A client/Spam penalty issue
-
Wondering if I could pick the brains of those with more wisdom than me...
Firstly, sorry but unable to give the client's url on this topic. I know that will not help with people giving answers but the client would prefer it if this thread etc didn't appear when people type their name in google.
Right, to cut a long story short..gained a new client a few months back, did the usual things when starting the project of reviewing the backlinks using OSE and Majestic. There were a few iffy links but got most of those removed. In the last couple of months have been building backlinks via guest blogging and using bloggerlinkup and myblogguest (and some industry specific directories found using linkprospector tool). All way going well, the client were getting about 2.5k hits a day, on about 13k impressions. Then came the last Google update. The client were hit, but not massively. Seemed to drop from top 3 for a lot of keywords to average position of 5-8, so still first page. The traffic went down after this. All the sites which replaced the client were the big name brands in the niche (home improvement, sites such as BandQ, Homebase, for the fellow UK'ers). This was annoying but understandable.
However, on 27th June. We got the following message in WMT - Google has detected a pattern of artificial or unnatural links pointing to your site. Buying links or participating in link schemes in order to manipulate PageRank are violations of Google's Webmaster Guidelines.
As a result, Google has applied a manual spam action to xxxx.co.uk/. There may be other actions on your site or parts of your site.This was a shock to say the least. A few days later the traffic on the site went down more and the impressions dropped to about 10k a day (oddly the rankings seem to be where they were after the Google update so perhaps a delayed message).
To get back up to date....after digging around more it appears there are a lot of SENUKE type links to the site - links on poor wiki sites,a lot of blog commenting links, mostly from irrelevant sites, i enclose a couple of examples below. I have broken the links so they don't get any link benefit from this site. They are all safe for work
http:// jonnyhetherington. com/2012/02/i-need-a-new-bbq/?replytocom=984
http:// www.acgworld. cn/archives/529/comment-page-3
In addition to this there is a lot of forum spam, links from porn sites and links from sites with Malware warnings. To be honest, it is almost perfect negative seo!!
I contacted several of the sites in question (about 450) and requested they remove the links, the vast majority of the sites have no contact on them so I cannot get the links removed. I did a disavow on these links and then a reconsideration request but was told that this is unsuccessful as the site still was being naughty.
Given that I can neither remove the links myself or get Google to ignore them, my options for lifting this penalty are limited.
What would be the course of action others would take, please.
Thanks and sorry for overally long post
-
Thanks for the replies everyone, now comes the fun part when I have to crack on and work way through 48,000 backlinks!
-
Yeh, tbh, you don't need to worry too much about nofollow links. The only thing that I would do is check through some of the nofollow links to see if they are all blog comments that have been done with an automated system. If this is the case then there could be duplicate content issues that are leaving a footprint back to your site (i.e. within the spun comment). This isn't a major concern but worth a little look - but as a general rule, you don't need to worry.
Matt
-
I agree with that Carl. It's one thing if your worried that Google might penalize you, maybe you don't worry about the nofollows. However, once Google has already placed a manual penalty on the site, it's all about showing Google that your not trying to game their system and you're working hard to correct the situation. A bunch of links on spammy sites will still look bad to a reviewer even if they are nofollow. I'd try to get them removed as well...though I may not put as high a priority on them.
-Kurt
-
Thanks for the replies everyone, they are most welcome.
If I could trouble you to one sub question before I mark this as solved. When cleaning up a dodgy backlinks profile, what is the general view on no follow links? Going through the client links and they seem to have a fair few no follow links from generic directories. Even though they shouldn't be counting toward a site ranking, I have been asking people to remove these too. My view is that if I remove all the bad links, regardless of follow situation, that will show Google that I know what is right and what is wrong re the site.
Thanks, Carl
-
Yeah, Google definitely wants to see that you've put some effort into removing the links and that you aren't doing it anymore. It's also not uncommon for it to take several requests and several months.
-
No, sorry I may have worded myself poorly...the client used an seo agency until a couple of months back, it seems although a lot of the spam links were posted between Dec and Feb they are only now impacting on the site. When I referred to negative seo, I more meant it as a joke that the links look like the perfect example of a negative seo campaign. Found some forum spam earlier on Arsenal FC forum and a forum about psychological issues faced by transgender people. Both of these sites seemed fine sites in their own right but one would have to question their value when linking to a door handle website!!
