Preparing for Penguin: Remove, Disavow, or change to branded
-
For someone that has 80 root domains pointing to their domain and 10 of them are sitewide backlinks from 10 PR4+ sites. All paid for. All with the same main keyword anchor text
Should I advise him to remove the links, dissavow the links, dissavow then remove or just change to branded anchor text for the 10 sitewide links. Another option is to just keep one link (preferrably editorial) from each site.
The only reason not to pull them off right away is that the client could not sustain his business with a drop in sales. These are by far the strongest 10 root domains. Eventually, when he has enough good backlinks these are all coming off.
There was a huge drop in sales for this site last fall, but it recovered almost completely by changing keyword stuffing and adding ecommerce content.
Looking to keep his sales and also prepare for this years updates.
-
Hey Bob, if those links are topic-related and aren't delivering you any traffic I agree with Thom in his huge and detailed answer. Swap it to an editorial article to an improtant page of your site would be my pick.
-
You're exactly right on what I meant when I referred to relevancy, Bob. Doesn't need to be exactly the same niche, but a reader would immediately understand why these two sites might be talking about each other.
So yea, I'd say trying to replace the sitewide with an editorial link to a relevant page on your site (same criteria) is probably the best/safest way to try to hold onto some of that ranking juice.
Glad you found it helpful - appreciate you letting me know.
Paul
-
I spoke to the owner. There's only 4 in question and one nofollow now
On the 4, I looked and they're not generating traffic. I'm unclear what you mean by relevant in this case. They are generally related to our niche as, for example, an informational clothing site (backlink provider) is related to a store that sells socks (our site)
We have 81 linking root domains and one nice piece of content if that helps.
What do you recommend for these 4? I'm guessing swapping for an editorial link is your recommendation, but due to not exact niche relevancy, I'm wondering if you'll suggest removal.
Thanks for the awesome advice, btw
-
You're in a delicate spot, Bob. I'd say your plan should be to "hope for the best, but plan for the worst".
Obviously, as you indicated, you're going to need to do something about those links as that link profile is just begging to get hammered.
You could clean them all at once, take the traffic hit, and then try to build back as quick as possible, but if the site is doing well now, it seems a shame to take such a hit.
I'd suggest putting a clear, well-prioritized, well-funded plan in place to start building link-worthy content and promoting it in ways that earn those backlinks as quickly as possible. (This work is going to have to be done regardless, so not like it's a temporary expense).
Then, for every 6 or 8 new quality incoming links, clean up one of the 10 problematic links. This will look natural to the SEs (as it is natural) and hopefully won't attract the attention of the slappers while you're working through the process.
Best case scenario, you'll get through offsetting all the problem links without getting hurt by a penalty or algo update.
In order to be ready in case of the worst-case scenario, (Google slaps the site with a penalty a week from now), you should also immediately build a confirmed contact list of the webmasters in control of the problematic links. (I mean an email or phone number that you've confirmed actually gets a response from a human). That way if you get hit before you can clean up naturally, you can get those problem links dealt with immediately and can show Google what you've done in a quick reconsideration request.
Also, document the process as you work through attracting the new links, so you can be specific about what you've been doing in that direction, should a reconsideration request become necessary
As far as how to deal with the problem links - do not submit a disavow!! That is a last-ditch process if there's no other way to get links removed, which is not your case. (Plus the disavow process could attract unwanted attention. Yea, I'm cynical like that
I'd actually suggest a mix of tactics for those 10 sites, depending on different circumstances:
- If a site's links are generating quality traffic, just ask that they be no-followed.
- If using the no-follow approach on a number of the sites, also see if they can mix up the anchor text, making sure to include at least some branded (as you hinted)
- If the main value of the links is for juice, and the site is relevant to your own, ask that they be swapped for a legit editorial link or two. A couple of the strong, new, link-worthy content resources you've just built will help here. (And will probably be stronger than a sitewide anyway)
- If the links aren't generating quality traffic and aren't relevant to your niche, just get them removed.
