12 Lessons learned from Google’s Penguin 2.0. Analysis
Penguin 2.1 launched on the 4th of October and we’re working on our Penguin Analysis just as we promised. But for now we have compiled twelve “lessons learned” from the case studies we have already published on Penguin 2.0.
This analysis was created by our Certified LRT Professionals Geraldine and Guntram creator of previous case-studies too, and I look forward to meeting them in our private CLRTP meeting today as well and discuss things like Penguin 2.1, the War on SEO, our Link Detox Genesis™ release candidate and many other things.
We summarized findings and observations which I find very interesting. We tried to keep any kind of statistics out of this meta-cases study as well, because the sample size is too small, but find our qualitative observations very interesting, so we hope you like it too.
Thanks Geraldine & Guntram!
- Enjoy & Learn!
... and please help spread the word.
Christoph C. Cemper
PS: Over the past couple months a few people got the impression that our case-studies on single websites should serve as “global proof” for any kind of assumption or observation we drew when manually reviewing a site. That’s not the case.
In our case studies we inspect and evaluate a web site, just like you would do in a site audit, in a qualitative way (by the SEO) the findings, comment on it and help the reader follow the process.
A sample size of N=1 or N=12 doesn’t make good statistics, too few data points i.e. websites to draw global conclusions from it. If you think we did statistics in our case-studies you should go re-read them.
If you want to understand why some people prefer the word “Filter” in relation to Penguin vs. “Penalty” you should read Derek Devlin’s (another CLRTP btw) excellent introductionary post on Google Penguin.
Table of Contents
- LRT Penguin 2.0 Case studies
- 1. Was Anchor Text overdone?
- 2. Did the websites have more LRT Power than LRT Trust?
- 3. Did they have too many sitewide links?
- 4. Did they have paid links?
- 5. Was the link's Power*Trust distribution unnatural?
- 6. Have sneaky redirects been involved?
- 7. Has unnatural link growth been involved?
- 8. Have link networks been involved?
- 9. Did any unnatural country ratios occur?
- 10. Has there been an unnatural Deep Link ratio?
- 11. Did the websites have an unnatural Link Status Ratio?
- 12. Did the websites have a high Link DTOX Risk?
- 13. Results Analysis
This analysis was done by Geraldine Edel (GE) and Guntram Bechtold (GB), with the author marked at the final comment for each section.
The findings from the single case-studies listed below were aggregated to answer a simple question - to we feel there are common pattners?
|CheapoAir.com||Yes. CheapoAir.com had 66% money keywords compared to 29% of the total average!||YES|
|Reeds.com||Yes. Reeds.com had far more money keywords than its competitors: 82% to only 4%!||YES|
|Elearners.com||Yes. Elearners.com's money keyword ratio was the highest among its competitors. Further, its keyword distribution seemed very unnatural.||YES|
|Debtconsolidationcare.com||Yes. The website's money keyword ratio was at 56% compared to 9% of the TOP3. Further, there have been many .edu backlinks with heavily skewed money keyword anchor text distribution.||YES|
|ConcertHotels.com||Maybe. The website had a money keyword ratio of 31%. It had more or less an equal percentage of links allocated to brand, compound and money keywords.||-|
|FittedWardrobes.com||Yes, the website had a very high money keyword ratio of 75%. The total average of its competitors only lied by 24%!||YES|
|TVrage.com||No. The website had some money keyword anchor texts, but not in significant volume||NO|
|Icelolly.com||Yes. Icelolly.com’s had a money keyword ratio of 84%! The total average is only 39%.||YES|
|Directline.com||No. Although the website’s keyword ratio was a bit unbalanced, its money keyword ratio was almost half of the competitor’s money keyword ratio.||NO|
|Result: 6 out of 8 had too many exact match anchor texts||6/8|
Penguin 2.0 definitely looked at the anchor text ratios. We clearly validated this fact on 7 out of 9 case studies. That fact is obvious and clearly measureable for sites. Even more interesting is that sites with just a couple of links, let's say up to 100 total backlinks, appeared to be affected. Generally it needs to be made clear that every niche got slightly different rules and tolerances. (GB)
|Home24.de||Yes. Significantly. Power was at 6 and Trust was at 3.||-|
|CheapoAir.com||Yes. Significantly. Power was at 6 and Trust was at 4.||YES|
|Reeds.com||Yes. Significantly. Power was at 5 and Trist was at 3.||YES|
|Elearners.com||No. Power was at 5 and Trust was at 6.||NO|
|Debtconsolidationcare.com||Yes. Significantly. Power was at 6 and Trust was at 4.||YES|
|ConcertHotels.com||No. Power was at 4 and Trust at 4.||NO|
|FittedWardrobes.com||Yes. Significantly. Power was at 3 and Trust at 1.||YES|
|TVrage.com||Yes. Significantly. Power was at 8 and Trust at 6.||YES|
|Icelolly.com||Yes. Significantly. Power was at 5 and Trust at 3.||YES|
|Directline.com||No. Power was at 5 and Trust was at 6.||NO|
|Comparethemarket.com||Yes. Significantly. Power was at 5 and Trust at 3.||YES|
|Lifed.com||Yes. Massive. Power was at 5 and Trust at only 2.||YES|
|Result: 9 out of 12 websites had more LRT Power than LRT Trust or vice versa.||9/12|
Power*Trust is a very powerful indicator. It visualizes the vulnerability towards getting banned by Google for a specific website: If power and trust are equal, we can see that complex relationship of the site towards other sites and authorities is okay. Some websites got significantly higher power than trust, the signal for Google is obvious: These websites do not have generic growth but have been developed by using steroids.