The initial (and thus far, only) request was a very basic one to say we have received this penalty, we hired a poor seo company to look at our site and it seems they spammed our domain. I told them I had disavowed several hundred domains but I think it failed owning to the lack of proof of manual work, so, as suggested by Matthew (above) I will include a document this time to show who we contacted, when, the reply and the current link status
-
Yeh, I would recommend using Buzzstream for the data gathering, it saves a heap load of time - I also outsource it to freelancers on oDesk - you can do this for a very l;ow budget and just speeds the whole process up.
With the Link Detox tool, importing all of your other link data is vtial towards getting a good reflection of the links. Good luck
If you get really stuck, email me (my email is on my Moz profile) and I'll help you out more where I can.
Matt
-
In your request to Google, did you explain that you were not building these links and that it appears to be someone performing negative SEO on your client?
-Kurt Steinbrueck
OurChurch.Com -
Matthew,
Many thanks for the detailed reply. Shortly ago I used the linkdetox tool, I didn't realise you can upload files to it so used their built in bad link identifier. It has given me about 1800 bad links which am working though. Helpfully a few of them are blogger sites and have no contact!! Am managing to contact about 30% so far so that's better than nothing.
I have read about using buzzstream.com to try and pull the contact information on the other domains, I will employ this once I have finished going through the list. So far I have documented the urls and contact times in a spreadsheet. I must admit I didn't know you could link to a Google doc in the reconsideration so the spreadsheet I am working through will provide a good start, especially if the removed column starts to fill up!!
Thanks again
-
Hi Carl,
First step is to identify all of the links. Pull off the full backlink data from OSE, Majestic SEO, Ahrefs and WMT. Compile all of them into one master spreadsheet and then upload these to the Link Detox Tool (http://www.linkdetox.com/). This will give you a starting point for finding all of the toxic links - bare in mind that this is just a guide and you will still need to go over the link manually.
Start gathering webmaster details and record EVERYTHING in a Google Docs spreadsheet. Record the webmasters' contact details, URL, date you contacted them, the date of the response, any action taken, etc. Spend a good month on link removal to get as many removed manually as possible.
Once this stage is complete you will need to Disavow the rest of the links. Be careful here not to Disavow genuine good links. When it comes to the likes of SENuke links, you will want to Disavow them on domain level, i.e:
domain:jonnyhetherington. com
After you have submitted a Disavow, submit a reconsideration request and let Google know all of the bad links that were pointing to the site, why they were there and what you have done to rectify it - be explicit. Also, link to the Google Docs spreadsheet with all the details in.
If you get a negative response back then dig a little deeper with the links to Disavow - most reconsideration requests get knocked back the first time but ignore those that say 'you can't recover', because you can. Just make sure that your client understands the implications of everything. They will have further dips in rankings and traffic before it gets better.
Hope this gives you a good starting point.
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
-
Want to remove a large amount of links from spam sites. SEO company says we will lose a lot of link juice?
Hi, We have a lot of links that have a spam score above 30% and 60%. I don't know if someone has spammed our website. However our SEO company has said we should remove these carefully over a period of 3 months while they add new good links. I don't quite trust this advice. Are they trying to get more business?? They have put doubt in our mind. Can anyone please shed any light on this?? Thank you
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | YvonneDupree0 -
Mobile Redirect - Cloaking/Sneaky?
Question since Google is somewhat vague on what they consider mobile "equivalent" content. This is the hand we're dealt with due to budget, no m.dot, etc, responsive/dynamic is on the roadmap but still a couple quarters away but, for now, here's the situation. We have two sets of content and experiences, one for desktop and one for mobile. The problem is that desktop content does not = mobile content. The layout, user experience, images and copy aren't the same across both versions - they are not dramatically different but not identical. In many cases, no mobile equivalent exists. Dev wants to redirect visitors who find the desktop version in mobile search to the equivalent mobile experience, when it exists, when it doesn't they want to redirect to the mobile homepage - which really isn't a homepage it's an unfiltered view of the content. Yeah we have push state in place for the mobile version etc. My concern is that Google will look at this as cloaking, maybe not in the cases where there's a near equivalent piece of content, but definitely when we're redirecting to the "homepage". Not to mention this isn't a great user experience and will impact conversion/engagement metrics which are likely factors Google's algorithm considers. What's the MOZ Community say about this? Cloaking or Not and Why? Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Jose_R0 -
The differences between XXX.domain.com and domain.com/XXX?
hi guys i would like to know which seo value is better? for example if i would put a link in xxx.domain.com or domain.com/XXX which one will give me a better seo value? does it give the same? assuming that domain.com have a huge PR RANK itself. why do people bother making XXX.domain.com instead? hope for clarification thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | andzon0 -
Does Lazy Loading Create Indexing Issues of products?
