When to re-submit for reconsideration?
-
Hi! We received a manual penalty notice. We had an SEO company a couple of years ago build some links for us on blogs. Currently we have only about 95 of these links which are pretty easily identifiable by the anchor text used and the blogs or directories they originate from.
So far, we have seen about 35 of those removed and have made 2 contacts to each one via removeem.com.
So, how many contacts do you think need to be made before submitting a reconsideration request? Is 2 enough?
Also, should we use the disavow tool on these remaining 65 links? Every one of the remaining links is from either a filipino blog page or a random article directory.
Finally, do you think we are still getting juice from these links? i.e. if we do remove or disavow these anchor text links are we actually going to see a negative impact?
Thanks for your help and answers!!
Craig
-
sure or e-mail me davec@evolvecreativegroup.com
-
Hi Dave,
Would you mind if I PM you a few of these examples?
Thanks!
Craig
-
I can't answer that accurately without knowing A) What page on the sites you linked link back to your site site. B) What your website is about (theme, category etc.).
-
Thanks Dave. Would you agree that the links above are the types of sites we need to be removing and shouldn't hurt us if we remove them or disavow them?
Here are a few more examples:
http://linkssolutions.org
http://alcoosite.org
http://dbindex.info
http://xyzdirectory.info
http://topdirlisting.com
http://freearticlesinc.com
http://seenation.com
http://articlerich.com
http://ipunjab.comThe blog posts I know need to go. It is the article and directory sites that I am a little unsure of.
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Craig
-
You're lucky you got a manual penalty and not an algorithmic one. When you get a manual penalty you get to use the disavow tool, say your sorry, and come back. Don't hesitate to use the disavow tool since you got the manual letter.
-
Yikes on the 5000 bad links! Yes, we are lucky. However, I am a little concerned that Google thinks we have more bad links than we do and is considering our organic links as paid or something. See (http://www.seomoz.org/q/to-remove-or-not-to-remove)
Here I will give you a few examples of the sites that are linking to us and can say that pretty much all of the sites that we have set apart as bad links are similar to these. These are the only links that were paid via this SEO company. These seem like obvious sites for the disavow tool, but just want to be sure. I am heard so many cautionary comments on the disavow tool, that I wonder if we should use it at all.
http://www.sackthetickettax.com/
http://www.cowboysandangels.info/
http://www.businessdesmoines.com/
http://www.vespertinecrawl.com/
If any of these seem like sites we would want to keep links from, please let me know. Or, if they all seem like links we would definitely want to disavow, let me know as well.
Thanks for your help and quick answer!
Craig
-
First, I think you're lucky that you only have 60 links outstanding, we recently took a client that had over 5000 bad links!!
If you have emailed or tried to contact the remaining websites then I'd say its time to turn to the disavow tool. Be really careful though when using it because you have to be 100% sure that these are bad links before disavowing them. Once you have submitted the disavow file (which can take a week or 2 to filter through to Google) you will get a message in Webmaster Tools to tell you they have received it.
I'd say at this point, resubmit for reconsideration. If you have evidence that you tried to contact these websites then include that in your request because Google wants to see that you have made an effort to get them removed first.
If the links are as bad as you say then they are probably doing more bad than good so don't worry about the link juice they are passing.
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
-
Duplicate, submitted URL not selected as canonical
Hi all, A number of our pages have dropped out of search rankings. It seems they are being marked as "Duplicate, submitted URL not selected as canonical" However, the page Google is choosing as the canonical is totally different - different headings, titles, metadata, content on the page. We are completely mystified as to why this is happening. If anyone can shed any light, it would be hugely appreciated! Example URL is this one:
Technical SEO | | Eric_S
https://www.vouchedfor.co.uk/IFA-financial-advisor-mortgage/london Which Google seems to think is a duplicate of this: https://www.vouchedfor.co.uk/solicitor/london0 -
If I'm using a compressed sitemap (sitemap.xml.gz) that's the URL that gets submitted to webmaster tools, correct?
I just want to verify that if a compressed sitemap file is being used, then the URL that gets submitted to Google, Bing, etc and the URL that's used in the robots.txt indicates that it's a compressed file. For example, "sitemap.xml.gz" -- thanks!
