I am cleaning up a clients link profile and am coming across a lot of directories (no surprise) My question is if an obvious fre for all generic directory doesn't look to have been hit by any updates is it a wise move recommending tit for removal?
-
I am cleaning up a clients link profile and am coming across a lot of directories (no surprise)
My question is, if an obvious free for all generic directory doesn't look to have been hit by any updates is it a wise move recommending it for removal on the basis that it is a free for all directory and could be hit in teh future?
-
I agree with Mark Scully on this one, but would like to add some thoughts:
If you are looking to clean out your backlink profile you should go about it in a very methodical fashion. I would recommend exporting the links to an Excel file and then, in a new sheet, start skimming and categorizing them -needs more research; relevant; potentially harmful; show stopper. It will be time consuming but once you have a basic categorization set you can start reaching out.
There is a real possibility that many of the directory links are from neglected and orphaned directories and that the contact e-mail may not be in operation anymore. When you find this to be the case, note it on your categorized Excel sheet. Note the date you sent the link removal request and note the response; if there is no response, note that as well. Be realistic concerning the expected reply time (this is a big deal to you; it is probably not a big deal to those hosting the directories) and send out second and third requests.
If it was me, I would concentrate on the two most harmful categories and give them a real thorough going through. After a few weeks (I know, it's a long-ish project) you should have a nice detailed actions-taken report and should feel comfortable utilizing the disavow links tool if needed.
Note: This tool, from what I understand, is not a click-and-fix and you will need to have a file of the links you would like disavowed to upload to Google for review. Barry Schwartz, over at seroundtable.com, has a nice post concerning this and he supplies an example of what a disavow report might look like:
Watch the video by Matt Cutts explaining the tool and use it with caution and only as a last resort; don't spam them with reports.
One final note: Some of these links may not be harming you as of now. Use your best judgement and ask yourself this question: "if I knew another penguin update was coming tomorrow, would having this link cause me to worry?" It isn't always a straightforward answer, but if you find yourself stretching and searching for a rational to view the link as relevant or user-centric, then it probably isn't.
I am sure there is plenty more to say on the topic, and I hope some others chime in with their thoughts. It's time to earn that paycheck.
Keep us posted, and happy digging.
-
Good point Mark that seems a much safer approach.
-
Hi Mark,
Just to clarify, the complete number of backlinks to their site is 13500? I would be quite cautious about deleting 90% of them. I'm sure some of them stand out as more toxic than others. It would be worth focusing on them first.
I know a lot of people have mixed opinions about link cleanup (whether it should be done or not) but if you managed to delete even half of the poor quality links to the site, it should be a clear enough message to Google that you're taking the warning seriously.
If a re-inclusion request fails, you could go deeper then.
-
Hi Mark
Thats kind of what I am thinking. I am going through 13500 links at the moment and it is killing me. Seeing directory after directory is very painful.
Upto now im looking at killing around 90% of the links for this particluar client as they are made up from these types of directories.
Althoughs ome of them still show very high DA and PA aswell as high TBPR in my heart I can't see how they could possibly add value to a users experience as I can't see why anybody would use them to find anything. Everybody knows that these types of directories exist for the sole purpose of obtaining links so surely it would make sense to kill the link even if it is helping at the minute?
-
Hi Mark,
I've had to do a lot of backlink analysis and removal before so this is my view.
If the directory lists links in an unnatural looking manner (i.e. just a long list with little text about the link), I would remove it. Some directories have managed to avoid any algorithm updates for now but I'm sure they will eventually get hit.
The volume of link removal you do will really depend on how large your back link profile is. I had to work through about 20,000 links which needed to be removed as they were from low quality article sites and directories. We received the unnatural link warning in GWMT and filed a re-inclusion request. This got turned down and so we had to dig even deeper into the links pointing to our site.
Just be consious of how many 'good' links you do have. If you go straight into removing a lot of directory links and leave yourself with very few 'good' links to your site, it could be an issue for you. It's really your call.