I have store with 5000+ products in one category & i m using Lazy Loading . Does this effects in indexing these 5000 products. as google says they index or read max 1000 links on one page.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | innovatebizz0 -
The purpose of these Algo updates: To more harshly push eCommerce sites toward PPC and enable normal blogs/forums toward reclaiming organic search positions?
Hi everyone, This is my first post here, and absolutely loving the site and the services. Just a quick background, I have dabbled in SEO in the past, and have been reading up over the last few months and am amazed at the speed at which things are changing. I currently have a few clients that I am doing some SEO work for 2 of them, and have had an ecommerce site enquire about SEO services. They are a medium sized oak furniture ecommerce site. From all the major changes..the devaluing of spam links, link networks, penalization of overuse of exact match anchor text and the overall encouraging of earned links (often via content marketing) over built links, adding to this the (not provided) section in Google Analytics, and the increasing screen real estate that PPC is getting over organic search...all points to me thinking on major thing..... That the search engine is trying to push eCommerce sites and sites that sell stuff harder toward using PPC and paid advertising and allowing the blogs/forums and informational sites to more easily reclaim the organic part of the search results again. The above is elaborated on a bit more below.. POINT 1 Firstly as built links (article submission, press releases, info graphic submission, web 2.0 link building ect) rapidly lose their effectiveness, and as Google starts to place more emphasis on sites earning links instead - by producing amazing interesting and unique content that people want to link to. The fact remains that surely Google is aware that it is much harder for eCommerce sites to produce a constant stream of interesting link worthy content around their niche (especially if its a niche that not an awful lot could be written about). Although earning links is not impossible for eCommerce sites, for a lot of them it is more difficult because creating link worthy content is not what eCommerce sites were originally intended for. Whereas standard blogs and forums were built for that exact purpose. Therefore the search engines must know that it is a lot easier for normal blogs/forums to "earn" links through content, therefore leading to them reclaiming more of the organic search ranking for transaction and non transaction terms, and therefore forcing the eCommerce sites to adopt PPC more heavily. POINT 2 If we add to the mix the fact that for the terms most relevant to eCommerce sites, the search engine results page has a larger allocation of PPC ads than organic results (above the fold), and that Google has limited the amount of data that sites can see in terms of which keywords people are using to arrive on their sites, which effects eCommerce sites more - as it makes it harder for them to see which keywords are resulting in sales. Then this provides further evidence that Google is trying to back eCommerce sites into a corner by making it more difficult for them to make sense of and track sales from organic results in comparison to with PPC, where data is still plentiful. Conclusion Are the above just over exaggerations? Can most eCommerce sites still keep achieving a good percentage of sales from organic search despite the above? if so, what do the more niche eCommerce sites do to "earn" links when content topics are thin and unique outreach destinations can be exhausted quickly. Do they accept the fact that the are in the business of selling things, so should be paying for their traffic as opposed to normal blogs/forums which are not. Or is there still a place for them to get even more creative with content and acquire earned links..? And finally, is the concentration on earned links more overplayed than it actually is? Id really appreciate your thoughts on this..
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | sanj50500 -
Removing Unnatural Link Penalties
As soon as I began working in my current position at my current company I noticed my predecessor's tendency towards buying link packages from blackhat companies... I knew we were being penalized, and had to prove to him that we needed to halt those campaigns immediately and try our darndest to remove all poison links from the internet. I did convince him and began the process. There was 57% of our backlinks tied to the same anchor phrase with 836 domains linking to the same phrase, same page. Today there are 643 of those links remaining. So I have hit a large number of them, but not nearly enough. So now I am getting messages from Google announcing that our site has been hit with an unnatural link penalty. I haven't really seen the results of this yet in the keywords I am trying to rank for, but fear it will hurt very soon and know that I could be doing better in the meantime. I really don't know what to do next. I've tried the whole "contact the webmasters" technique and maybe have had 1/100 agree to remove our links. They all want money or don't respond.. Do I really need to use this Disavow tool?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | jesse-landry
I hear mixed things about it.. Anybody with experience here like to share their stories? Thanks for the moral support!0 -
Would linking out to a gambling/casino site, harm my site and the other sites it links out to?
I have been emailed asking if I sell links on one of my sites. The person wants to link out to slotsofvegas[dot]com or similar. Should I be concerned about linking out to this and does it reduce the link value to any of the other sites that the site links out to? Thanks, Mark
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Markus1111