Does that approach sound like it might work?
Paul
-
Hi Bob, normally I would advice to remove clearly paid links or limit them to the homepage but your case seems quite different.
You said that those links are not only helping this site for their SEO purposes but that those links are driving him sales. In that case I imagine that those links are receiving clicks so they're actually highly related. I think that google will (or maybe it's actually) look at CTR of your backlinks. If they're trafficked they're high value also for the users so I will maintain them. However if you've generated them quicker than the normal you may consider use them as nofollowed links driving traffic to their site and ask those sites to write a post speaking about your company's services. In that sense you may push in a branded or url based link and still have the traffic from those links. I f you are able to get value and traffic from those links I woul dnot remove them, and for sure I won't ever disavow anything if you haven't received any warning from google.
Maybe you may consider to point them in a spreadsheet so if you receive a warning you'll always be able to disavow them and ask for a reconsideration.
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
-
Killed by penguin 3
So with the update to penguin 3.0 last week we notice that some clients have been significantly hit by the update. How do we rectify the situation for the poor links that are on the site. We have used open site explorer and Google webmaster to try and identify which are the bad links to try and remove. Now we can spot that some inbound links are from directories that may be perceived as low value/spam, but could not be sure what is affecting the ranking. The vast majority of these links are historical prior to inheriting this client recently and so do not have any logins to remove the links (if there are logins). These appear to be placed by teams outsourced in India. We would suspect that no site owner would spend the time removing links from the site any way. How do we recover from the penguin hit. Is it just a case of trying to identify ones that we suspect could be perceived as spam and ask for these to be disavowed by Google? Do we contact all the sites to ask them to be removed and/or do we just push ahead with more engaging white hat methods of social SEO? Are we likely to recover in the short term or be permanently hit. The site is for a small business with no more than 800 monthly hits so this fall from grace off very good front page positions is going to hit our client very hard even if the sins are from a previous business. Any thoughts and suggestions PLEASE HELP
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | smartcow0 -
Should we remove our "index" pages (alphabetical link list to all of the products on the site)?
We run an e-commerce site with a large number of product families, with each family having a number of products within it. We have a set of pages (26 - one for each letter A-Z) that are lists of links to the product family pages. We originally created these pages thinking it would aid in discoverability of these pages to search engines, of course as time has gone on, techniques like this have fallen out of favor with Google as it provides negligible value to the user. Should we consider removing these pages from the site overall? Is it possible that it could be viewed by Panda as resembling a link farm? Thanks in advance!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ChrisRoberts-MTI1 -
Is this negative SEO? Should I disavow these links?
We have been doing our own internal link building for the last year and getting nice backlinks. As of the last few days, ahrefs is showing a lot of new links that seem very spammy. We have not hired anyone to do link building for us, and these are all being created on these sites under the same user name. There is a good amount of them popping up, and I fear we will be subjected to a google pentalty for unnatural links if its not addressed. My first question is, am I correct thinking this is negative seo, and not some random sites that picked up our content and is going across their affiliate websites? If so, then should I preemptively disavow all these links? Are there any good ways to stop this? How can I track who is placing these garbage links? Here are some examples of these bad links. I know I can find the webmaster via a whois but I think that really wont get me anywhere, but I could be wrong. Here are some examples of the links that started popping up yesterday and today. http://pligg-cms.info/story.php?title=student-loan-debt-relief
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | DemiGR
http://www.sharklinks.info/story.php?title=-student-loan-consolidation-options
http://factson37.com/story.php?title=student-loan-debt-forgiveness-website
http://social-marker.info/story.php?title=-student-loan-debt-forgiveness
http://makingbookmarks.info/story.php?title=-student-loan-consolidation-options
http://bookmarkingforseo.com/story.php?title=top-student-loan-consolidation-options
http://jadelinks.info/story.php?title=-student-loan-consolidation-options There are quite a bit more and they don't seem to be stopping. All of them look pretty much identical to this. Thoughts?1 -
Is this traffic drop do to cutting backlinks or Penguin 2.0 (Graphs attached)
I've attached both graphs of the traffic drop. Our website rankings have been steadily declining since May of 2013. We have mostly return customers or our drop would have been much more severe. There's never been any warnings in GWT We cut a bunch (but not all) of our paid links in May of 2013. We didn't have a manual penalty or anything, we just wanted to see what happened if we moved towards being white hat. When our rankings plumited, we quit cutting links. We currently have about 30% paid links. Penguin 2.0 was May 22, 2013 In looking at these graphs, was it our cutting links that caused the traffic drop, or was it Penguin 2.0? I'm looking for people who have experience in diagnosing a "Unique Visits" Google analytics graph for Penguin and have experience with what happens when you cut links. It looks like, in viewing the graphs, that May 23 was more the day that the big drop happened, but you guys have more experience with this than me. Thank you. ga.png ga2.png
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobGW0 -
11 000 links from 2 blogs + Many bad links = Penguin 2.0\. What is the real cause?