Why is a big gap between Power and Trust bad?
Typically, webmasters try to build strong links from the start in order to fuel their own PageRank. Getting strong links is hard and getting them from low trust sites (i.e. the spammy ones that sell links, etc.) is easier. For instance, Debtconsolidationcare.com got tons of .edu links, yet these .edu links had low power and practically no trust. That's why the website had a LRT Power of 6 but a LRT Trust of only 4. (GB)
|Home24.de||Yes, a high ratio, 990 Class C IPs generated more than 117.000 Links - a high number of sitewide links.||YES|
|CheapoAir.com||No. All of cheapoair.com competitors had a very high ratio of sitewide links. Cheapoair.com had a comparatively small sitewide ratio.||NO|
|Reeds.com||No, reeds.com and its competitors all had an equally low sitewide links ratio.||NO|
|Elearners.com||Yes, elearners.com had a very high ratio of sitewide links||YES|
|FittedWardrobes.com||Yes. The redirected domain valuemycar.org had 14.819 sitewide links out of 14.904 total links!||YES|
|TVrage.com||Yes, many sitewide links. 5 to 10 times more than the competitors.||YES|
|Directline.com||Yes, compared to its competitors, directline.com had the second highest site wide ratio!||YES|
|Lifed.com||No. Sitewide links haven’t been an issue||NO|
|Result: 5 out of 8 websites had significant sitewide links.||5/8|
6 out of 9 websites had excessive sitewide links. Sitewide links are not beneficial for the growth of a websites's ranking. On the contrary, sitewide links can harm a website. Fittedwardrobes.com for instance had excessive sitewide links through its 301 redirects.
Home24.de created some problems using sitewide links since around 990 Clas s C IPs sent more than 117.000 links. It is pretty unrealistic that one could motivate 990 webmasters to link to Home24.de thousands of times for nothing in exchange
|Home24.de||Yes, a couple of obvious paid links with exact match anchor texts could be identified||YES|
|CheapoAir.com||No, there haven’t been any paid links.||NO|
|Reeds.com||No, there haven’t been any paid links.||NO|
|Elearners.com||Yes, there have been high quality paid links||YES|
|Debtconsolidationcare.com||No, there haven’t been any paid links.||NO|
|ConcertHotels.com||Yes, it appears that there have been paid links.||YES|
|FittedWardrobes.com||Yes, with more than 50% of paid links (very obvious ones) from RobinGupta.co||YES|
|TVrage.com||No, there haven’t been any paid links.||NO|
|Icelolly.com||No, there haven’t been any paid links.||NO|
|Directline.com||Yes, there have been many paid links||YES|
|Lifed.com||Yes, bad SEO directories and paid blogposts||YES|
|Result: 6 out of 12 websites had paid links.||6/12|
Identifying high quality paid links isn't an easy thing. The upcoming Link Detox Genesis™ tries to place a lot more emphasis on finding those better made paid links, so we are looking forward to the results we can get by then.
