Categories: Chit-chat :

Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests

Showing 1-95 of 95 messages
Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Will.Spencer 7/16/12 7:49 PM
How have you been handling requests for processing fees in response to your link removal requests?

Some webmasters are now requesting processing fees from $20 to $500 to remove links from their web sites.

I don't like paying those fees, as I did not ask them to place the links in the first place.  On the other hand, they see it as a reasonable fee for the time and effort required to remove links. Nobody likes to work for free.

The web site I am currently working on has over half a million inbound links and the link removal processing fees are starting to add up to quite considerable numbers.

How do you handle such requests?
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Brian Ussery 7/16/12 7:58 PM
Will Spencer,

If you didn't place links that means they are probably natural and there should be no need to remove them?

-Brian


Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests StevieD_Web 7/16/12 8:17 PM
I do hope you told the dude requesting the $500 to hurt himself
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Will.Spencer 7/16/12 9:09 PM
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:58:37 AM UTC+2, beussery wrote:
If you didn't place links that means they are probably natural and there should be no need to remove them?

If I had placed the links, I wouldn't need to ask anyone to remove them, I would just login and remove them myself.

Link removal requests are for when you didn't place the link, but the link might look "suspicious" or "low quality" to Google.

Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Will.Spencer 7/16/12 9:11 PM
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 5:17:28 AM UTC+2, StevieD_Web wrote:
I do hope you told the dude requesting the $500 to hurt himself

As I want to get the penalty to this web site removed, that's not really an option.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests StevieD_Web 7/16/12 11:05 PM
$500 to remove the link?  How much did it cost to purchase the link?
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Will.Spencer 7/17/12 6:52 AM
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:05:29 AM UTC+2, StevieD_Web wrote:
$500 to remove the link?  How much did it cost to purchase the link?

I obviously didn't purchase the link.

I am guessing that if you were purchasing links, removal would be included at no extra cost as part of the service.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Chris Hunt 7/17/12 7:20 AM
I am guessing that if you were purchasing links, removal would be included at no extra cost as part of the service.
 
Yeah, because people operating in the link selling business are known for their decency and high business ethics. Of course, if there were, perchance, a few bad apples amongst the serried ranks of upstanding link sellers, they might see it as an opportunity to double their profits by charging both times.
 
It seems to me that there's a new business model could be spreading among the internet's bottom feeders:
  1. Build the spammiest link directory (or group of link directories) you possibly can, and automatically spider and add sites to it.
  2. Wait for Google to penalise sites that appear in your directory (some of them will be penalised for some completely different reason, but they're going to put the blame on you anyway)
  3. Charge said people an admin fee to remove their sites from your directory farm. Best not to be too greedy here - a $5 charge might be paid (with some grumbling) for a quick resolution, a $500 charge might  get the lawyers involved.
  4. Profit
  5. Rinse/repeat by putting the sites that you now know will pay on a new set of dodgy directories
If this is the case, Google really need to put some countermeasure in place - such as allowing webmasters to tell them to ignore ceratin domains/links; or by just following their old policy of disregarding spammy links but not penalising their recipients.
 
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests KORPG Kevin 7/17/12 7:24 AM
So let's say this is (or will soon be) happening.
Then your best option would be to never pay to remove a link - lest you get on the "We've got a life one here!" list.
In time G will devalue all the links from the link directory and you'll not need to worry about it.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Chris Hunt 7/17/12 7:48 AM
That's what I reckon, KORPGKevin.
 
But then I'm not getting messages from Google saying "remove these links or suffer a penalty." If I were, I might have to do otherwise. I'm just glad I'm not in that situation myself.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Geminineil 7/17/12 7:49 AM
The reality is that anyone who runs a directory could probably electronically spider this forum and get urls and add those to their directory knowing that it would be VERY likely to get paying customers who at the moment have little option but to pay.

THE problem is, that until Google actually advises webmasters exactly which links are causing a problem then webmasters that have been penalised are trying a 'blanket' effect of removal. What else to do? Sit back and do nothing?


Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Will.Spencer 7/17/12 9:23 AM
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:49:05 PM UTC+2, Geminineil wrote:
THE problem is, that until Google actually advises webmasters exactly which links are causing a problem then webmasters that have been penalised are trying a 'blanket' effect of removal. What else to do? Sit back and do nothing?

Exactly.  And doing nothing isn't an option for most of us.
 
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests webado 7/17/12 10:33 AM
>> knowing that it would be VERY likely to get paying customers who at the moment have little option but to pay.
Only if said non-customers are also stupid which they might well be.
Or if they've already engaged in buying links and are not sure just where they've done it. Which does not cancel the stupidity factor anyway, in fact it compounds it.

If you haven't been involved in link acquisitions in any way (directly or indirectly) do nothing is exactly what you have to do. 

If you have then you know what the options are: get the links removed, get the link targets deleted (with no redireciton to new urls)  or move to a new domain with no forwarding address as it were,  and delete the old one.

Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Geminineil 7/17/12 10:48 AM
Webado You seem to have quite a simplistic view on this.. "Only if said non-customers are also stupid which they might well be."

The FACT is that there are several on this forum that conclude that the ONLY reason to get an 'unnatural links' message is if you have been creating backlinks yourself - and in other words.. you created the problem so deal with it. Some webmasters may have bought or created by whatever means half a dozen links... but now they have 500 or 1,000 directory links that they are being asked to pay for removal... what do they do?

REGARDLESS as to how a link-profile has evolved...

the options are....

1. You can be stupid... and pay websites/directories to remove links and hopefully get redemption from Google
2. Do nothing and earn nothing and the situation doesn't get resolved until Google decides so...
3. move to a new domain with no forwarding address as it were,  and delete the old one.
4. Google comes up with a solution to remove the directories from the link-profile or de-index websites IF they consider they have no value.



Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests KORPG Kevin 7/17/12 10:52 AM
Option 5: Address those things you can control. Go the other direction. Focus on making your site and the content contained therein better each and every day. Build a better backlink profile by better content offerings, thereby improving the overall nature of the aggregate links to your site.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Geminineil 7/17/12 11:00 AM
I like option 5 but wonder how long it could take... "how long is a piece of string" I hear you say.. :) (obviously depending on make-up of the 'link-profile')
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests webado 7/17/12 11:07 AM
Option 5 Kevin forgot to stress  does not involve building links as such  - only building content which will attract good links naturally.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests webado 7/17/12 11:10 AM
And actually Option 5 is not an option, it's the main  MO you should adopt.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Geminineil 7/17/12 11:11 AM
scrolling through WMT I found it an eye-opener to see who has been linking to my website that I didn't know about.... (in a positive way) - and a swift reminder to check backlinks to see how good the content is at generating links...


Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests KORPG Kevin 7/17/12 11:14 AM
Correct on both points.
Option 5 isn't just an option, it's the norm and should be seen as the standard operating procedure and goal.
Additionally, the links generated from practicing Option 5 aren't build by the website owner, they're created naturally by individuals finding worth and value in the content contained on the site.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests webado 7/17/12 11:20 AM
>> Webado You seem to have quite a simplistic view on this.
You call it simplistic, I call it simple, as in uncomplicated and straight forward, no nonsense.

I wish all life's decisions would be that simple ;)
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests zihara 7/17/12 12:05 PM
"Regardless of how a link profile has evolved..." Yeah, right: evolved. People pushed that rope and the rope has turned around and hung them, like it does when folks substitute any kind of shortcut for intrinsic quality. Link profile evolution most likely has a place in the story but then again, perhaps Penguin is just the hand of Creative Intelligence making itself felt as it goes about weeding the genetically deviant out of the garden...
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Geminineil 7/17/12 12:33 PM
you are missing the point... use another word in place of 'evolved' - created - manipulated - it actually doesn't matter - people are coming here for help and don't need chastising the whole time... imho as in  "perhaps Penguin is just the hand of Creative Intelligence making itself felt as it goes about weeding the genetically deviant out of the garden..."

the point is about the OPTIONS
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Lysis 7/17/12 12:45 PM
You're assuming that Google is counting new links. All Google has to do is look at history prior to actually coming out with Penguin, and they will find genuine spam. What are the chances that some competitor spammed blog comments in 2011? Slim to none.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests URLJet 7/17/12 1:14 PM
That hardly seems like a valid option as it's changed the game...and from what I'm reading but experiencing...It would seem it tilted it in favor of the junk sites.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests webado 7/17/12 1:31 PM
No idea where you got that idea.


Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Will.Spencer 7/17/12 2:18 PM
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 7:33:31 PM UTC+2, webado wrote:
If you haven't been involved in link acquisitions in any way (directly or indirectly) do nothing is exactly what you have to do. 

Unfortunately, that is not true at all.

If your web site is penalized, it doesn't matter whether you were involved in creating the links or not.  You have to get them removed, no matter who created them.

The idea that you can only be penalized for links that you create is an urban myth.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests webado 7/17/12 2:34 PM
It would not have been penalized for creating such links then. Look elsewhere for the source of the penalty. Such as at the content or your own outgoing links.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests zihara 7/17/12 3:18 PM
I don't think the junk backlink penalty appeared overnight. "Unnatural link profile" implies there is a history of natural link profiles to graph against and "unnatural" profiles are exactly that: deviant (sorry, I do own a thesaurus and I'm only doing as so many of the more knowledgable in these forums suggest: varying my keywords and expanding my target). I would more suggest that the Caffeine infrastructure has been sitting nearby idly keeping track of movements and motions across the web as witnessed by the footprints folks (and/or their software) left behind, trying to discern traffic flows and activity patterns, connections, multiple ownerships, link farms, paid and free "directories," splogs, etc. At a certain point, particular "SEO" activities stuck out like a sore thumb (especially the software-driven ones)... so Penguin launched and wiped the worst offenders on both sides: those that gamed and those that assisted in the gaming. "20,000 backlinks on PR4 or better sites for only $299" appeals only to those who don't trust the value of their own content to get the job done they want done. Hiring "SEO" ex-spurts is very similar thinking. So when you remove all the backlink "values" and the "SEO" junk, the real objective value of the content (as rated by the Googlebot) comes out. And here we are... It might be different if more folks had gotten the "unique-and-original objective quality content" message. Spending their money on development of that would have been far more productive in the long run than what so many have now.

Google knows you can't control what you can't control. And what's done is done. And so many folks are pointing at the things they can't control and claiming they had no part in doing it while so few folks point to the things they can control... and fewer yet get on with the necessary work to be done. Who do you think might recover earlier and have some staying power when they do recover?
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Will.Spencer 7/17/12 4:53 PM
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:34:07 PM UTC+2, webado wrote:
It would not have been penalized for creating such links then.

That's an urban myth.  Google doesn't have any godlike powers to know who created a link.  There is no way for them to tell.  So, they just penalize on links that might look suspicious.

So, to get unpenalized, you have to go after all links that might look suspicious.  When you have over a half million inbound links, you'll see plenty of links that look suspicious.

A few days ago I found a very spammy looking forum signature link that I'm trying to get removed.  I didn't create it.  It only looks suspicious because it was a copy and paste screwup by a technical novice.  I also found live links to my site in hidden text on another web page.  That was some very bad people doing some very bad stuff with auto-scraped hidden text -- and accidentally including live links to my site in their hidden text.

There is absolutely no way for Google to know that I didn't create those links. I'm guilty until proven innocent. So, I have to get the links removed if I want my site to be unpenalized -- and I do want my site to be unpenalized.

Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests webado 7/17/12 5:13 PM
>>  Google doesn't have any godlike powers to know who created a link.  There is no way for them to tell.  So, they just penalize on links that might look suspicious.

That's the urban myth. But it's no god-like, just extreme computing power and awesome algorithms that can slice through all the smoke-screens.

I don't believe you have provided your website url for anybody to take a good look and see just what may be going on.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Will.Spencer 7/17/12 7:04 PM
On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 2:13:22 AM UTC+2, webado wrote:
But it's no god-like, just extreme computing power and awesome algorithms that can slice through all the smoke-screens.

