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
-
Moving from no follow to follow links on our eCommerce site
Hi everyone, I recently taken on an SEO eCommerce account and found that all the footer links have a no follow attribute. I've requested that the no follow tags be removed as the pages are quite valuable (about us, finance, recycling, help centre etc). I've been asked what the risks are and all I can think of is a slightly increased number of pages for Google to Crawl. Are there any other risks you can think of? Does anyone have experience around making this type of change? For benefits, I believe that it will make our content look more trustworthy to Google and help with traffic through to those pages in the SERPs. Any other pros you can think of will be a great help.
Technical SEO | | RebekahVP0 -
Site address change: new site isn't showing up in Google, old site is gone.
We just transitioned mccacompanies.com to confluentstrategies.com. The problem is that when I search for the old name, the old website doesn't come up anymore to redirect people to the new site. On the local card, Google has even taken off the website altogether. (I'm currently still trying to gain access to manage the business listing) When I search for confluent strategies, the website doesn't come up at all. But if I use the site: operator, it is in the index. Basically, my client has effectively disappeared off the face of the Google. (In doing other name changes, this has never happened to me before) What can I do?
Technical SEO | | MichaelGregory0 -
Disavow links and domain of SPAM links
Hi, I have a big problem. For the past month, my company website has been scrape by hackers. This is how they do it: 1. Hack un-monitored and/or sites that are still using old version of wordpress or other out of the box CMS. 2. Created Spam pages with links to my pages plus plant trojan horse and script to automatically grab resources from my server. Some sites where directly uploaded with pages from my sites. 3. Pages created with title, keywords and description which consists of my company brand name. 4. Using http-referrer to redirect google search results to competitor sites. What I have done currently: 1. Block identified site's IP in my WAF. This prevented those hacked sites to grab resources from my site via scripts. 2. Reach out to webmasters and hosting companies to remove those affected sites. Currently it's not quite effective as many of the sites has no webmaster. Only a few hosting company respond promptly. Some don't even reply after a week. Problem now is: When I realized about this issue, there were already hundreds if not thousands of sites which has been used by the hacker. Literally tens of thousands of sites has been crawled by google and the hacked or scripted pages with my company brand title, keywords, description has already being index by google. Routinely everyday I am removing and disavowing. But it's just so much of them now indexed by Google. Question: 1. What is the best way now moving forward for me to resolve this? 2. Disavow links and domain. Does disavowing a domain = all the links from the same domain are disavow? 3. Can anyone recommend me SEO company which dealt with such issue before and successfully rectified similar issues? Note: SEAGM is company branded keyword 5CGkSYM.png
Technical SEO | | ahming7770 -
Spam links - which link is most damaging to my rankings.
I have just started using Open Site Explorer and discovered a lot of spam links to my website.
Technical SEO | | A.Ronny
(I have mostly ranked on page for many years one but in the last two weeks ranking have dropped to page two)
The links have Anchor Text such as Scam - Dishonest - Drugs. Most of the of the links are "nofollow".
Will links with "nofollow" affect my ranking and if so which of the links should i priorities to remove?
Do I look at Link Equity - Domain Authority - Page Authority or other criteria? Many thanks
Ronny0 -
Will you get more 'google juice' if your social links are in your websites header, rather than its footer?
Hi team, I'm in the process of making some aesthetic changes to my website. Its getting quite cluttered so the main purpose is to clean up its look. I currently have 3x social links in the header, right at the top, and i would really like to move these to the footer to remove some clutter in the header. My concern is that moving them may have an impact on the domains ranking in google. Website: www.mountainjade.co.nz We've made some huge gains against our competitors over the past 6 months and I don't want to jeopardise that. Any help would be much appreciated as i'm self taught in SEO and have learnt through making mistakes. This time however, with Moz, i'd rather get some advice before I make any decisions! Thanks is advance, Jake S
Technical SEO | | Jacobsheehan0 -
Why Doesn't All Structured Data Show in Google Webmaster?
We have more than 80k products, each of them with data-vocabulary.org markup on them, but only 17k are being reported as having the markup in Google Webmaster (GW). If I run a page that GW isn't showing as having the structure data in the structured data testing tool (http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets), it passes. Any thoughts on why this would be happening? Is it because we should switch from data-vocabulary.org to schema.org? Example of page that GW is reporting that has structured data: https://www.etundra.com/restaurant-equipment/refrigeration/display-cases/coutnertop/vollrath-40862-36-inch-cubed-glass-refrigerated-display-cabinet/ Example of page that isn't showing in GW as having structured data: https://www.etundra.com/kitchen-supplies/cutlery/sandwich-spreaders/mundial-w5688-4-and-half-4-and-half-sandwich-spreader/
Technical SEO | | eTundra0 -
Can't find mistake in robots.txt
Hi all, we recently filled our robots.txt file to prevent some directories from crawling. Looks like: User-agent: * Disallow: /Views/ Disallow: /login/ Disallow: /routing/ Disallow: /Profiler/ Disallow: /LILLYPROFILER/ Disallow: /EventRweKompaktProfiler/ Disallow: /AccessIntProfiler/ Disallow: /KellyIntProfiler/ Disallow: /lilly/ now, as Google Webmaster Tools hasn't updated our robots.txt yet, I checked our robots.txt in some ckeckers. They tell me that the User agent: * contains an error. **Example:** **Line 1: Syntax error! Expected <field>:</field> <value></value> 1: User-agent: *** **`I checked other robots.txt written the same way --> they work,`** accordign to the checkers... **`Where the .... is the mistake???`** ```
Technical SEO | | accessKellyOCG0 -
Recommend a good way to audit outbound links
So maybe SEOmoz offers this but I am just having a brain fart today, but what is a good tool to audit all of the outbound links on a certain website? We have our main corporate owners interested in being better at linking to us and our properties. How can we find out who they are currently linking to in a simple excel spreadsheet format?
Technical SEO | | kerplow0