Having links from paid blog articles – like in the case of Home24.de - will get you banned as well, but not only because these links are paid ones, but also because mostly these websites are participating in link schemes. These link farms got no content focus, typically link out to everyone paying the fee. Using sites like these are just dangerous and will put you into the deadly danger zone.
|Home24.de||Yes, the percentage of LOW quality links with Power*Trust 0 and 1 is WAY higher than the average for the TOP10, TOP5 and especially the TOP3. The percentage links with higher Power*Trust is really small compared to the competitors.||YES|
|CheapoAir.com||Yes, cheapoAir.com had about 2 times more strong Power*Trust links, compared to other websites from this niche. On the other hand, cheapoAir.com far less weak links (Power*Trust < 2).||YES|
|Reeds.com||Yes, the website had a lot of Power*Trust 1 and 2 links. The percentage of links from websites with higher Power*Trust is much lower: only 3% of reeds.com’s links had Power*Trust 5 – 7, compared to 20 % of its competitors. 2% of reeds.com’s links had Power*Trust 8 – 12, in comparison, reeds.com’s competitors had about 25% Power*Trust 8 – 12 links.||YES|
|Elearners.com||No. Power*Trust was fine||NO|
|Debtconsolidationcare.com||Yes, Power*Trust was very low. 2x more weak links than comparable sites.||YES|
|ConcertHotels.com||Yes, Power*Trust was very low. 93% of links have been equal or below 1.||YES|
|FittedWardrobes.com||Yes, the websites had too many weak links with Power*Trust 0.||YES|
|TVrage.com||Yes, the website’s links had a significant lower Power*Trust than its competitors.||YES|
|Icelolly.com||Yes. The Power*Trust of Icelolly.com’s links was significant lower than for competing sites. Further, the website had a high proportion of LRT Trust 0 links and less LRT Trust 2, 3-4, 5-7 or 8-12’s||YES|
|Directline.com||No. Directline.com’s Power*Trust ratios fitted quite well into the link profile of its competitors||NO|
|Comparethemarket.com||Yes. Comparethemarket.com had many more weak links than its competitors.||YES|
|Lifed.com||Yes. Lifed.com had many more weak links than its competitors.||YES|
|Result: 11/12 had unnatural Link Power*Trust||11/12|
Several websites had really toxic link graphs. They have been outside of the normal variance and had 2 times more weak or strong links than similar sites in the niche. One of the toughest cases was Concerthotels.com. More than 93% of the website's links had a Power*Trust below 1. Almost unbelievable that Zombie-Sites like these ever ranked. (GB)
|Home24.de||Yes, home24.de had lots of unhealthy and unnatural looking redirects. Although the redirected domains have been on-topic ones, the links themselves were merely paid ones.||YES|
|CheapoAir.com||No. No sneaky redirects have been found||NO|
|Reeds.com||No. No sneaky redirects have been found||NO|
|FittedWardrobes.com||Yes, fittedwardrobes.com had 1,6% redirects. All of them were totally off-topic ones!||YES|
|Icelolly.com||No. Although many redirects have been in place (5,8%!), most of them came from variations of Icelolly brand name, including other TLD extensions as well as possible misspellings.||NO|
|Directline.com||Yes, directline.com had at least 279 sneaky redirects from the website directline.co.uk.||YES|
|Comparethemarket.com||No, although there have been found 153 links that have been redirected, in the case of comparethemarket.com this amount of links is very small compared to the total amount of backlinks of more than 90.000.||NO|
|Result: In 3 out of 7 cases sneaky redirects have been involved.||3/7|
Redirecting expired domains that have lots of backlinks to transmit link juice to a specific domain and therefore achieve high rankings has been a loophole for several years. But as we all know, it is just a matter of time until Google closes those kinds of loopholes.
As could be seen in previous case studies (e.g. see case study Comparethemarket.com), redirecting expired domains has been a popular linkbuilding tactic. At the latest after the rollout of Penguin 2.0, redirecting expired domains that have lots of spammy and/or off-topic links doesn't help anymore to achieve better rankings, on the contrary, these actions can be a reason for getting hit by Penguin 2.0 or for getting a manual penalty by Google.
As has been identified in some case studies like directline.com, sneaky redirects hurt websites link profiles and have been one of the reasons for the massive drop in SEO visibility. Redirecting domains is an important issue in SEO. There are some points you have to keep in mind:
- Redirects can hurt a website if the redirected domain is not on-topic and has got an unnatural link profile.
- Redirecting expired domains can still be a useful way to get better rankings, but they have to be 100% on-topic! For instance, fittedwardrobes.com redirected a totally off-topic page, including anchor texts like “Value my car” or “how much is my car worth”. Redirecting lots of backlinks with off-topic anchor texts does affect your link profile in a negative way!