There is no algorithm on heaven or Earth that can tell who placed a link.  Algorithms can only work with the data that goes into them and that data is not available to Google's algorithm.

Hell, looking at those two example links, I wouldn't believe that I hadn't created them -- except that I know that I didn't create them.

Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests webado 7/17/12 7:23 PM
>> There is no algorithm on heaven or Earth that can tell who placed a link. 

You wish.

And what 2 example links are you meaning? You've still not provided any urls as far as I can tell.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests zihara 7/17/12 8:53 PM
I keep wondering if this is the same Will Spencer I had a couple go-rounds with a couple years ago. That interaction led nowhere fast, too, primarily because he knows everything there is to know about everything to do with the web. So as this exchange is wasting time, effort and pixels, why not let him do whatever he feels he needs to because none of the suggestions seen here so far has made any difference for him... I'm sure if he blazes a new trail and is successful in his quest he'll stop by again and let us all know. And if his pockets run dry and he ultimately fails in his quest, I'm sure he'll let us know about that, too: he knows how it works.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests webado 7/17/12 9:01 PM
Seems to be a refugee from the Adsense forum.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Will.Spencer 7/17/12 10:17 PM
Personal attacks.  I am so impressed.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests dyoc 7/17/12 10:35 PM
To try to take this somewhere productive, how do you propose that Google knows who placed links?

I think my site is a good example of Google getting it wrong. I've done no SEO, no paid links, no link exchange, and Google cut my traffic by 60% on April 25th.

Google is not infallible. Just like Gmail might mark a legitimate email as spam, Google search seems to be punishing some sites that have always played by the rules. And there seems to be no recourse.

Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests fathom 7/17/12 10:46 PM
It actually does that already... you just need to re-think your understanding of the process.

On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:49:05 AM UTC-3, Geminineil wrote:

THE problem is, that until Google actually advises webmasters exactly which links are causing a problem then webmasters that have been penalised are trying a 'blanket' effect of removal. What else to do? Sit back and do nothing?


Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests 奥宁 7/17/12 11:38 PM
A URL and a few examples of these links might help us unravel this issue.  Right now, it seems more like its just an unhappy post about a bunch of webmasters.

To be honest, Google has no way to know who paid or placed the link, but surely they can make an educated guess through traffic patterns.  I can track a potential spammer/hacker on sites based on past patterns before they strike (not always right, but most of the time I am).  Based on that, I would hope a much smarter team and with the amount of data available, someone would actively have to impersonate you to really trick Google in most cases.  The timing, search patterns, logged in browsing, etc. can all feed into that.  Its not impossible to imagine that they can figure most of it. They will get it wrong sometimes, but can still guess.  

That being said, I wouldn't pay to have anything removed, I'd just file a reconsideration request and try to get on with my site.  If the links are targeting specific pages, you could deal with them seperately.  Otherwise, share a url and we'll try to help sort out the source
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests fathom 7/17/12 11:54 PM
I would argue (still theory) that Google pattern identifies common links and devalues the linking page(s)... all those devalued pages have no link juice to pass thus drop in ranks and rapid drop in traffic.
 
Just because you dropped does not mean all linked anchored that way are effected. So I would check to see if the linking page ranks for longtail phrases around your anchor
 
Course I got this today:
 

Rod, 

- We are capitalizing on Penguin and subsequent Google updates and our Directory has been Globally Whitelisted by Google and Open DNS. 

 - Link Submissions within this Business Directory will help and not hurt your rankings.

 - This Link has been removed for you.  Let us know if there is anything else you need.

 Best,

George

 
LOL Where can I get whitelisted Google?
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Chris Hunt 7/18/12 2:08 AM
I have enormous respect for the people at Google and their ability to deploy some awesome computing power in the construction of their index, but there are limits.
 
If site X has a spammy link to site Y, there's no way Google, you or I can tell who put it there. Once upon a time, it was a fairly safe bet that site Y would have had something to do with it, but it's more complicated than that now.
 
Back in the olden days, a link seller made money by following this approach:
  1. Build a site or set of sites
  2. Convince people that links on those sites are worth paying for
  3. Collect the cash and post the links
The more scrupulous (if that's the right term in this context) might move the sites around in order to keep ahead of Google and carry on delivering value from those links, most would just bank the money and move on to the next sucker.
 
No doubt it's a good enough living, but you've got to go out and sell your dodgy link network, and the message is slowly getting through that such things aren't worth the risk.
 
But now that Google is (apparently) actively penalising sites for have links from spammy places, a much more lucrative business model opens up:
  1. Deliberately build the spammiest looking site, or set of sites that you possibly can
  2. Spider the web to find sites to add links for - don't attempt to charge them for this "service", or even tell them about it. Of course if you can find folk out there foolish enough to pay for links on your site - that's a bonus!
  3. Wait for Google to identify your site as spam, and penalise (some of) the sites you link to. Some of those sites are going to be penalised anyway for some unrelated reason, but you'll get the blame when they find your links.
  4. Charge said sites an "administration fee" to remove those links. Don't be too greedy - if it's $10, a lot will hold their nose and pay, if it's $1000 they might pay a lawyer instead.
  5. Profit!
  6. You now have a growing list of people prepared to pay to have links removed - much better than looking for those who will pay to have them added. Wait a few months and add them to another of your spam networks...

Now I don't know if such schemes actually exist out there, or if Will has in reality fallen foul of one. He may be one of the legion of people who spam like crazy and act all innocent on here when their misdeeds catch up with them. But I think we should allow for the possibility that he isn't.

The scheme I outlined above seems eminently possible - and certainly a lot more likely than the Google algorithm being able to identify the true source of a link by dint of Mountain View awesomeness. No doubt, in time, the algorithm will get better at identifying them, but that's a long time to wait if your site is affected.
 
It seems to me that Google should revert to its old policy - that it doesn't penalise sites for the links they receive, it just ignores the ones it thinks are worthless. If their algorithm can detect who added every link on the internet and why, that should be easy shouldn't it?
 
