavow Links Even If Removed As A Best Practice

A Google Webmaster Help thread has Google's John Mueller implying that it may be "good practice" to list the sites and URLs in your disavow file even if they links were removed and especially if you simply requested the webmaster to remove them.

Why is this "good practice" - well, if the webmaster linking to you doesn't remove the link but also if they do and then add it back later - it protects you. Assuming that link was hurting you in the first place.

John Mueller told the webmaster:

While it's really important for the web-spam team when processing the reconsideration request to see significant effort put into resolving the issue at its roots (on those external sites), it can also be a good practice to at least have those sites listed in your disavow file in the meantime (use them in parallel, don't get bogged down with contact requests before adding them).

Although the file is processed automatically, John said that they can review this specific request once this specific "disavow file is correct." This case, the file was formatted wrong and Google couldn't process it, but John said he'd be "happy to take a quick look to see if there's anything general that you might be missing there."

So if you are eager to remove links, use both the disavow file and make your requests to cover yourself. Google said it is "good practice."

Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.

My Google Traffic After My Linking Penalty Was Lifted

As promised, I wanted to share my traffic changes after I've nofollowed my paid links. I already shared with you the interesting reconsideration request submission, response and analysis. Now, did the penalty change my traffic from Google?

Let me just share some key dates, so you can understand why I did comparisons as I charted below.

• March 20, 2013 - My site's manual penalty expired temporarily
• April 4, 2013 - I nofollowed the paid links and submitted a reconsideration request
• April 9, 2013 - Google responded to my reconsideration request that I had no manual penalty

Again, I have more details on this over here, but now for the traffic.

Here is my chart of the Google traffic to my site over time, as you can see, I added annotations to mark the dates above:

As you can see, it seems pretty level? That chart was using Google Analytics and plotting traffic sources > search > organic search > Google only.

So I decided to do a comparison from the day the penalty was lifted, compared to the same time period beforehand - to see if there was a traffic change. Using the same traffic sources > search > organic search > Google only report:

Google is telling me my traffic is only update 5.41% since the manual penalty expired. The stats do not look great.

So I decided to use the Google Analytics Search Engine Optimization report with the same dates:

As you can see, this report shows I have 78% more impressions, 47% more clicks on my site, an average increase in ranking of 44% but my click through rate declined 18%.

Obviously, the reports don't seem to match up a 100% despite them both being in Google Analytics.

Also, it may be too early - ranking may improve over time or not. Maybe it is just too early to tell.

Anyway, love to hear your thoughts on what you expect to happen or expected to happen to my traffic after the link penalty expired?

Forum discussion continued at Google+.

Google: Pushing Hundreds Of Thousands Of Pages Can Raise A Red Flag

s I covered at Search Engine Land yesterday, Matt Cutts, Google's head of search spam, posted a video answer to a question Google's John Mueller asked named Should I add an archive of hundreds of thousands of pages all at once or in stages.

It is an interesting question - sites add on features, sections, new content - but what if you spend months building out a section of your web site and are ready for it to go live. But it has hundreds of thousands of new pages - do you push all that content all at once or do you roll it out slowly.

Matt Cutts said, if you can - push it out slowly. Why? Well, typically it is hard to write hundreds of thousands of pages of quality and unique content over night. So if you do and Google notices, they might send a Googler to go take a manual look and review the site and that content. If you want to be safe and not raise any red flags, push them out in smaller chunks.

Here is the video:

Matt is not saying it is not possible to create unique and valuable content like this. Heck, there are tons of new sites and sections of sites that are under development for months and then launch all at once. It is not uncommon and my thoughts are simple.

If the content is useful, unique and valuable - then pushing the hundreds of thousands of pages all at once won't hurt. Google can handle it, Matt said. The only issue is, if you do not want Google to manually review the content - then you probably have other things to worry about - such as the content itself.

Forum discussion at Google+.

My Google Reconsideration Request For Removing Paid Links

On Friday I announced that I nofollowed my paid links after several years of being a stubborn blogger. I promised more details on the reconsideration request and the traffic results from Google.

Here I will share the reconsideration request details and in a follow up post later this week, I will share my Google Analytics.

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 I submitted a reconsideration request. I basically notified Google that all my paid links on my web site were now nofollowed. I then waited.

On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 I received the response. The response was "No manual spam actions found." What? I wasn't penalized for selling links manually? Was it automated? I got one of those generic emails saying no manual action was on my site but you may be impacted by an algorithmic one or maybe a technical issue with your site.

I was 100% confident I had a manual penalty, so I decided to email Google's head of search spam, Matt Cutts.

