Spam Back Link Removal Problem.
-
I have just paid a lot of money to have spam back links removed from directories owned by the same person, the links were on pages that were set up for me without me knowing, at the end of each url is my domain name, the links have been removed on the page leaving a directory page with no other links on however the url is still there with my domain name at the end of the url and in each search box is my domain name, I have asked for the pages to be removed altogether as I did say before I paid the money I did not want my domain name on any of his directories, he has come back and said leaving my domain name in the urls is not a problem as far as Google is concerned, can anyone please advise, I can ask for a refund from PayPal, there are over 768 links on different sections of a number of directories.
Thank you inadvance.
-
Chris
Thank you for all of your help.
-
I'd say the domain name does show up in the url and the search box. They're not links, however.
-
What about thedomainnaWhat a bout the domain name in the search box, do you still think I should claim my payment back from PayPal, the agreement was that I did not want my domain name on any of his directories.
-
That's certainly a real page, alright, but it won't do any additional harm your site as it stands right now.
-
I don't think that's the right url.
-
I think you're saying that the webmaster did remove the hyperlink but left evidence of the link by way of the anchor text that was used for the link. It also sounds like the webmaster had said the page that the link was on would be removed but is now refusing to remove it.
I would say that if you have it in writing that they would remove the page, you certainly have reason to dispute the payment with paypal, as Tom says. If not, at least the worst of the problem is over. I'd at least document the transaction and the conversation and let the webmaster know that those details will be included in your reconsideration report to Google if he/she won't also remove the page. Then you may just forward it all to Google anyway.
So, if the links aren't there any longer they're not going to count against you. But let me tell you, the rest of your link profiles doesn't look that great. Be sure you're working on dealing with those other links, as well.
-
Thank you for a good reply, we have used the disavow tool six months ago but it has had no effect at all, our main keyword is the backbone of our business we have got to do something or else we will not have a business.
-
Hi John
I'm not going to get into whether removing these links was worthwhile (in short: I can't see them having either a positive nor negative effect. The effect would be nil) but let me be clear about the main matter at hand: get your money back ASAP.
There's no reason at all for you to have to pay for links to be removed when something like the disavow tool exists - in fact I'm fairly convinced it was one of the reasons why it was developed in the first place. You've essentially been extorted. There is no sense in this - otherwise, I could easily find your website, build thousands of bad links on a crap network I could set up and then threaten you with them until you paid me to remove them. I'm not going to do that of course, that would be despicably evil!
If you're concerned about those links then disavow those links - don't give into demands like this.
Now, as for getting your money back - I think you could successfully dispute this with PayPal. You have paid for a digital service and the seller has failed to deliver (and refuses to). The work implied the links would be removed, yet the links still exist in some form. The seller is effectively in breach of contract, so you should get your money back. For better of worse, PayPal does favour the buyer in the majority of cases - this case it is definitely for the better.
I hope you get the money back in full.
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
-
How serious is Google about internal linking report? Considers the links from sub-directories too?
Hi community members, It's been clearly said by Google to interlink the important pages across the website and they give top interlinked pages in "Links report". They do consider the links from the sub-directories like example.com/blog, etc. to sum up the internal linking . But we do employ multiple sub directories and link to various pages which may not be that important to rank, example "terms of use" page at footer section. So, obviously these non-important pages might be over linked as per the search console "internal links report". Will this make Google to consider the highest linked pages as most important and they try to give ranking importance to them? How about links from sub directories? Please clarify and share your opinions.
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Footer menu links: Header tags or list items?
Hi, I would like to know header tags (h5 or h6) or list items ( ) works better for footer menu links for the best linking structure. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz1 -
Do more internal links from sub-domains to domain (website) hurt rankings?
Hi, We have nearly 10 sub-domains. Couple of our website top pages including homepage have been linked from every page of these sub-domains; from footer or top menu. Is this kind of linking is bad as per Google? What is the right way of linking between website and sub-domains?
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Relevant Link, but Low DA...good idea?
If a website has a low DA (not because of spam. Just because it's new or because there isn't a ton of content) but it is industry specific/relevant, then is that worth pursuing? I have read how relevancy is supposed to be a major portion determining a link's benefit, but I"m leery about about something with a low DA - like under 15 low. Thanks, Ruben
Algorithm Updates | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Fetch as Google - removes start words from Meta Title ?? Help!
Hi all, I'm experiencing some strange behaviour with Google Webmaster Tools. I noticed that some of our pages from our ecom site were missing start keywords - I created a template for meta titles that uses Manufacturer - Ref Number - Product Name - Online Shop; all trimmed under 65 chars just in case. To give you an idea, an example meta title looks like:
Algorithm Updates | | bjs2010
Weber 522053 - Electric Barbecue Q 140 Grey - Online Shop The strange behaviour is if I do a "Fetch as Google" in GWT, no problem - I can see it pulls the variables and it's ok. So I click submit to index. Then I do a google site:URL search, to see what it has indexed, and I see the meta description has changed (so I know it's working), but the meta title has been cut so it looks like this:
Electric Barbecue Q 140 Grey - Online Shop So I am confused - why would Google cut off some words at start of meta title? Even after the Fetch as Googlebot looks perfectly ok? I should point out that this method works perfect on our other pages, which are many hundreds - but it's not working on some pages for some weird reason.... Any ideas?0 -
If our link profile is too "blog link" heavy, will that be all that bad?
We own a site that lends itself extremely well to getting boat loads of links, only down side is that those on the boat are all bloggers. We are selling a product that retails for $6.89 per unit. They are for women. Our target market is any woman/girl who is between 14 and 50. Even better, our cost per unit is only about $0.40. So what we've been doing is sending them out by the hundreds to legit fashion blogs all the way down to blogspot mommy bloggers and the reviews have poured in, literally all of them positive. Moral of the story, we have a good product, and no shortage of bloggers that would be willing to write us up a legit, human written (by a red-blooded American none-the-less) on almost exclusively legit blogs. We're not trying to manipulate what they say, how they link to us, what anchor text they use or anything. We're just sending them product, asking that they do a review and give us a link and that's it. Our worry is that given the nature of the site and the product offering, it's going to be easy to get these legit blog links, but more difficult to get links that "aren't on blogs". Is this going to hurt us, or will Big Google be kind and realize this isn't shady manipulation. It's legit part of our ongoing effort to get the word out. Further evidence that our campaign isn't to manipulate (although we all know we're in it for the links) is that so far 75% of our sales have been driven by these reviews. A few of the bigger sites that have done reviews have each directly resulted in 10+ sales from that single review. So what are all ya'll's thoughts? I suspect we'll be OK, but wanted some others to provide their views.
Algorithm Updates | | AarcMediaGroup0 -
How on earth is a site with ONE LINK ranking so well for a competitive keyword?
Ok, so I'm sure you get the gist of what I'm asking about in my question. The query is 'diy kitchens' in Google UK and the website is kitchens4diy[dot]com - which is ranking in third from my viewing. The thing is, the site has just ONE BACKLINK and has done for a good while. Yet, it's ranking really well. What gives?
Algorithm Updates | | Webrevolve0 -
FLASH vs HTML links in SEO
In terms of a small flash slideshow and having text and links on various slides within, is such text and links as easily index-able (or even at all) compared to static html text on a webpage?
Algorithm Updates | | heritageseo0