- Further, redirects transmit good link juice as well as bad ones! Therefore it is necessary to check each link before redirecting it, otherwise this tactic can harm your website a lot if the amount of bad links is high compared to the websites total amount of backlinks. For instance, in the case study for comparethemarket.com 153 links have been found that are redirected to comparethemarket.com. For comparethemarket.com this amount of links is very small compared to the total amount of backlinks of more than 90.000. But for websites with far less backlinks this amount of redirected links could have a big impact on the main domain's link profile.
- Redirecting domains can also be a good possibility to hide some parts of its own link profile. Contrariwise, if you want to check your competitors link profiles, watch out for 301 redirects! Also keep an eye on your own 301 redirects! Check all redirects to your website with which you are not familiar. This redirects can be a consequence of a negative SEO attack and could have a high amount of links with anchor texts you don't want to be associate with!
- So, does Penguin 2.0 punish sneaky redirects? Well, according to the LRT case studies, 3 out of 7 losers had sneaky redirects. If we can expose sneaky redirects, Google can do that for sure as well, so I suggest yes, Penguin 2.0. punishes sneaky redirects. (GE)
|CheapoAir.com||No, the website had a good and healthy link growth||NO|
|Reeds.com||Yes, reeds.com had proportionally a higher link growth than its competitors.||YES|
|Icelolly.com||No. After icelolly.com got hit by Penguin 2.0 its linkbuilding has almost stopped. This is of course an unnatural pattern, but that happened AFTER the Penguin 2.0. rollout, before its link velocity was O.K||NO|
|Directline.com||No, no unnatural link velocity could be identified||NO|
|Comparethemarket.com||No, its link velocity was quite balanced||NO|
|Lifed.com||No, there was no unnatural link velocity involved||NO|
|Result: In 1 out of 7 cases unnatural link velocity has been involved||1/7|
Unnatural link velocity can be very harmful for every website. What I've seen quite often were websites that have been online for ages and suddenly started doing lots of linkbuilding. The consequence, the website's link growth exploded from 0 to 100 – in Google's eyes of course a very unnatural issue and therefore most likely an indicator for manipulation. Of course, if it is a big brand launching a new website doing some advertising on TV there would probably also be a hype like that, but there would also be some signals around it some social media buzz that makes it natural for Google.
Otherwise, stopping the whole link building process from one day to another can also be very harmful. Again, this is very unlikely and therefore another signal for manipulation.
As could be seen in the case studies, only 1 out of 7 websites had an unnatural link velocity. Nevertheless, always watch out to have a similar link growth as your competitors! (GE)
|Home24.de||Yes, thousands of links came from only 990 different Class-C network and 1.756 domains. That’s about 2 domains per Class-C on average and especially 121 links per domain on average.||YES|
|CheapoAir.com||Yes, there have been 1000s of websites from article link networks||YES|
|Elearners.com||Yes, many of elearners.com links have been from the same network, many have been registered by the same person, others have been hidden behind different registrars, even more hidden behind private registrars.||YES|
|Debtconsolidationcare.com||Yes, 112 links have been from the same IP and all had a LRT Trust of 0||YES|
|ConcertHotels.com||Yes, almost 20% or 289 of all links came from one single IP||YES|
|FittedWardrobes.com||Yes, although it was suggested that being part of link networks is not the reason for the de-indexination in the case of fittedwardrobes.com, there have been found lots of links from cheap-labor “offshore SEO shops”||YES|
|TVrage.com||Yes, 3.9% of its links have been from the same IP and from two others at 2%. Further, 4,2% links were coming from the same Class-C IP||YES|
|Icelolly.com||No, link networks have not been used||NO|
|Directline.com||Yes, directline.com tried to address different target groups with different websites (e.g. “herdirectline.co.uk” is especially for women, “directlineholiday.co.uk” addresses people who need a travel insurance e.g…), but it is very likely that this strategy was seen by Google as participation in linkbuilding networks||YES|
|Comparethemarket.com||Yes, comparethemarket.com was using link networks like web directory networks or business directory networks||YES|
|Lifed.com||No, no links from the same IP have been originating||NO|
|Result: In 9 out of 11 cases link networks were involved||9/11|
Links are essential to gain good rankings. We all know that. But getting a bunch of links by using a link network is the worst thing you can do. But what is a link network? Well, to keep it simple: a group of websites that are connected via same IPs, ClassCs, registrars, and so on. Especially if your links are from dubious companies that offer lots of links for a very low rate you can be sure that you bought links from a link network. Alright, that's obvious, I know. To identify, if you get/bought/exchanged links from a link network is usually not that easy.
