Need Advice: How should we handle this situation?
-
Hi Folks,
We have a blog post on one of our sites that ranked very highly for lucrative term for about a period of two months. It had over 2000 Facebook likes, about 20 tweets and the same amount of Google +1's.
The post ended up receiving several high quality natural links, and we also pointed a few authoritative links to it from our network of sites.
After we saw the ranking starting to slip we did a bit of link building (which we shouldn't have done) and ended up making a big mistake. The link building company was only supposed to do 30 links and they ended up doing 600.
Once we figured it out, we immediately submitted a disavow request and told Google about our mistake.
I also thought maybe we then had a manual spam penalty applied so I also submitted a reconsideration request (and also told them about our mistake) but got back a canned reply saying "no manual penalties" were found.
After we did all that, we saw the rankings fall out of the top 50 with the next 10 days.
I'm confident we can throw up a new similar blog post and see close the same rankings we experienced with the original post. But before I do that, I have two questions:
- Should we 301 the old post to the new post? Could that some how "pass" the bad rankings along to the new post?
- What should we do about the natural links we received? Should we try and reach out to the sites and get them to change their links to the new post?
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
-
I didn't mean to sound harsh or critical... so please don't take it that way. I've been in the situation of destroying my own stuff thanks to bad advice and bad links before... so I know how hard it can be.
In your case, I don't think the 301 is necessary. Like Dana said, it could just be fluctuations and over the coming weeks, months, etc. that article could wind up getting more link love and ranking better again.
Great, original content will garner new links to your site & articles. Work on creating new content and keeping things fresh so you're a resource to your customers, fans, industry, etc. and the good vibes will flow (hopefully). Anything vaguely unnatural with link building nowadays has the potential to turn around and bite you. So when you have a great article that is doing well and drawing in the readers and the rankings start to slip... give it some time, see if its just natural fluctuations, do some testing, etc. so you can do even better with the next one.
-
I agree with Mike. It sounds like you've probably already learned that lesson the hard way.
One other thing I would suggest is don't take down that blog post that was ranking well. Just leave it alone. Look at it this way, if you produced great content once and achieved a great ranking, you should be able to produce another piece of great content.
If you do decide to remove the old post, I would advise you not to 301 redirect the old link to your new content. Better safe than sorry!
I hope this helps. Please let us know what happens.
The reason I advise you not to take down that old post, is that's entirely possible that your are experiencing a temporary decrease in positioning and that you might see it pop back up in a week or two. I have definitely seen wild volatility like this, even with well-established product pages on ecommerce sites.
-
Mike is right on. You just need to get back to work building links and content. (or the other way around)
You can 301 if you want. Won't be much of a point because yes, it will pass the "bad rankings.." although I'm not sure that's what's going on here. 301 passes link juice, meaning good and bad. It's simply informing the world that "hey, this page lives over here now so carry on." If you want to truly start over, you must do just that.
Yes, reach out to the natural links and inform them. You can do so in a way that is enticing to a webmaster. Don't forget, you're asking them to do work for you. Make it seem worth their while. Be polite and phrase it in a way like "hey just so you know that link is now broken. In order to improve functionality and user experience you may want to change the link to ______."
That way there's a motivator for them.
Hope we've been helpful.
-
My suggestion: Write new, great, original content... get new, great, natural links. Don't do shoddy linkbuilding that will hurt future great posts.
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
-
Do I still need to fix duplicate titles even though they have canonicalized?
Well, what can I say question is on the title 😛
Technical SEO | | atakala
Do I still need to fix duplicate titles even though they have canonicalized?
Thank you mozzers.
I LOVE u guyz.0 -
Redirecting http to https, do I need to add new url to webaster tools?
Hey all, we just 301 redirected all our http url's to https. I'm getting some funky data in webmaster tools, such as a drastic change in pages indexed and pages submitted over pages indexed. Might be a dumb question, but do I need to update my website in webmaster tools with the new https address, or should I be getting credible data from the old http url that is already in there? Thank you in advance!
Technical SEO | | jaychow0 -
Handling "legitimate" duplicate content in an online shop.
The scenario: Online shop selling consumables for machinery. Consumable range A (CA) contains consumables w, x, y, z. The individual consumables are not a problem, it is the consumables groups I'm having problems with. The Problem: Several machines use the same range of consumables. i.e. Machine A (MA) consumables page contains the list (CA) with the contents w,x,y,z. Machine B (MB) consumables page contains exactly the same list (CA) with contents w,x,y,z. Machine A page = Machine B page = Consumables range A page Some people will search Google for the consumables by the range name (CA). Most people will search by individual machine (MA Consumables, MB Consumables etc). If I use canonical tags on the Machine consumable pages (MA + MB) pointing to the consumables range page (CA) then I'm never going to rank for the Machine pages which would represent a huge potential loss of search traffic. However, if I don't use canonical tags then all the pages get slammed as duplicate content. For somebody that owns machine A, then a page titled "Machine A consumables" with the list of consumables is exactly what they are looking for and it makes sense to serve it to them in that format. However, For somebody who owns machine B, then it only makes sense for the page to be titled "Machine B consumables" even though the content is exactly the same. The Question: What is the best way to handle this from both a user and search engine perspective?