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Will.Spencer 7/18/12 3:27 AM
On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:38:15 AM UTC+2, 奥宁 wrote:
A URL and a few examples of these links might help us unravel this issue.  Right now, it seems more like its just an unhappy post about a bunch of webmasters.

There is no specific issue.  This is more of a discussion topic.

I've already removed a couple hundred thousand inbound links and I have a lot more similar work to do.

To be honest, Google has no way to know who paid or placed the link, but surely they can make an educated guess through traffic patterns.  I can track a potential spammer/hacker on sites based on past patterns before they strike (not always right, but most of the time I am).

Or at least you think you are.  I keep seeing links that are OBVIOUSLY spammy links placed by the webmaster.  Except that I am the webmaster and I didn't place those links.  :D

I just saw a new one using the "Download Latest Links" feature of Google Webmaster Tools.  It was a guest post of ours, but copied to a completely unrelated domain in a super-spammy niche.

But... what makes me laugh is... the domain was for sale.  So, to get rid of the link, I bought the domain.  I now own a domain in one of the world's seediest niches.  I might put up a site that tells people to avoid that niche entirely.

Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests fathom 7/18/12 3:48 AM
On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 6:08:21 AM UTC-3, Chris Hunt wrote:
Now I don't know if such schemes actually exist out there
 
Well the problem with speculation... it become "fact" in 6 repeated posts the sort of resemble the previous with new added flare and embellishments.
  1. I'm sure black hatters are trying to recover their loses. They can't webspam to the top long enough be be profitable and they have all the blackhat tools - invent Negative SEO.
  2. You have a ton of link developers that lost their cash cow and obviously removing a link is worth something to someone so invent a new model there.
  3. A volume of link networks died... off to the graveyard they go.
  4. The lion share of low end SEO Practitioners... their cash cow has dried up because they can't fathom how to build cheap links that are not webspam
But speculating that everyone that lost their livelihoods are all evil... I remember this...
 
The devil went down to Georgia
He was lookin' for a soul to steal
He was in a bind 'cause he was way behind
And he was willing to make a deal
When he came across this young man
Sawing on a fiddle and playing it hot
And the devil jumped up on a hickory stump
And said, "Boy let me tell you what
"I guess you didn't know it
But I'm a fiddle player too
And if you'd care to take a dare
I'll make a bet with you"
"Now you play pretty good fiddle, son
But give the devil his due
I bet a fiddle of gold against your soul
'Cause I think I'm better than you"
 
Wheel & deal... gets you ahead - fast. It isn't better... it's just different.
And after your lose it all, you are about where you should be in the great scheme of things,
Because now you have lessons learned on your side and you are better prepared to do due dilgence. 
 
 
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests ShopSafe 7/18/12 4:07 AM
Exactly Will.Spencer. :)

Good and fast selection of best answer. :)
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Geminineil 7/18/12 4:07 AM
Mentioned earlier... "Focus on making your site and the content contained therein better each and every day. Build a better backlink profile by better content offerings, thereby improving the overall nature of the aggregate links to your site."

This is all well and good but IF Google have notified via an unnatural links message then surely the penalty will NOT get lifted until such unnatural links are removed and whatever a webmaster does to his/her content the penalty is unlikely to be lifted.

Also, Catch 22: Write GREAT content to generate organic backlinks to create great link profile... and don't worry about removing current unnatural backlinks -  BUT virtually no one is visiting your website due to being in a Google Penalty due to bad link profile.. so there is virtually no one visiting the website to create the backlinks from your great content... DOH!





Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Will.Spencer 7/18/12 4:28 AM
On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 12:48:04 PM UTC+2, fathom wrote:
  1. I'm sure black hatters are trying to recover their loses. They can't webspam to the top long enough be be profitable and they have all the blackhat tools - invent Negative SEO.

Well, to be fair, the black hatters didn't invent Negative SEO.  Google created it and served it to them on a platter like a double fudge chocolate ice cream cake.

  1. You have a ton of link developers that lost their cash cow and obviously removing a link is worth something to someone so invent a new model there.

Link removal services are also doing well right now, though that may change if Google does eventually decide to build a usable link disavowal tool into GWT.

  1. A volume of link networks died... off to the graveyard they go.
Ahh... that didn't change much. The blackhats just created a whole new set of networks.  The network operators always make money, because there is always profit to be made in staying one step ahead of Google.

Shutting down the most public of the blackhat networks was a good public relations move, but it had no considerable long-term effect.

  1. The lion share of low end SEO Practitioners... their cash cow has dried up because they can't fathom how to build cheap links that are not webspam
Ahh... but Google has created more work for them.  They can sell links to dilute anchor text overoptimization, to cure Penguin penalties.  They can offer legitimate link removal services.  They can charge link removal fees as described above.  They can also still sell social media marketing services.  And heck... they can still sell stuff that doesn't work -- they have been doing that for years and people still buy it.  The low-end SEO service providers aren't hurting at all from Google's machinations.

 
But speculating that everyone that lost their livelihoods are all evil... I remember this...
Wheel & deal... gets you ahead - fast. It isn't better... it's just different.
And after your lose it all, you are about where you should be in the great scheme of things,
Because now you have lessons learned on your side and you are better prepared to do due dilgence. 

And, you have a pile of cash to do it with.

I didn't have to do that, because my entry into the web business was easily funded by another successful business I created.  But, I do know quite a few guys who made great money with blackhat SEO and then used that to fund more stable projects.  Blackhat, in the long term, is just too damned much work.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests cristina 7/18/12 4:51 AM
This is quite complicated because links can stay in the Google cache for weeks after they have been removed. Google cannot crawl all URLs all of the time. A lot of the data in Google Webmaster Tools is from the Google cache (robots txt, 404s, links).
If a page is flagged by Google that contains unnatural links, it seems from what other people posted to this forum that it is crawled less by Googlebot and it can stay in the Google cache for weeks.
Even if you pay to have thousands of incoming links removed, they would be removed only from the "live" version and it might take time from Google to recrawl all those URLs deemed of low quality and update the cache and sync all databases.

Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Geminineil 7/18/12 4:56 AM
The only way to speed it up is to request Google to 're-crawl the page.


Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests cristina 7/18/12 5:10 AM
Nobody writes to this forum to complain when links put a site higher in search results, nobody thinks that the algo made a mistake when the site is doing well and gets lots of traffic from search results. It is the same algo and filters that flag the "unnatural links"...

Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests fathom 7/18/12 5:21 AM


On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:28:15 AM UTC-3, Will.Spencer wrote:

And, you have a pile of cash to do it with.
 
It isn't the high cost of online business that is the problem here... it's the cost of complacency and life high.
 
I've seen many members come through here stating proudly for the record, I've been #1 for 3 years, 5 years, 7 years, 10 years, or more... then demonstrating for them it was all based on webspam.
 
Total up all that revenue they should not have had... that is considerable value they got on the cheap.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Will.Spencer 7/18/12 5:22 AM
On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:51:21 PM UTC+2, cristina wrote:
This is quite complicated because links can stay in the Google cache for weeks after they have been removed.

Yeah, that's super annoying.  I'm still seeing links in GWT from pages that have been offline for _at least_ six months.

On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:56:33 PM UTC+2, Geminineil wrote:
The only way to speed it up is to request Google to 're-crawl the page.

Ummm... how do you request Google to recrawl pages you don't own and that no longer exist?

Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests fathom 7/18/12 5:27 AM
On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:22:28 AM UTC-3, Will.Spencer wrote:
Ummm... how do you request Google to recrawl pages you don't own and that no longer exist?
 
You can't but the link ex-link resident website owner can resubmit their sitemap.
 
Best you can do on your own is get fresh links to the page your link was removed.
 
HINT: great job for an expired domain!
 
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Geminineil 7/18/12 5:33 AM
THIS is the url I couldn't find earlier...  "Google adds new sites to our index, and updates existing ones, every time we crawl the web."

so that IF a link is removed from another person's domain by getting it re-crawled in theory it should go from WMT faster?

https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/submit-url



Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests KORPG Kevin 7/18/12 6:12 AM
Manual penalties have a decay period under which they expire. The only permanent issue is a banning that can only be rectified by a domain abandonment and re-acquisition by a third party. It is algorithmic "penalties" or alterations that are permanent.

That said however, changing the nature of your site will always alter your rankings (some more noticeably than others.)

As for the No Traffic Catch 22:
I presume you are aware that there are other traffic sources than Google.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests cristina 7/18/12 6:24 AM
Geminineil, it is a problem of scale. I think that the "unnatural links" message happens when there are many links (thousands or more, not tens or hundreds) that are very probably automatically generated, full with links and deemed of low value by Google. It is impossible to submit all those URLs with a public tool for submission of individual URLs. Even if the site owner where the links were submits a sitemap from their account of Google Webmaster Tools, it might take sometime until Googlebot fully recrawls and updates its cache and databases.
Besides, some of those URLs with links might be now 404s, and sitemaps should include only indexable good URLs.
Googlebot will recrawl and update in time, but it takes time, and crawling and processing resources.


Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Geminineil 7/18/12 8:03 AM
Christina.. for sure it would probably be a logistical nightmare to resubmit such a multitude of web pages.. maybe even have problems with ip address resubmitting so much anyway...  I have done it with a few... :)

Kevin.. "Manual penalties have a decay period under which they expire." I totally understand that BUT from what I have heard Matt Cutts say... I think there is a 6 months or 12 months.. (is there longer?) we are currently 3 months (in a few days) after the first Penguin - the problem that many have (including myself) is that I don't actually know what time-penalty I actually have on which to base definitive action....

in terms of traffic from elsewhere... not sure where you are based but in the UK traffic from Bing and Yahoo is maybe 5-10% (certainly in my niche) - I am on page 1 on those search engines for many high ranking terms but got zapped from Google. We also have traffic from other sources but collectively with Yahoo and Bing etc it doesn't compete with the monopoly that Google has in the UK SERPS....


Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests KORPG Kevin 7/18/12 8:42 AM
I'm in the US, and for the record, ~93% of my search traffic comes from various Google domains. Admittedly that's a serious share in the search market.

However, from an overall viewpoint, Google isn't my top referrer and I've worked to diversify the inbound traffic to my site.
I don't want to be dependent on any one referrer as the sole traffic provider for my site.

Allow me some indulgence as I do the worst in hubris and quote myself from another forum thread:

I'm not saying it's easy or quick. It isn't.
I'm not saying a change of focus from Google traffic to direct traffic is going to be a painless process either. It probably isn't. 
 
But trust me when I tell you it is still the best path to a sustainable web future. 
 
If your site doesn't generate a lot of search traffic, then promote it. (Both online and offline.) Build your brand.
If you're in a niche, go deep within that niche. If that doesn't work, diversify.
If you can't afford huge outlays for cpc, then don't consider it an option. Build loyalty, not mindless clicks.
If you can't socialize, then don't. Focus on what you do well. Better to not do something than to do something poorly. 
 
Regardless of the format, things haven't really changed in branding.
Stop focusing on improving the wrong metrics (traffic and clicks) and start focusing on improving the right metrics (loyal customers and referrals.) 
 
This advice applies to businesses, hobbies, individuals, etc.

Again, I know it isn't easy, but its a far more sustainable path.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Geminineil 7/18/12 8:45 AM
Thanks for the input! :)
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests cristina 7/18/12 8:46 AM
Gemineil, do you have warnings in Google Webmaster Tools that your are breaking webmaster guidelines?
Did you submit a reconsideration request? (sorry, but I did not read previous posts about your site if you already wrote about that).


Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Geminineil 7/18/12 8:52 AM
Yes I did.. in March and been contacting websites ever since... some obliging and a handful (including an seo company) that don't answer emails and when they do they say yes we will do that and nothing happens - damned frustrating...

hit on 24th April... 2nd Reconsideration submitted last week...  I am fairly certain I have identified the problems.. but cannot remove them (after 3 months of trying) and would just like to know how long this penalty is going to last....
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests fathom 7/18/12 8:57 AM
Retouching this.
 