Technical SEO | | jgresalfi0 -
Is it worth re-structuring URLs if breadcrumbs are enabled?
Hi Moz Community, I am wondering if anyone can shed some light on this current predicament I am facing... For my website, which is the site for a magazine I work for, the current URL structure is www.website.com/article-title At first glance, I thought it must be that we would have to re-structure the URLs to include the category structure, for example... www.website.com/category/sub-category/article-title However, upon deeper investigation, I've seen that we do actually have breadcrumbs enabled therefore google is indexing and following the structure that we would re-activate for the URL structure i.e. www.website.com/category/sub-category/article-title With this in mind, is it actually worth re-structuring the URLs to include these categories as it will take a long time to organise and implement?! Obviously, thinking in terms of UX, it is a must-do, but I'm just trying to weigh up the pro's and cons with this.. Appreciate your help, Leigh
Technical SEO | | leighcounsell0 -
Do I submit a sitemap for a highly dynamic site or not? If so, what's the best way to go about doing it?
I do SEO for online boutique marketplace. I've been here for about 4 weeks and no one's done there SEO (they've been around for about 5 years), so there's lots to do. A big concern is whether or not to submit a sitemap, and if I do submit one, what's the best way to go about doing one.
Technical SEO | | Jane.com0 -
How do I get my pages to go from "Submitted" to "Indexed" in Google Webmaster Tools?
Background: I recently launched a new site and it's performing much better than the old site in terms of bounce rate, page view, pages per session, session duration, and conversions. As suspected, sessions, users, and % new sessions are all down. Which I'm okay with because the the old site had a lot of low quality traffic going to it. The traffic we have now is much more engaged and targeted. Lastly, the site was built using Squarespace and was launched the middle of August. **Question: **When reviewing Google Webmaster Tools' Sitemaps section, I noticed it says 57 web pages Submitted, but only 5 Indexed! The sitemap that's submitted seems to be all there. I'm not sure if this is a Squarespace thing or what. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks!!
Technical SEO | | Nate_D0 -
302 redirect used, submit old sitemap?
The website of a partner of mine was recently migrated to a new platform. Even though the content on the pages mostly stayed the same, both the HTML source (divs, meta data, headers, etc.) and URLs (removed index.php, removed capitalization, etc) changed heavily. Unfortunately, the URLs of ALL forum posts (150K+) were redirected using a 302 redirect, which was only recently discovered and swiftly changed to a 301 after the discovery. Several other important content pages (150+) weren't redirected at all at first, but most now have a 301 redirect as well. The 302 redirects and 404 content pages had been live for over 2 weeks at that point, and judging by the consistent day/day drop in organic traffic, I'm guessing Google didn't like the way this migration went. My best guess would be that Google is currently treating all these content pages as 'new' (after all, the source code changed 50%+, most of the meta data changed, the URL changed, and a 302 redirect was used). On top of that, the large number of 404's they've encountered (40K+) probably also fueled their belief of a now non-worthy-of-traffic website. Given that some of these pages had been online for almost a decade, I would love Google to see that these pages are actually new versions of the old page, and therefore pass on any link juice & authority. I had the idea of submitting a sitemap containing the most important URLs of the old website (as harvested from the Top Visited Pages from Google Analytics, because no old sitemap was ever generated...), thereby re-pointing Google to all these old pages, but presenting them with a nice 301 redirect this time instead, hopefully causing them to regain their rankings. To your best knowledge, would that help the problems I've outlined above? Could it hurt? Any other tips are welcome as well.
Technical SEO | | Theo-NL0 -
Once we make changes to our site is there a way to force the engines to re-crawl it faster?
After we implement canonicals URLs, or make some other significant change to our site that is going to impact our SEO, is there a way to force Google or other search engines to re-index us faster? Would manually re-submitting a sitemap do this?
Technical SEO | | askotzko0 -
When is the best time to submit a sitemap?
What changes to a website constitute resubmitting a sitemap? For example, if I add new in-site links, should I then resubmit? Or is it more for changes to URLs, Page titles, etc?
Technical SEO | | MichaelWeisbaum0