Hello, A website has : 1/ 8000 inbound links from 1 blog and 3000 from another one. They are clean and good blogs, all links are NOT marked as no-follow. 2/ Many bad links from directories that have been unindexed or penalized by Google On the 22nd of May, the website got hurt by Penguin 2.0. The link profile contains many directories and articles. The priority we had so far was unindexing the bad links, however shall we no-follow the blog links as well? Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | antoine.brunel0 -
Removing/ Redirecting bad URL's from main domain
Our users create content for which we host on a seperate URL for a web version. Originally this was hosted on our main domain. This was causing problems because Google was seeing all these different types of content on our main domain. The page content was all over the place and (we think) may have harmed our main domain reputation. About a month ago, we added a robots.txt to block those URL's in that particular folder, so that Google doesn't crawl those pages and ignores it in the SERP. We now went a step further and are now redirecting (301 redirect) all those user created URL's to a totally brand new domain (not affiliated with our brand or main domain). This should have been done from the beginning, but it wasn't. Any suggestions on how can we remove all those original URL's and make Google see them as not affiliated with main domain?? or should we just give it the good ol' time recipe for it to fix itself??
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | redcappi0 -
Removing Poison Links w/o Disavow
Okay so I've been working at resolving former black-hat SEO tactics for this domain for many many months. Finally our main keyword is falling down the rankings like crazy no matter how many relevant, quality links I bring to the domain. So I'm ready to take action today. There is one inner-page which is titled exactly as the keyword we are trying to match. Let's call it "inner-page.html" This page has nothing but poison links with exact match anchor phrases pointing at it. The good links I've built are all pointed at the domain itself. So what I want to do is change the url of this page and let all of the current poison links 404. I don't trust the disavow tool and feel like this will be a better option. So I'm going to change the page's url to "inner_page.html" or in otherwords, simply changed to an underscore instead of a hyphen. How effective do you think this will be as far as 404ing the bad links and does anybody out there have experience using this method? And of course, as always, I'll keep you all posted on what happens with this. Should be an interesting experiment at least. One thing I'm worried about is the traffic sources. We seem to have a ton of direct traffic coming to that page. I don't really understand where or why this is taking place... Anybody have any insight into direct traffic sources to inner-pages? There's no reason for current clients to visit and potentials shouldn't be returning so often... I don't know what the deal is there but "direct" is like our number 2 or 3 traffic source. Am I shooting myself in the foot here? Here we go!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | jesse-landry0 -
How to handle footer links after Penguin?
With the launch of Google's Penguin I know that footer links could possibly hurt rankings. Also too many links on a page are also bad. I have a client http://www.m-scribe.com That has footer links creating well over 100 links on many of their pages. How should I handle these footer links? Suggestions are greatly appreciated.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RonMedlin0