A new site would get crawl "fast" from using that submit tool.
 
...a devalued page? I doubt it.
 
Google autpmatically crawl more frequent based on PageRank and (in theory) a page with unnatural links on it has no PageRank (regardless of what the toolbar reads - again in theory) therefore there is no need for Google to recrawl a devalued page to remove a devalued link... it isn't that important.
 
PENGUIN re-RUN... trumps all that... and a Manual Review trumps PENGUIN.
 
Course... since we have only had 1 re-RUN it is hard to fathom precisely how it works.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests seo101 7/18/12 12:16 PM
I will just respond to this comment earlier from fathom:


"The lion share of low end SEO Practitioners... their cash cow has dried up because they can't fathom how to build cheap links that are not webspam"

We run one niche directory ... the number of spam submissions to that have increased since penguin
We admin 8 forums ... the number of xrummer and manual spam hits have stayed the same since penguin
We have many wordpress blogs ... there has been no let up in the scrapebox and manual spam comments attempts since penguin

We experimenting with a wiki site; set it up a few weeks ago and did not do anything more on it ... now its already full of spam profiles within a couple of weeks

Six months ago we set up one of the commerical article directory scripts on a wordpress site with an idea. While working on other new projects, I shelved that one temporairly. Went back to it a couple of days ago and the host had suspended the account as we had exceeded resource utilization! .... there were something like 20 000 spam articles submitted and we did not notice!!!!!

Penguin has not resulted in any let up in the nature of the links they set out to penalize.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests seo101 7/18/12 12:20 PM
I found another comment to ask about:

"Manual penalties have a decay period under which they expire."

Are you sure about this? The 'unnatural links' manual penalty?

I ask as I was following a discussion on another forum (a grey hat one!) and several were hit by the unnatural links penalty and some were convinced that this happened and they would rather wait the penalty out than reveal what Google wanted in a reconsideration request!
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests KORPG Kevin 7/18/12 12:26 PM
Admittedly I'm basing my belief on this from a memory of a video by Matt which may have been taken out of context or a misinterpretation.

However, I recall him saying that all penalties (even manual ones) decay over time and that changes made to sites that rectify the underlying issue will, over time, result in a removal (or elimination of) and prevent the reassignment of the penalty.

This makes sense as not all webmasters are members/have WMT access and won't realize they're penalized. So, to be safe, penalties will need to be time limited in order to prevent a site from being permanently damaged goods.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Geminineil 7/18/12 12:31 PM
There has been mentioned AT LEAST a 3 month penalty - but maybe even a 6 month or year but cannot find the video where I heard it said by Matt Cutts.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests KORPG Kevin 7/18/12 12:35 PM
Found the video I was remembering:

Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Geminineil 7/18/12 12:46 PM
Penalties lasting 30 days or more.... he mentions that for the "vast majority of times" caveat that means it could last for as long as they want....

eventually they would "normally" time-out...

and in a reconsideration request and IF they think within their guidelines... they could revoke the penalty...

and getting the 'bog-standard' reply of the same... you have an 'unnatural links' - a penalty could be ongoing is how I understand that...

mind numbing.....


Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests JohnMu 7/19/12 7:20 AM
Just to touch base here in this long thread -- I hope these aren't things you've already covered (lots of good feedback is here already). If your site receives a notification of web-spam or manual action in Webmaster Tools, then that will be due to a web-spam review and manual action that has been taken. While manual actions will expire at some point, I would strongly not recommend sweeping them under the carpet and hoping that they go away on their own -- at least if you're interested in having your site be optimally represented in our search results. Even when a manual action expires (which might take quite some time), if the reason for the original manual action is still relevant, it's always possible that the manual action is returned later on. In my opinion, if you're aware of issues that are negatively affecting your site's performance in search, and if its performance there is important to you, then resolving those issues is often a good use of time. 

With regards to links, we have to recrawl those linking pages in order to recognize the changes that were made there, but in many cases we're quite fast in crawling and picking up changes. The submit-URL feature is useful for submitting new URLs for crawling and indexing, but won't have a direct effect with regards to how quickly we recognize the links on those URLs (if we've already crawled and indexed them in the past), so it wouldn't help to submit all of those URLs there. 

Cheers
John
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Will.Spencer 7/19/12 6:33 PM
On Thursday, July 19, 2012 4:20:43 PM UTC+2, JohnMu wrote:
While manual actions will expire at some point, I would strongly not recommend sweeping them under the carpet and hoping that they go away on their own -- at least if you're interested in having your site be optimally represented in our search results.

No worries here.  I've been sending link removal requests for months and have gotten a couple hundred thousand links removed.  Eventually I will find the link which is causing the problem. Until then, Google's search results are just going to be poorer because they lack my wonderful web site.



 
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests cristina 7/19/12 8:31 PM
JohnMu, this thread started because some people are asked to pay to have some of the links removed, when they contact sites to remove links after they get the unnatural links message in Google Webmaster Tools.
Can you give some advice about that?

fathom 7/19/12 10:10 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests fathom 7/19/12 10:15 PM
I'm not JohnMu (nor Google) but bad faith is and always will be bad faith. From everything I've ever seen are far as organic results and the Google index goes they tend to drive towards "good faith".
 
Send the email correspondence to the webspam team with your reconsideration request. I'm sure that will be taken into consideration. Be mindful that, fake trails don't usually pass the sniff test.
 
Also just because you request a link deletion does not mean that link cause any issue... and I firmly believe this is a threshold thing... you have 1000 unnatural link 25 link owners want $$$ but if you get rid of 400, or 600, or 900 - at some point the unnatural pattern fades into the background of natural web chaos and those that desire $$$ don't matter.
 
Alternatively, I charge a great deal of money to fix other people's problems. (like this) If they hired a firm or person to do links it is worth me hiring that same person to save me time attempting to communiicate with those I never communicated with before. But that's a volume "savings thing". I budget my fees to do that, not because others desire money but because it makes sense for me to "save time".
 