Nevertheless, we all know that Google's Webmaster Guidelines restrict the usage of link networks. They warn against the use of link schemes and specifically mention “using automated programs or services to create links to your site.”
So did Penguin 2.0. punish the usage of link networks? Well, in 9 out of 11 cases link networks have been involved, so I would say yes. Again, if we can identify links from link networks Google can do that as well. Keep in mind: Links from link networks are very easy to get, so of course Google tries its best to prevent those practices. (GE)
|CheapoAir.com||Yes, cheapoair.com didn’t have a lot of non-US or non-EU links. But Cheapoair.com seemed to be more active in Europe than its competitors. Only 56% of its links have been from US based sites, although cheapoair.com’s business focus lies on the US market.||YES|
|Debtconsolidationcare.com||Yes, only 38% of Debtconsolidationcare.com’s .edu links have been from US-hosted websites||YES|
|ConcertHotels.com||Yes, 23,7% of its links came from Polish websites although ConcertHotels.com’s content is in English||YES|
|FittedWardrobes.com||Yes, fittedwardrobes.com wants to rank in UK but most of its backlinks have been from US websites. Also this country distribution looks very unnatural!||YES|
|Icelolly.com||Yes, Icelolly.com had overdone it with US links||YES|
|Directline.com||No, Directline.com had less US links than its competitors but as the aim of the website is to rank in UK, this ratio is fine. The ratios for the other countries fitted perfectly into the link profile of the competitors||NO|
|Lifed.com||No, the geographic location of lifed.com’s links has been balanced: Mainly US, but also some other countries||NO|
|Result: 5 out of 7 had an unnatural country ratio||5/7|
From which country your links are coming from DOES matter, of course. As could be seen in the case of ConcertHotels.com, more than 20% of its links came from Polish websites. It is normal, natural and inevitable to get links from different countries, but the majority of your links have to be from your main target market. If this is the Polish one or the US one depends on your business model of course, but don't be surprised if you don't achieve good rankings in Google.US while having most of your links from Asian, Russian or European websites.
Further, links from countries that don't really have anything to do with your business/website are mostly spammy ones, generated automatically by supposed “SEO agencies”.
But also for country ratios apply the same rule as for other parts of a website's link profile: Always try to have similar ratios as your competitors to be on the safe side 😉 (GE)
|Reeds.com||Yes, Reeds.com had a higher deep link ratio (59%) than its competitors (49%)||YES|
|Elearners.com||Yes, elearners.com had a higher deep link ratio than its competitors. Even though 5% is not that much, it is still unnatural||YES|
|ConcertHotels.com||Yes, while competitors had an average 98% to 2% deeplink to startpage link ratio, concerthotels.com ratio looked exactly the opposite: 12% to 88% deeplink to startpage link ratio||YES|
|TVrage.com||Yes, its deeplink ratio was a bit unbalanced||YES|
|Icelolly.com||No, it fitted fine||NO|
|Directline.com||Yes, Directline.com had 13% more startpage links than the total average||YES|
|Lifed.com||Yes, it had a bit too much startpage links||YES|
|Result: 6 out of 8 had an unnatural deep link ratio||6/8|
So what's the perfect deep link ratio? 50% - 50%? 30% - 20%? The answer is yes, no and maybe. We all agree in the fact that a website's link profile has to seem natural in order to avoid any punishment by Google. What is natural? Well, look at your competitors and you'll find the answer 😉 (GE)
|Reeds.com||Yes, reeds.com had 96% follow links compared to 88% follow links of its competitors||YES|
|Elearners.com||No. Elearners.com had the highest percentage of follow links. But as the gap is very low, namely 93% follow links compared to 91% of its competitors, I would say that its link status profile is still balanced||NO|
|ConcertHotels.com||Yes. 100% of concerthotels.com’s links are follow ones!||YES|
|TVrage.com||Yes. TVrage.com has much more NOFOLLOW links comparing to competitors||YES|
|Icelolly.com||No. Its link status profile was balanced||NO|
|Directline.com||Yes. It had 82% Follow links compared to 75% of the TOP3 Average||YES|
|Comparethemarket.com||Yes. 27% nofollow links compared to 18% total average||YES|
|Result: 5 out of 7 had an unnatural link status profile||5/7|
We all know, follow links pass link juice, nofollow links do not. Nevertheless, a healthy link profile needs both. But what about having more Nofollow links than the competitors? Does it even look more natural, as these links do not transmit link juice and therefore do not effect rankings? Well, that's a good question. I'd say no, it also looks suspicious. This can might be seen as a failed try to get links out of blog comments or something like that, without recognition that they are nofollow. Together with other unnatural patterns, too many nofollow links can be harmful as well in my opinion. But as I said, this question is very hard to answer.