Personally, I'd remove them if the directory looks poor, has no social media presence and looks spammy.
-
Personally, if a site has been hit with a warning, then I would go through and remove everything that isn't a decent link back and I would be targeting directories as well - but this wouldn't be a complete removal - I would need to look at each first. Saying that, if I see www.greatbigdirectory4u.com, then this sort get immediate removal.
I'm not saying that every directory is a waste, because some can offer value - have a look at www.seomoz.org/directories as an example of decent ones.
Andy
-
Site has been hit witha link warning.
Removing manually first off anyway. Disavow last resort from our end.
Nothing in the pipline but have noticed a lot of directories have been hit recently so I am guessing it will happen at some stage.
I am also expecting a few different views on this but would be nice to hear them. Whats your stance Andy would you kill or leave?
-
You are likely to get different feelings on this Mark.
However, are you thinking about using the disavow tool? If so, only do so if the client has been hit with a link warning. If not, and you just want to get rid of directories, then I would try and remove listings through direct contact.
As for FFA directories getting a hit in the future, I haven't seen Google state this could happen (unless I have missed something).
Andy
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
-
We just can't figure out the right anchor text to use
We have been trying everything we can with anchor text. We have read here that we should try naturalistic language. Our competitors who are above us in Google search results don't do any of this. They only use their names or a single term like "austin web design". Is what we are doing hurting our listings? We don't have any black hat links. Here's what we are doing now. We are going crazy trying to figure this out. We are afraid to do anything in fear it will damage our position. Bob | pallasart web design | 31 | 1,730 |
Technical SEO | | pallasart
| website by pallasart a texas web design company in austin | 15 | 1,526 |
| website by the austin design company pallasart | 14 | 1,525 |
| created by pallasart a web design company in austin texas | 13 | 1,528 |
| created by an austin web design company pallasart | 12 | 1,499 |
| website by pallasart web design an austin web design company | 12 | 1,389 |
| website by pallasart an austin web design company | 11 | 1,463 |
| pallasart austin web design | 9 | 2,717 |
| website created by pallasart a web design company in austin texas | 9 | 1,369 |
| website by pallasart | 8 | 910 |
| austin web design | 5 | 63 |
| pallasart website design austin |0 -
My Home Page meta title on Google isn't what it should be
Hey guys My website is http://www.oxfordmeetsfifth.com According to SEOcentro, my website should appear to Google as Fashion Tips for Women | Oxford Meets Fifth. I have used the Yoast plugin and force rewrote titles to ensure that is the home page meta title. It also appears correctly in browser. Could anyone advise why this is the case? Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | OxfordMeetsFifth0 -
How can I get the most out of uploading a print magazine to my client's website?
Hi Mozers, My client is just about to launch a print magazine for her watch business. There is so much valuable content in the magazine and we want to feature it on the website both for SEO purposes and also for those who prefer to read articles online instead of reading a physical magazine. My question is: what is the best method of displaying the magazine to get the most from search rankings and also to capitalise on the beautiful imagery from the magazine. The best option that I can think of is to upload the magazine as a flipbook and create a separate page on the website to display each article so that search engine crawlers can index the content. I do understand that this could be problematic if users are only spending time reading the flipbook and not so much time on the article pages. Do you guys have any suggestions about how to get the most out of this opportunity for my client? THANK YOU IN ADVANCE. Meaghan
Technical SEO | | StoryScout0 -
How is this site ranking so well? Their link profile is awful and website is messy and difficult to use?