A single link in time to delete is 5 seconds and maybe 10 second in administrative costs to login to something... not a huge deal and I figure that's a cost of $0.15/link at a knowledge level of a knucklehead making $36/hour. (WOW that's a really good paycheck for login and and depressing a delete link).
 
BUT if they want $25 to delete a single link and just paying for the deletion action that $167/hour... to be a knucklehead and just ordinarily bad faith.
 
Links on the order of 1,000 (more or less) is labor intensive... so getting involve with a link scheme it only makes sense you MUST PAY to undo and truth be told the only reason anyone get links in volume or hires someone to get that many links (paid links) in the first place is to "get results"... so are you still not just trying to "get results" now? It's different for sure... but still the same.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests cristina 7/20/12 4:04 AM
JohnMu, about the recrawling of pages that include unnatural links, and how quickly they are recrawled and updated in the Google database after the links have been removed, there was a relatively recent forum thread about links that appeared in GWT and in search results, but the pages including the links were removed and with HTTP status 404 (Not Found). The pages were still in the cache and search results, in July the cache had the timestamp of April. I do not know if Google recrawled that page or not, or if it recrawled saw the 404 and decided to keep the cache. The cache was not updated (removed) and the links were still in the Google cache and GWT after the page was removed. What can people do in cases like this?


Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests cristina 7/20/12 4:22 AM
Fathom, there have been a few threads in this forum, (this thread and a few other threads), in which people write that they have been asked for payment when they contact sites that have links to their sites that are listed in Google Webmaster Tools, after they get a message in Google Webmaster Tools about unnatural inbound links.
I am not interested in the answer about what to do in a situation like this, I do not have "unnatural" links. I was asking JohnMu if he would like to give an answer for the people who  posted to the forum that is happening to them, maybe he or someone else from Google could add something about it in the forum FAQ page.




Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests cristina 7/20/12 5:02 AM
Fathom, I have been answering thousands of questions in this forum for absolutely free since 2005. It is sadly ironic that you chose one of my posts to give a reply in which you advertise that you charge a lot of money to "fix" problems mentioned by people who put questions in this forum.





Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests cristina 7/20/12 5:26 AM
Fathom, I did not read all of your long post, sorry if I keep replying to something that I did not really read, but I think there is a misunderstanding in your post.
I have no problems of "unnatural links" at all, I was just asking JohnMu to help the people who posted to this forum that they are asked for payment by some sites that link to them when they contact the sites with the links after they get the "unnatural" links message in Google Webmaster Tools. They write that they did not put the links there, that they are not aware of any link schemes etc. 
Even if sometimes there are some old link schemes etc. or "ghosts" of past/expired links schemes involving the websites of the OPs, I still think it would be helpful if someone from Google could add something about it in the forum FAQ, for people who really have nothing to do with the inbound links they see listed in Google Webmaster Tools.

Cristina.



Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests fathom 7/20/12 7:02 AM
Cristina,
 
I answered your initial concerns for everyone else in 3 ways and I used my wealth of experience on the matter in support.
  1. Send the correspondence to Google (for Manual Reviews) the Webspam Team will weigh it accordingly.
  2. In the event of PENGUIN ignore the requests for money because you don't need to get rid of "EVERYTHING". The laws of diminishing returns apply.
  3. In the event of vast links are associate with 1 company... payment SORRY is likely the best option.
I wasn't plugging myself either, I was demonstrating why (in lieu of JohnMu) my response was valid. Also I agree, "the guide should be expanded" and should be split into 2 distinct vantagepoints... Manual Reviews & Automated Processes because the recovery processes are vastly different.
 
Candidly, in my defense, while I haven't been here freely posting for 7 years I have been doing the same as you but longer elsewhere at SEOChat (9 years), WebmasterWorld (10 years), not much anymore but WebProWorld (9 years), SearchEngineWatch (8 years) and DigitalPoint (7 years) using the same "fathom" moniker and somewhere around 20K+ in advice and all as free as yours.
 
Ironically though, being paid to provide a service is neither a crime nor a an obscene thought.
 
This is also what I have come to learn... free advice isn't worth very much.
 
The reason it isn't worth much, you don't have unfettered access to privileged information. You're making gut instinct calls on every situation and while you can on occasion, often or most often be 100% accurate... when you are wrong... do you hold yourself accountable?
 
No.. absolutely not... because free advice isn't worth very much.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Jon Wade 7/20/12 8:43 AM
Hi Will, I am curious, which site are you removing links for? Half a million links is a lot to remove!
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Will.Spencer 7/20/12 1:04 PM
On Friday, July 20, 2012 5:43:34 PM UTC+2, JonWade wrote:
Hi Will, I am curious, which site are you removing links for? Half a million links is a lot to remove!

I tend not to share links here due to the presence of some pretty evil trolls.

The last time I shared a link here it got DDoS'd for several days.

I am also pretty sure that some of the kapo's here also spend a lot of time reporting sites for imagined infractions of Google policies and I'd hate to find another of my sites penalized accidentally.

Basically, if you aren't a Google sycophant, you're not welcome here and you'd better watch your back.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests fathom 7/21/12 1:16 AM

On Friday, July 20, 2012 5:04:01 PM UTC-3, Will.Spencer wrote:
The last time I shared a link here it got DDoS'd for several days.
You actually believe your fan club hangs out here on the off chance you post a url?
 
How did you resolve the attack initiated from here?
 
"if you post, they will come?" Someone singing kumbaya in your neighborhood was more likely the cause... since we don't need any evidence to prove something actually occurred.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests sergskd 7/24/12 1:45 PM
It is naive answer!  There are web sites such as updowner.com who create thousands link to websites without asking webmaster permissions. How web master supposed to fight with such sites! No one purchased link from them! They do it to discredit your site. I blocked IP address few sites that created numerous links  to my site, but I is too late or did not help.  What should I do?
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests seo101 7/24/12 2:04 PM
Take off your tinfoil hat.

John Mu has specifically posted that links from updowner.com do not negatively affect a site.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests StevieD_Web 7/24/12 3:27 PM
as I have repeated posted.... In my experience updowner.com is very responsive and will remove the links upon request.  In fact, an official somebody from the website posted on this forum the same comment about removing links upon request.

Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests webado 7/24/12 7:20 PM
Google completely ignores all links from updowner. It's been stated several times already.

Blocking IPs of sites that link to yours is useless. The IP is not involved anywhere.

At most you can block a site as a referrer for human visitors ONLY. Robots do not pass referrer information so you will not be able to detect that a robot comes to your site by following a link from a site you blocked that way.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests hcancelik 7/31/12 4:05 PM
that's funny you said that. I didn't place the links and Google doesn't see them natural. What should I do in this case?
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests webado 7/31/12 5:52 PM
Updowner links? Google has already stated firmly that they get 100% ignored. So whatever links are considered unnatural  for your site would definitely not be updowner links. THey are reported, yes, among the links to your site. But they get ignored.

As would all links for which  you you were not instrumental in creating (directly or indirectly).

Since all crap links are ignored, it's very possible this doesn't  leave many or even any decent links to your site.

Add to it the possible situation where your site is also not in ship-shape content-wise and you've got a likely loser.

Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests ladylane 7/31/12 7:36 PM
My site has suffered because apparently I do seem to have good content and spammy sites have linked to me - sites I wasn't even aware of until after my site took a nosedive after the Penguin update and I delved into it further. I have had some success asking these people to remove my link but how long will it take for Google to spider all these pages and quit penalizing me?  Also Google seems to have changed the rules in the middle of the game?! Back when I started my site in 2007 link exchanges were acceptable and Google didn't seem to have any issue with listing your site in Directories - I am guessing that I am now being penalized by that as well! The funniest thing tho is that when I check my Search Queries in Google Webmaster Tools my Average Position in the top 10 is for things that don't even relate to my site!? I do not sell dogtags nor do I operate a driving school!!
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests StevieD_Web 8/1/12 1:05 PM
>Back when I started my site in 2007 link exchanges were acceptable and Google didn't seem to have any issue with listing your site in Directories -


Try again.

Link Exchanges have always been verboten.  From day one. 

Quality directories  ...... ( ie those who engage in a high level of editorial control  {which means very few and very far between}  )  ........ have always been acceptable if for no other reason than the big boys in the search market when Google started (cough, cough Yahoo) had directories and DMOZ was a very big doggie and there was no way Google was going to ignore the existing directory products on the market.

Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Chris Hunt 8/2/12 4:29 AM
A relevant post to this discussion was made on the Google Webmaster Central Blog last week by Matt Cutts:
 
 
Specifically, this bit (my emphasis):
 
In a few situations, we have heard about directories or blog networks that won't take links down. If a website tries to charge you to put links up and to take links down, feel free to let us know about that, either in your reconsideration request or by mentioning it on our webmaster forum or in a separate spam report. We have taken action on several such sites, because they often turn out to be doing link spamming themselves
 
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Will.Spencer 9/5/12 5:36 AM
Matt's post is unlikely to help, at least in my case.  I've sent enough Link Removal Requests to drop the site's inbound link count from 633,784 to 345,752 and I've sent Google a huge amount of data regarding our link cleanup efforts. They never read any of it.  I just get canned automated responses. I am talking to a Python script.

What Matt says and what Google does are very weakly correlated. He's a PR person, his job is to make Google appear responsive, not to make Google act responsibly.


Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Lysis 9/5/12 8:55 AM
No, I think people are not understanding the difference between a canned, automated reply and a template Google has to reply to someone.

I guarantee you they looked at your request, and then they choose from the replies dependent on the results of their review.

Many many companies have template replies even though a human looked at the request. Google is no exception, and it streamlines their process. They are getting slammed with reconsideration requests, so you should be happy they streamline the process. If they had to type out a response to everyone, the backlog would be much worse.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests StevieD_Web 9/5/12 12:55 PM
> I just get canned automated responses  

Many of my suppliers send me a canned response for my orders.  Doesn't matter if the order is the exact minimum, 10x or even 100x of the minimum. 


>They never read any of it. 

In my example, if they didn't read the order.... how would I get my goods?

So what about Google?

Does Google send you the canned response 5 minutes after your submission of the RR ?  

Not likely.  More likely it is several weeks after the RR submission that you receive the canned response.

Sounds to me that Google is doing exactly what they said they would do with the RR.... actually manually evaluating the site. the RR and then making a determination.

One day you will receive a different canned response.  It will basically state that you have done barely enough and Google is partially lifting your suspension.  Again, there won't be a lot of details.

Nor could there be a lot details.  Canned responses get major legal department approval.  Your response can't be different than the next guys for risk of showing you favoritism.  


Are you dissatisfied about the RR process?  Sure.  I would be too.  But please don't make accusations about not reading/responding to the RR unless you can support those accusations.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests JackSoft 9/26/12 4:39 AM
What to do if directories are parterning with linkremoval services and asking for cash, for example
when we requested to remove link from http://www.nypersonalinjurylaw.net, they sent us this email.

deletebacklinks.com is worst service i have seen


Dear ....,

We received your message asking us to remove your link at New York Directory. Due to the large number of requests we receive, we no longer remove links from our directory personally. Instead, we have partnered with deletebacklinks.com to manage these requests. They have the ability to remove your links from our site, usually in just a few hours.

For your convenience, I have copied the deletebacklinks.com sales team on this email. Please work with them to have your links removed.

Thank you for your business.

Sincerely,

New York Directory Administrator

They run program like

What google is doing for the services like this which are earning cash
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests Lysis 9/26/12 2:59 PM
LOL it's probably the same dudes. haha

Makes me wish I had thrown up a cheap directory and just let people put their links up. Damn, I missed out on that cash cow.
Re: Processing Fees for Link Removal Requests theages 10/15/12 4:19 PM
Penguin 3 is the one which hurt my traffic.  I've found a few directories which have multiple domain names but which are identical, and unfortunately I am linked in a few of them.  So far, one owner of two different sites has told me that he charges $20 per link to remove them.  One of his sites has 3 links so $60!  I'm sure that I'll be getting a lot more fee-based removal replies this week.
More topics »