So what ratios are the best link status ratios? Again, check your competitors 😉 (GE)
|Home24.de||Yes, home24.de only had 43.8% healthy links||YES|
|CheapoAir.com||Yes, cheapoair.com has links from 148 pages that are not indexed anymore. All in all its link profile has been quite risky||YES|
|Reeds.com||No. Reeds.com’s link risk was moderate||NO|
|Elearners.com||No. Its link risk has been low.||NO|
|Debtconsolidationcare.com||Yes, only nearly 20% of its links has been healthy||YES|
|ConcertHotels.com||Yes, concerthotels.com had a high link risk||YES|
|FittedWardrobes.com||Yes, the website had a deadly link risk!||YES|
|TVrage.com||No, the website had moderate link risk||NO|
|Icelolly.com||Yes, it had a very high link risk. 76% of all links have been either suspicious or toxic ones||YES|
|Directline.com||Yes, directline.com had a high link risk||YES|
|Comparethemarket.com||No, comparethemarket.com’s link risk was almost as high as its competitors link risk||NO|
|Lifed.com||Yes, lifted.com had a deadly link risk. The total of Toxic and Suspicious links was at 87%!||YES|
|Result: 8 out of 12 link profiles have been risky||8/12|
|1. Was Anchor Text overdone?||11/12 overdid anchor texts|
|2. Did the websites have more power than trust?||9/12 had bad Power*Trust Ratio|
|3. Did they have too many sitewide links?||9/12 had sitewide links|
|4. Did they have paid links?||7/12 used paid links|
|5. Was the link’s Power*Trust distribution unnatural?||11/12 got unnatural link P*T|
|6. Have sneaky redirects been involved?||3/7 had sneaky redirects|
|7. Has unnatural link growth been involved?||1/7 had an unnatural link growth|
|8. Have link networks been involved?||9/11 had links from link networks|
|9. Did any unnatural country ratios occur?||5/7 had an unnatural country ratio profile|
|10. Has there been an unnatural Deep Link ratio?||6/8 had an unnatural deep link ratio|
|11. Did the websites have an unnatural Link Status Ratio?||5/7 had an unnatural link status ratio|
|12. Did the websites have a high Link DTOX Risk?||8/12 had a toxic link profile|
So, what was Penguin 2.0. all about? What lessons have we learned from Penguin 2.0?
Well, getting hit by Penguin 2.0. can have several reasons. As could be shown in this “Meta Case Study”, high exact match ratios as well as toxic links are a problem for most of the analyzed Penguin 2.0. losers. Sitewide links of course did also appear in most of the cases, but first avoiding sitewide links is a big challenge, second, it really depends what anchor text the sitewide links have got – if it is a branded term, I would not worry too much about it – if it is a hard anchor text keyword, be careful! Weak links and spammy links, it doesn't matter if they come from sneaky redirects or obviously link networks are for sure issues that can lead to massive drops in search visibility. What we've learned so far is that Google is becoming better and better in exposing unwanted SEO practice. Do you want to achieve better rankings? Build links because links are essential for that aim, but try to that according to Google's guidelines – at least as much as possible.
In this spirit: standard “Black Hat SEO” Adé – “White Hat SEO” Olé! 😉
Thanks, Geraldine and Guntram
This case study was written by Geraldine Edel and Guntram Bechtold, both Certified LRT Professionals
A word from Christoph C. Cemper
Guntram and Geraldine already showed proficiency in doing a backlink profile and SEO audit using the LinkResearchTools in their original case-studies and helped summarize findings from all published Google Penguin 2.0 case studies. A great series finale for the Penguin 2.0 case studies, and we're getting ready for the 2.1 case studies now.
The goal of our LinkResearchTools certification program is to provide our user community and clients a high quality service, and our certified experts are key to that.
I look forward to future work and personally recommend Geraldine Edel and Guntram Bechtold to work with you whenever you get a chance!