There’s a big backlash brewing against ‘Link Research Tools’ (LRT) recently and this is tarnishing the link auditing industry in general. In defense of the ‘Link Audit industry’, I’m going to give some background and then argue why NOT ALL LINK AUDIT SERVICES ARE THE SAME.
Recently where LRT conducted an UNREQUESTED case study into a PAY DAY LOAN company that made the SEO headlines recently because Matt Cutts was involved. LRT spent 2 days compiling a ‘deep dive’ into the company and argued that with their tools they found more negative links which had been missed by the woman doing the audit who they called ‘some random SEO who had just given up doing link wheels’. Arseholes!
Ensued in the comments with many people questioning their data and findings in which the director Chris Cemper had to get involved but instead of admitting mistake only made it worse by confirming their own ignorance when he defended the report and again claimed that nofollow links were correctly flagged causing the site to have the penalty.
Flagging links as false positives, or suspicious is what LRT are guilty off and this causes so much noise when using their tools that it makes them valueless, not least because all data has to be treated as suspicious and checked again manually thus defeating the object of using their tools. Worse yet when people hear this they assume all automatic tools are useless!
NOT ALL AUTOMATIC TOOLS ARE RUBBISH:
In most cases its simply too big to manually inspect the back link profile of a domain, its not impossible but it can take teams of people who often get it all wrong anyway. We have all seen letters from people requesting to have links removed because they think they are harmful when they are perfectly safe and natural. Well this is what happens when people use the services of people who dont understand what Google is trying to tackle and the measures they take such as LRT stance on nofollow links & scrapped links.
MANUAL VS AUTOMATIC
Doing analytical research to find bad links by hand is very time consuming and costly, hence the natural tendency for companies like ours to automate the process to save our clients time, money and hassle. The bottom line is that this can be gotten wrong both when carried out manually and algorithmically, but in general some companies are guilty of either getting it all wrong so badly that they damage the perception and reputation of the industry:
— Paul Macnamara (@TheRealpmac) March 13, 2014
Removing links is hard, finding bad links is hard, dealing with negative SEO is hard, but there are good companies out there who are not rude, arrogant and who understand the real problems companies face and do not have mistaken beliefs or valueless services, namely ourselves and I implore all companies to try our services at least once (tip some of our tools are free) and not judge all automatic link auditing tools with the same brush that LRT are painting themselves with!