Hi folks, This question has been baffling me for some time now and I'm still struggling to get to the bottom of it. www.sterlingbuild.co.uk is the website of choice for Google when it comes to searches relating to roof windows, velux windows, fakro windows etc. I can't understand why? Their link profile is atrocious. I'm struggling to find one 'high quality' link in their profile at all. Most of their links are guest blog posts which Google is apparently now treating as spam, or links from other sites that they own - also spam. The design of the site is incredibly messy and confusing. But one of the biggest flaws of the site (which I am suspicious may also be what is helping them) is they list every single different size of window as a different product. So whereas with most websites in this market, you search for the type of window you want e.g. a VELUX GGL 3050 window, and then choose the size you need from a drop-down menu, Sterlingbuild list every size as a different product. So you have to scroll through reams of product listings to find the window type in the right size before you get to any information about the product itself. Not to mention, their site is riddled with duplicate content because 12 different sizes of product are not different products, they are the same product, just a different size, so they have the identical product description for numerous separate pages basically selling the same product. How on earth has Google decided this is the best website in the marketplace when it comes to roof windows?
Technical SEO | | LukeyB301 -
Link removal from search rank checking sites
I'm going through the link removal process for unnatural links to a site. While I'm able to identify the obvious link profile and seo-article links that Google wants removed, what should we do about the links that are generated by the various seo link investigation and ranking services? Example: http://www.seoprofiler.com/analyze/allamericanfencing.com This site (seoprofiler) automatically creates these links to web sites when it generates its reports. Are those links that need to be removed or disavowed, or will Google not care? I want to err on the side of caution, but don't know how to treat these types of pages. The site didn't ask for or lobby for those links, so it's "natural" in that sense, but they're not editorially earned either (except for happen to be ranking for a similar term). Does anyone have experience on this aspect of the unnatural link grooming process?
Technical SEO | | CHarkins0 -
Why can't i get the page if i type/paste url directly?
Hello, just click the following link, http://www.tuscany-cooking-class.com/es/alojamiento/villa-pandolfini/ It might be show the 404 page, but follow this way, www.tuscany-cooking-class.com/es then select alojamiento link, then select first property name with villa-pandolfini, Now you can view the page content, why it behave like this, We are using joomla with customized. Anyone help me to fix this issue Thanks Advance Alex
Technical SEO | | massimobrogi0 -
We changed the URL structure 10 weeks ago and Google hasn't indexed it yet...
We recently modified the whole URL structure on our website, which resulted in huge amount of 404 pages changing them to nice human readable urls. We did this in the middle of March - about 10 weeks ago... We used to have around 5000 404 pages in the beginning, but this number is decreasing slowly. (We have around 3000 now). On some parts of the website we have also set up a 301 redirect from the old URLs to the new ones, to avoid showing a 404 page thus making the “indexing transmission”, but it doesn’t seem to have made any difference. We've lost a significant amount of traffic, because of the URL changes, as Google removed the old URLs, but hasn’t indexed our new URLs yet. Is there anything else we can do to get our website indexed with the new URL structure quicker? It might also be useful to know that we are a page rank 4 and have over 30,000 unique users a month so I am sure Google often comes to the site quite often and pages we have made since then that only have the new url structure are indexed within hours sometimes they appear in search the next day!
Technical SEO | | jack860 -
I just found something weird I can't explain, so maybe you guys can help me out.
I just found something weird I can't explain, so maybe you guys can help me out. In Google http://www.google.nl/#hl=nl&q=internet. The number 3 result is a big telecom provider in the Netherland called Ziggo. The ranking URL is https://www.ziggo.nl/producten/internet/. However if you click on it you'll be directed to https://www.ziggo.nl/#producten/internet/ HttpFox in FF however is not showing any redirects. Just a 200 status code. The URL https://www.ziggo.nl/#producten/internet/ contains a hash, so the canonical URL should be https://www.ziggo.nl/. I can understand that. But why is Google showing the title and description of https://www.ziggo.nl/producten/internet/, when the canonical URL clearly is https://www.ziggo.nl/? Can anyone confirm my guess that Google is using the bulk SEO value (link juice/authority) of the homepage at https://www.ziggo.nl/ because of the hash, but it's using the relevant content of https://www.ziggo.nl/producten/internet/ resulting in a top position for the keyword "internet".
Technical SEO | | NEWCRAFT0