I am not clear on your question.

It sounds like your site was hacked and new web pages were added to your site. You discovered the problem and removed the added pages, thereby removing the links they created.

When you ask "Can you block backlinks from another domain", who owns the domain which have the web pages with the links? When you ask to "block" the links, block how? from whom?

My best guess is you are worried about being hacked again by the same group. It sounds like you have blocked the /data folder in robots.txt so if the same group hacked your site in the same way, the pages would not be seen or crawled by Google nor Bing since you have it blocked. If they used a new directory, that solution would not work. The best approach is to upgrade your site's security and have it tested. Change all passwords, etc.

Gigs20, I agree it is beneficial to obtain links related to your niche. That was a helpful addition.

I am concerned about your suggested manner of adding building links. The Penguin update is designed to penalize "built" links, meaning links the target site has built or had built on their behalf. One specific mechanism used to identify such links is matching anchor text.

Ultimately I expect Google to get even better and locate other methods of determining "built" links. I would recommend EARNING links from others over building links.

I respectfully disagree.

I believe you can still get a Penguin penalty regardless of whether the links were created via an automated tool or by hand. If you manually create 100 links to your site with the anchor text "best dyslexia remedy" you run the risk of being penalized. Whether you break Google's Guidelines automatically or manually is not a factor. The breaking of the rules is the point.

Automated tools can be set with tons of variables to make it look natural. You can say only post between 8am - 8pm, space out posts between a random amount of minutes, etc.

Also, if you build manipulative links in your niche, they are still manipulative links. If Google determines links are manipulative, do you believe their algorithm has a subroutine which says "well, the links are bad but since they are in the same niche we wont penalize them"?

You could be right, but my experience suggests otherwise.

Hi Peter,

I sympathize with your situation. Since the home page is blank with just a login feature you have no information about the site or its purpose. A Google search for the site shows nothing but the home page. A WHOIS search shows the site owner is private.

There is no way to know the reason behind the traffic. Someone could have shared a "free stuff" post and for whatever reason provided a link to your site. When users arrive at your site they are of course disappointed then leave.

Some options:

• contact the site owner via the WHOIS e-mail. Ask the site owner to remove the link.

• block all traffic from Bangladesh. This option will work if all or most of the traffic is from that site.

• block all traffic which shows that site as a referrer. I have never implemented such a solution but your web host can likely offer options in this regard. You may have to implement a firewall.

Best wishes

In December 2011 when I encountered this issue for the first time I suspected it was a manual penalty. I contacted Google via the Reconsideration Request tool and they confirmed the site was indeed manually penalized. After the initial wave of cleanup, Google confirmed the reason for the manual penalty was the "inorganic" links.

In our post-Penguin world, I would presume the issue is algorithmic but since we are all so new to Penguin I would still use the Reconsideration Request tool if the client approved.

Francisco is dead right.

On a personal level, I do not like the BBB. A few years ago they had a scandal where it was uncovered they were basically selling ratings. If you paid them money, you received a good rating, negative feedback could disappear, etc. Since that time they claim to have cleaned up their act.

The BBB is NOT a non-profit organization. Sure, the head office might be, but all the local offices are privately owned franchisees who operate for-profit businesses. Once again, I don't care for the lack of transparency where they present themselves as a non-profit business.

With the above said, I encourage clients to join the BBB. Why? Because the public sees the BBB as a positive organization and for the reasons Francisco shared.

Can you share any context for your question? It does not make any sense on its own.

The challenge with contacting a host is their hands are tied. There are only two ways I can think of for a host to potentially help you:

1. Provide the site owners contact information. That would be a breach of confidentiality. There is simply no reason for a host to share this information with you.

2. Remove the links to your site. If you filed a DMCA complaint regarding a copyright infringement, then a host is likely to help you. They may also assist with trademark complaints. Otherwise the site owner is free to link to any site they desire. The site owner is not breaking any laws by linking to your site. Therefore the web host is not able to take action.

I would urge extreme caution at having anyone else "build" links to your site. Many sites have been penalized for manipulative links. I suspect more sites will be penalized in the future.