Technical SEO | | Serpstone0 -
I need an SEO Specialist to take a look at a few things for me
I need to hire an SEO specialist technician to take a look at a few things under the hood that I can't seem to figure out... is this the right place to ask for this type of paid help?
Technical SEO | | co.mc0 -
How can I best handle parameters?
Thank you for your help in advance! I've read a ton of posts on this forum on this subject and while they've been super helpful I still don't feel entirely confident in what the right approach I should take it. Forgive my very obvious noob questions - I'm still learning! The problem: I am launching a site (coursereport.com) which will feature a directory of schools. The directory can be filtered by a handful of fields listed below. The URL for the schools directory will be coursereport.com/schools. The directory can be filtered by a number of fields listed here: Focus (ex: “Data Science”) Cost (ex: “$<5000”) City (ex: “Chicago”) State/Province (ex: “Illinois”) Country (ex: “Canada”) When a filter is applied to the directories page the CMS produces a new page with URLs like these: coursereport.com/schools?focus=datascience&cost=$<5000&city=chicago coursereport.com/schools?cost=$>5000&city=buffalo&state=newyork My questions: 1) Is the above parameter-based approach appropriate? I’ve seen other directory sites that take a different approach (below) that would transform my examples into more “normal” urls. coursereport.com/schools?focus=datascience&cost=$<5000&city=chicago VERSUS coursereport.com/schools/focus/datascience/cost/$<5000/city/chicago (no params at all) 2) Assuming I use either approach above isn't it likely that I will have duplicative content issues? Each filter does change on page content but there could be instance where 2 different URLs with different filters applied could produce identical content (ex: focus=datascience&city=chicago OR focus=datascience&state=illinois). Do I need to specify a canonical URL to solve for that case? I understand at a high level how rel=canonical works, but I am having a hard time wrapping my head around what versions of the filtered results ought to be specified as the preferred versions. For example, would I just take all of the /schools?focus=X combinations and call that the canonical version within any filtered page that contained other additional parameters like cost or city? Should I be changing page titles for the unique filtered URLs? I read through a few google resources to try to better understand the how to best configure url params via webmaster tools. Is my best bet just to follow the advice on the article below and define the rules for each parameter there and not worry about using rel=canonical ? https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1235687 An assortment of the other stuff I’ve read for reference: http://www.wordtracker.com/academy/seo-clean-urls http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/3857-SEO-When-Product-Facets-and-Filters-Fail http://www.searchenginejournal.com/five-steps-to-seo-friendly-site-url-structure/59813/ http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/07/improved-handling-of-urls-with.html
Technical SEO | | alovallo0 -
Home Page Not Ranking... Need an EXPERT
Hi, for about a year now, our home page seems to have been "removed" from Google (except for our branded keywords). The home page is clearly indexed, but none of the keywords for the home page rank in the top 500 (again, except for our brand, trophycentral). Other pages in the site are fine and we rank in the top 10 positions for hundreds of keywords. We are also okay on Yahoo and Bing. So the issue is the home page from non-branded words. There have been no manual penalties, but since the words, such as trophies and trophies and awards are all but gone, something is going on. It has been almost exactly a year now and I have tried everything from removing backlinks (although I still can't tell which are "bad links", to changing titles, to improving speed and structure. I have had quite a few really nice people try to help, but their suggestions don't seem to work or are too vague. I really need an expert as the impact to the business of not having a home page performing is very damaging. Thank you!!!
Technical SEO | | trophycentraltrophiesandawards0 -
Do I need to add canonical link tags to pages that I promote & track w/ UTM tags?
New to SEOmoz, loving it so far. I promote content on my site a lot and am diligent about using UTM tags to track conversions & attribute data properly. I was reading earlier about the use of link rel=canonical in the case of duplicate page content and can't find a conclusive answer whether or not I need to add the canonical tag to these pages. Do I need the canonical tag in this case? If so, can the canonical tag live in the HEAD section of the original / base page itself as well as any other URLs that call that content (that have UTM tags, etc)? Thank you.
Technical SEO | | askotzko1 -
My pages says it has 16 errors, need help
My pages says it has 16 errors, and all of them are due to duplicate content. How do I fix this? I believe its only due to my meta tag description.
Technical SEO | | gaji0