He told me I was right, that I did have a manual penalty. He said that the manual penalty expired, yes manual penalties expire, 21 days ago on or around Wednesday, March 20, 2013. I wasn't shocked to hear that. On that date, I believe my PageRank jumped up from a 3 or 4 to a 6 or 7. This has happened a few times since I had a manual penalty and I chalked that up to being an expiration of the penalty. Often within 30 days of the expiration, the penalty was re-applied and my PageRank jumped back down.

Was it just PageRank that was hurt or was my rankings hurt? While I won't share statistics right now, let me share what Matt Cutts told me.

The webspam team had noticed the upcoming expiration of the manual webspam action on seroundtable.com and had prepared another incident regarding seroundtable.com and the sites buying links from seroundtable.com. The scheduled webspam action was considerably stronger than the previous action we had applied. However, since you've added rel=nofollow to the paid links, it's no longer necessary for us to check in that incident.

You see, Google was preparing to slap my site with a harsher penalty for not just my site but the other sites who paid for links on my web site. So my rankings and the sponsor's rankings may have been seriously impacted, according to Matt.

Matt also said explained what may happen if I ever again sell links that pass PageRank:

If we see new paid links that pass PageRank on seroundtable.com, I would expect us to take stronger action than we have in past because of the repeated violations of our quality guidelines.

So in short, I did have a manual penalty but at the time I removed the paid links from passing PageRank, that manual penalty expired. If I did not remove it, the penalty would have been back shortly and been harsher going forward.

In a couple days I will share the traffic from my Google Analytics reports. So stay tuned.

Forum discussion continued at Google+.

Google Quick View Badge Confirmed

In December we reported some signs of a new test of something called Quick View within the Google mobile search results.

Well, Google has confirmed that this is a test yesterday on their search blog and on Google+. In short, the Quick View "badge," as Google calls it, is only available on US english results now for Wikipedia pages.

Google said:

Some searches also include a blue "Quick view" badge to the right of the results. For example, if you're learning poker and want a quick lesson on hands, search for [poker hands] and click "Quick view" for a quick look at the Wikipedia page for poker hands. Quick view is currently an experimental project and only enabled for Wikipedia pages when you search in English on Google.com. Stay tuned for updates as we work to expand this to additional websites.

Here are screen shots of how it works:

The landing page:

To sign up to use Quick View, use this form.

Google also confirmed the sub-sitelinks.

Forum discussion at Google+.

Google Affiliate Network Shuts Down Again

Google announced last night that they are closing their Google Affiliate Network.

Just so you know, this is the second time they are closing their affiliate network. The first time was in June 2008 when they closed the first Google affiliate network and now is the second time. They opened up this second affiliate network model in September 2010 but now they have decided to "focus on other products that are driving great results for clients."

Google did promise to "continue to support customers as they wind down the product over the next few months."

What is interesting is just a day before the announcement, the Google Affiliate Network Google+ account was active and showed no signs of closure. Heck, on the 12th they were encouraging affiliates to "keep an eye on your Pending Publishers!" They added that "this could be a source of great potential, and help optimize/grow your program."

Are you surprised that Google is closing their affiliate network for a second time?

Forum discussion at Google+.

Does Google Want SEOs To Overreact?

An interesting thread at WebmasterWorld is asking SEOs to take a step back, relax and wait. Then think - what is the best user experience for your web site visitor and don't worry too much about what works with Google.

Easier said than done - but the webmaster in the thread said - it may be something more important for your SEO than you know.

He cites a discussion from August where a Google patent was analyzed on how Google may change rankings to trick spammers into changing their site and then change the rankings back. Yes, they will temporary shift the rankings around to see who reacts first to try to counter those ranking changes. It may be used as a signal to see which web sites obsess a bit too much over SEO and may raise a red flag for that web site.

So the feeling is, when there is a major ranking change specific to your site - maybe not react too fast.

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

Google Apps & Gmail Down For Many

Since about 8am EDT, Wednesday, April 17th, Google Apps and many of the products within it, including Gmail, Google Docs, Google Chat and so forth are down for many - including me.

There are tons of complaints on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook.

I posted a message on Google+ asking if Google Apps is down for others and everyone said yes.

It seems to be coming up for some now but for the past 45 minutes, it was completely down for most Google Apps users.

It also seems to be up and down for most right now.

The Google Apps Status Dashboard says everything is fine - but you and I know it is not.

Forum discussion at Google+.

Update 9am EDT: Based on the number of visits this post is getting right now, hundreds of thousands of users are still affected.

For more updates on this outage, feel free to follow me on Twitter or on Google+.

Google Will Label Organic Results Leading To Google Properties

As you may have heard via the Wall Street Journal orNew York Times or Search Engine Land - Google has settled with the European Union after a 2-3 year probe.

The settlement will require Google to:

(1) Clearly label Google's own results in the organice results.

(2) Add competitive links in certain situations.