I suspect "Angela paul" is either a misspelling or misunderstood phrase. There are many companies offering cheap link building services out of India, the Phillipines and other countries. Most of those services run in violation of search engine standards and you run a strong risk of being penalized.

Thanks for the feedback Robert.

The main site to which I refer had a manual action placed in November 2011. Looking back, I would say it is was a prelude to Penguin. This site exceeded 99% of the links being manipulative so it is pretty clear any reasonable threshold would have been triggered.

What surprised me was how determined Google was about all the links being removed, and the level of documentation required. It is possible I simply received a hard-nosed Google employee but I really trust Google's manual team has a high degree of manual calibration in these cases. I think back to the leaked Google Panda notes and the tests to become a Google tester. They are extremely calibration focused. That's my two cents. It's just speculation but that would be my best guess.

**So Ryan in your opinion if they saw some major drops in rankings you would think it would be a safe bet that the site was penalized? **

Not necessarily. There are numerous issues which can cause ranking changes. A page could accidentally be blocked via "noindex" or robots.txt.

Diagnoses of a problem normally requires the highest level of skill. When you go to see a doctor with a problem and he or she can't figure out the cause of the problem, you are stuck....until another doctor comes up with the correct diagnosis. The pharmacy has all the right meds, but a diagnosis is required. The same holds true for SEO. When your business or health is on the line, you don't want to play guessing games.

You can complete a Reconsideration Request. In the initial case, Google confirmed there was manual action taken. After the 100+ duplicate sites were taken down, Google then confirmed the remaining issue was due to the manipulative links.

With the recent Penguin update, Google may have automated part of this process into their algorithm.

I have tremendous respect for Pete and I can understand his thought process. I'll share a different viewpoint.

I am fully understanding of a client's past history. If they practiced black hat techniques in the past, that is not my concern. The past is the past. If I work with a client, they must agree that going forward they will not use any black hat SEO, and they will actively work to resolve any issues so their site complies with Google's Guidelines.

Based on the above, I complete the Reconsideration Request. I have nothing to fear from Google. I would have already reviewed the client's website. I would have identified and be actively working on any outstanding issues. I practice full transparency with Google. This approach is how I choose to operate, and I believe I am more successful because of it.

What's the alternative? Hide from Google? At best, it's only a matter of time until they catch up.

Perhaps I am naive. But if you do have a manual penalty then the fastest way to resolve it for the client is the Reconsideration Request tool. Google can actually help you identify the issue and they can tell you exactly what is required to resolve it. I'll share one example.

When I was reviewing the manipulative link issue mentioned above, I found many free directory sites and I initially classified those links as being ok. Based on the information shared from Google, I re-evaluated those links and removed them. I firmly believe if we are fully transparent with Google and sincerely try to resolve violations, they will be helpful. That is my experience. Many others share different experiences. When I question them and review their communications, I quickly determine they fall short of full transparency so I can understand why they are struggling.

There are a few reasons this can happen. Each tool crawls the web at different times and see different things. I would recommend at least investigating any issues you find regardless of which tool you used to discover it.

Personally, I would pay good money for a tool from Google which used their algorithms and data, but that isn't an option so we do the best we can with the available tools. Google WMT and SEOmoz crawl reports are two parts of that solution for me.

What exactly are spammy links or "inorganic links"? Can you (or anyone) explain in simple terms what that means?

Organic links are links you earned. They are usually links which are editorially added. Inorganic links are ones which were created to manipulate Page Rank. There are various examples and details which can be offered to further clarify the distinction but at a high level, that is the distinction.

People say the other problem is having too many links with the "exact same anchor text". Does that mean having too many links pointing to the same page (like home page) using the same text in the URL - like MYHOMEPAGE.COM?

No. If you use a URL link then the concept of exact match anchor text does not apply. If you sell sports watches and then build 10 links to your page with the anchor text "sports watches" that would be an indicator the links are not organic.

The measurement Google uses to determine if a directory is ok or not is not whether or not the directory submission is automated, although I would share I am not aware of any directory which accepts automated entries that is compliant with Google Guidelines.

The question Google will ask...is this link you created on the directory truly helpful to users? Would you have created the link even if search engines did not exist? Or does this link seem like it was created mainly to manipulate page rank?