Unnatural Link Warning Removed - WMT's
-
Hi, just a quick one.
We had an unnatural link warning for one of our test sites, the message appeared on the WMT's dashboard.
The message is no longer there, has it simply expired or could this mean that Google no longer sees an unatural backlink profile? Hoping it's the latter but doubtful as we haven't tried to remove any links.. as I say it's just a test site.
Thanks in advance!
-
Sounds good Tom.
-
I would as it is a test site (if it matters you don't do this) Ask Google Apps for some good way to talk to Google (can't hurt) http://google/a
All The best man,
Tom
PS John I meet with you guys very soon
-
Still waiting John.. as expected!
-
Hi Lee, any update on the status of this? Did you ever hear back from Google?
-
Hi Lee,
You got a stay optimistic man sometimes it's essential. Look at your good luck now no penalties and we don't know why but I bet many people would've said that would never happen.
all the best man,
Tom
-
A response from Google Thomas, like your optimism!!
-
Hi Lee,
I would bet if the links are the same it you could have a single link coming from a site that had been connected to a link farm then that link farm was taken down thus eliminating your problem. I can only really guess because unfortunately so many third-party people have some control over whether or not our sites get that links pointed towards them. I wish I could tell you for sure I wonder if because it's only a test site it would be worth actually asking Google? I'd love to hear what they have to say if you do.
All the best,
Thomas
-
Many thanks Thomas, interesting to hear that it may mean that the penalty has been lifted!
No 301's were done, am not sure if any third party site cleaned up their act and by the looks of it no backlinks have been removed, unless of course they simply weren't picked up by Majestic and OSE and we weren't aware of them.
Am still swaying towards the idea of the message simply expiring, but your theory has a lot of legs.. still confused!!!
Lee
Webresence.
-
I would ask myself a few questions as this is test site
1st did I possibly undo a 301 redirect?
2nd did whoever was linking to you that was spamming possibly clean up their act and report that Google?
3rd I would imagine and less the message was deleted or was for another test site that you receive mail for on that webmaster account that Google would not just it in less either somebody else resubmitted the site or somebody else cleaned up your links.
If I had to bet I would say you had some one linking to you that took down their link on their own fixing your problem.
I wish you the best and I hope this is not a real problem.
Sincerely,
Thomas von Zickell
Blueprint Marketing
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
New theme adds ?v=1d20b5ff1ee9 to all URL's as part of cache. How does this affect SEO
New theme I am working in ads ?v=1d20b5ff1ee9 to every URL. Theme developer says its a server setting issue. GoDaddy support says its part of cache an becoming prevalent in new themes. How does this impact SEO?
Technical SEO | | DML-Tampa0 -
Conversion of URL's for Readability
Reading over Rands latest Post about URL structure I had a quick question about the best way to convert URL's that don't have perfect URL structure... Current the Structure of our E-commerce store has a structure that is not friendly with domain.com/product/zdcd-jobd3d-fdoh what is the easiest way to convert these to read URL's without causing any disruptions with the SERP. Are we talking about a MOD-Rewrite in the CMS.......
Technical SEO | | CMcMullen0 -
Backlink Profile: Should I disavow these links? Auto-Generated Links etc
Hello Moz Community, At first I wanted to say that I really like the Q&A section and that I read and learned a lot - and today it is time for my first own question 😉 I checked our backlink-profile these days and I found in my opinion a few bad/spammy links, most of them are auto-generated by pickung up some (meta) information from our webpage. Now my question is if I should dasavow these links over webmasters or if these links shouldn't matter as I guess basically every webpage will be picked up from them. Especially from the perspective that our rankings dropped significantly last weeks, but I am not sure if this can be the real reason. Examples are pages like: https://www.askives.com/ -Auto-Generates for example meta descriptions with links http://www.websitesalike.com/ -find similar websites http://mashrom.ir/ -no idea about this, really crazy Or we are at http://www.europages.com/, which makes sense for me and we get some referral traffic as well, but they auto-generated links from all their TLDs like .gr / .it / .cn etc. -just disavow all other TLDs than .com? Another example would be links from OM services like: seoprofiler.com Moreover we have a lot of links from different HR portals (including really many outdated job postings). Can these links “hurt” as well? Thanks a lot for your help! Greez Heiko
Technical SEO | | _Heiko_0 -
Transferring link juice on a page with over 150 links
I'm building a resource section that will probably, hopefully, attract a lot of external links but the problem here is that on the main index page there will be a big number of links (around 150 internal links - 120 links pointing to resource sub-pages and 30 being the site's navigational links), so it will dilute the passed link juice and possibly waste some of it. Those 120 sub-pages will contain about 50-100 external links and 30 internal navigational links. In order to better visualise the matter think of this resource as a collection of hundreds of blogs categorised by domain on the index page (those 120 sub-pages). Those 120 sub-pages will contain 50-100 external links The question here is how to build the primary page (the one with 150 links) so it will pass the most link juice to the site or do you think this is OK and I shouldn't be worried about it (I know there used to be a roughly 100 links per page limit)? Any ideas? Many thanks
Technical SEO | | flo20 -
Has Google Made Unnatural Link Building Easier?
I see lots of competitors and crappy sites ranking well for highly competitive keywords in the web hosting niche. After analysing their backlinks, I noticed that most of them had only 1 or 2 backlinks to the page they wanted to rank. The anchor text is usually a slight variation of the targeted keyword. Now suppose you are able to rank well for a handful of highly lucrative keywords using very few spammy links. That would mean that even if you got a Penguin penalty, cleaning up your link profile would take an hour at most. I really have no intentions of using this strategy but it's frustrating to see spammy competitors outranking you with crappy sites and a handful of backlinks. Your thoughts?
Technical SEO | | sbrault740 -
How do SE's see abbreviated queries.
Do search engines pay attention to periods in abbreviated queries? If I use Mt. Bachelor all over my site, would SE's not rank my site well for queries that use Mt Bachelor?
Technical SEO | | Shawn_Huber0 -
External Linking & Your sites Link juice
Hey guys, quick question. Does a page lose link juice when it gives link juice? If I link to an outside site, do I lose that same amount of link juice or is it just applied to there site and not removed from mine? I understand that linking to a competitor can in turn help him and hurt me (if he then is seen as more relevant than me to google) but does it have a direct relation to hurting/removing my page link juice? Hope this all makes sense. Thanks
Technical SEO | | SheffieldMarketing0 -
URL's for news content
We have made modifications to the URL structure for a particular client who publishes news articles in various niche industries. In line with SEO best practice we removed the article ID from the URL - an example is below: http://www.website.com/news/123/news-article-title
Technical SEO | | mccormackmorrison
http://www.website.com/news/read/news-article-title Since this has been done we have noticed a decline in traffic volumes (we have not as yet assessed the impact on number of pages indexed). Google have suggested that we need to include unique numerical IDs in the URL somewhere to aid spidering. Firstly, is this policy for news submissions? Secondly (if the previous answer is yes), is this to overcome the obvious issue with the velocity and trend based nature of news submissions resulting in false duplicate URL/ title tag violations? Thirdly, do you have any advice on the way to go? Thanks P.S. One final one (you can count this as two question credits if required), is it possible to check the volume of pages indexed at various points in the past i.e. if you think that the number of pages being indexed may have declined, is there any way of confirming this after the event? Thanks again! Neil0