(3) Make sure third parties validate this is going on.

Some of Google's competitors are not satisfied with this settlement according toBloomberg - but I guess it is a pretty good deal for them.

It is hard to say without seeing how this will be implemented. I think the implementation of these changes will happen in about a month and I am not sure if it is just within the EU or going to be a more universal change. But trust me, as soon as Google tests this, I am sure we will report it to you.

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld & Threadwatch.

Do You Fear Google Disavow Link Threats?

It is no surprise to many that more and more SEOs are using the Google link disavow tool. The issue that comes up as time goes on is that there are some using it as a threat to remove or change the links or anchor text pointing to their site.

I am sure some of you have received it. SEOs or other webmasters may email you saying, hey - you are linking to me on this or that page using this link and this anchor text. You have a couple options, either remove the link or change the anchor text to X. If you do not do it within Y days, we will use the Google disavow link tool.

They may add onto that email that using the tool can make your site look bad in Google's eyes. Yada yada.

My question to you, do you fear those types of emails? Do you fear someone may use the Google disavow tool and cite one of your URLs?

Now that you took the poll, I would like to say - do not fear. :)

If you believe Google, Google said the disavow tool won't damage the sites in the list. It simply will just ignore the URLs, as if they are nofollowed. Now, of course, that can change. Aaron Wall thinks himself it will change and Google can use two data points (1) sites frequently disavowed and (2) sites with links frequently removed. Future thought but right now, nope.

That being said, this is causing a big problem in the industry - despite SEOs asking for it.

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld & Cre8asite Forums.

I Yield To Google: My Paid Links Are NoFollow

As many of you know, I was one of the last major search "blogs" to hold out on Google's guidelines when it comes to paid links. I sold links without the nofollowfor years, heck, even before there was a nofollow attribute.

I've been hated and loved for it over the years but I didn't do it for the hate or love, I did it out of being stubborn. I didn't want to change because Google told me to.

Well that changed a week ago. I decided to nofollow the remainder of the paid links on have on the sidebar under where it says "Sponsored Links."

Why now?

The main reason was all but one advertiser wanted them nofollowed. Yes, they all wanted to support the site without getting any link benefit. These sponsors actually didn't want anything else in return except to see this site continue on and be able to financially be able to write content here. So they fork over hundreds of dollars each month as a thank you. And I deeply appreciate it - I do.

The other reasons include:

(1) Over time, new SEOs in the business simply don't get it. They think I am Google, since I write about Google, and thus, since I sell links and don't nofollow them, then it is safe. It is not safe. It can hurt your rankings, PageRank and ability to truly monetize the web site. Truth is, the site suffered in Google and thus with traffic because I sold links. It was fine with me, but to see so many new SEOs being confused by it and then suffering themselves - it wasn't fair.

(2) I am tired of explaining why I didn't nofollow the links. Yes, I made a quick link to my post at seroundtable.com/links so I can respond faster to those questions. Again, see #1, they didn't get it.

(3) As you grow older, you learn to be less stubborn. More wise? Not sure about that. But less stubborn.

So now what?

I did submit a reconsideration request and received a response. The response is very interesting and I plan on sharing that with you next week. You can actually learn a lot from it.

But for now, I wanted to inform you all, this site no longer sells links that pass PageRank. The sponsors here are truly doing it because they like the content. Go figure. :)

For some historical perspective, read why I originally did not nofollow the links over hereand feel free to come back here and trash or support me for nofollowing them now.

Forum discussion at Google+.

Google's New Place Dashboard Does Geo-Lookups

Earlier this month, Google pushed out a new design for theGoogle Places dashboard, which is only available to U.S. businesses right now.

The issue is, if you are an SEO that helps businesses get listed on Google Maps, and you are not based in the United States - things may get sticky.

Specifically, since the dashboard currently only works for U.S. based businesses - if you try to add a U.S. based business but you are doing so from outside of the U.S. it will give you a hard time.

A Canadian SEO has a client in the U.S. he said that while he was creating the business listing he said that although the United States was selected as the Country (it's the only option), there wasn't any option to select a State and Zip code. It only offered up Canadian Provinces and postal codes.

Here is a picture he posted of the issue:

Derek from Google said he discovered a bug with the system and gave him some advice. He wrote:

You've exposed an issue with the new dashboard that we're working on resolving. In the meantime, you'll only be able to add US listings with the account you referenced, since it has accessed the new dashboard via the US, and the new dashboard only supports US listings at the moment. You should also only access the dashboard via a US IP in order to avoid issues like the screenshot you sent.

If you wish to add and verify a location in Canada, you should use a different account that has exclusively accessed our tools via Canadian IPs.

Thanks for working through this with us.

Forum discussion at Google Business Help.