So whats the deal with Google Webmaster Tools?

[grynge]

I have a couple of directories and since the Penguin update, I have had several requests for removal because

"We've reviewed your site and we still see links to your site that violate our quality guidelines. Specifically, look for possibly artificial or unnatural links pointing to your site that could be intended to manipulate PageRank. Examples of unnatural linking could include buying links to pass PageRank or participating in link schemes."

Now I have sites in the same directory and once I added a couple to the GWT's I have not had that same warning, so what's the deal? Is my directory giving off the warning or are the sites that have received the warning getting the warnings, but those warnings don't actually tell them which links are bad?

Anyone use GWT and can shed some light on this?

[DomainMagnate]

I got a similar message in gwt for a few sites. Basically g wants us to remove the bad links from other sites pointing to ours. Doesn't make very much sense, but not much we can do about it either, so I'm trying to organize a somewhat efficient way to contact people to ask for link removals.

[grynge]

I got a similar message in gwt for a few sites. Basically g wants us to remove the bad links from other sites pointing to ours. Doesn't make very much sense, but not much we can do about it either, so I'm trying to organize a somewhat efficient way to contact people to ask for link removals.

So do they give the bad link? or just say some bad links?
The reason I ask is why only some sites have the error message why don't all sites in the directory in question have errors?

[DomainMagnate]

they don't, but you can check the backlinks from gwt and get an idea of which ones are bad.

[grynge]

they don't, but you can check the backlinks from gwt and get an idea of which ones are bad.

Ah ok now I understand thanks for that. So really they don't tell you and just let you try and work it out for yourself lol.

[Trevorjc]

Doesn't G asking webmasters to remove bad links contridict what they have said about negetive SEO?

[grynge]

Doesn't G asking webmasters to remove bad links contridict what they have said about negetive SEO?

I gotta wonder if it's a ploy to see which webmasters were actually doing the wrong thing, and penalise them even more in the next round of updates. Sort of a guilt by your own admission.

I won't be removing sites that were added into a directory free of charge, I would be telling google I am guilty of selling those links which would then place the whole directory in jeopardy of being discounted.

[Clinton]

Google has long been asking webmasters to volunteer incriminating evidence against themselves. It started with the nofollow tag (or prior to that). If you ever implemented the nofollow tag, Google is aware that you follow SEO "trends".

Most webmasters don't appreciate this given that Matt Cutts and others from the plex come forward with what looks like helpful SEO advice, but Google doesn't want or like SEOs. The latest request for webmasters to "admit to guilt" is one that nobody is quite seeing for what it really is. I believe the ones who do stay out of providing Google any inkling that they are SEOs are the ones most likely to benefit from Google traffic in the longer run.

[JJMcClure]

Google has long been asking webmasters to volunteer incriminating evidence against themselves. It started with the nofollow tag (or prior to that). If you ever implemented the nofollow tag, Google is aware that you follow SEO "trends".

Most webmasters don't appreciate this given that Matt Cutts and others from the plex come forward with what looks like helpful SEO advice, but Google doesn't want or like SEOs. The latest request for webmasters to "admit to guilt" is one that nobody is quite seeing for what it really is. I believe the ones who do stay out of providing Google any inkling that they are SEOs are the ones most likely to benefit from Google traffic in the longer run.

Kinda hard to reconcile accusations of stupidity at the plex with the way they get people to voluntarily incriminate themselves, especially if that was what nofollow was really for. Look also at the way they've been so disingenuous with the 'SEO advice' they give out.

[grynge]

Kinda hard to reconcile accusations of stupidity at the plex with the way they get people to voluntarily incriminate themselves, especially if that was what nofollow was really for. Look also at the way they've been so disingenuous with the 'SEO advice' they give out.

I could be totally wrong as I don't use GA, as far as I can tell Google give you a warning about unnatural linking but then kindly don't mention which links these are so it is up to the webmaster to "KNOW" which links are bad?

So if google don't tell you what links they suspect are being paid for or being used to manipulate the serps, what other reason would there be for getting webmasters to remove them?
Why wouldn't they just discount them?
Why would they want to see if webmasters will remove them?