New Website - Un-natural link warning with 2 weeks of going live
-
I have a customer who has a website, 8 years old. The business has changed, and he has launched a new website (and sub-business_ to handle a particular service. As such the main website will no longer be handling the new service. For purpose of example;
The service in question had it's own are set aside on his website, so what we have done is to 301 that part of the site (a single URL) to the homepage of his new website.
Old Business Site
Service 1
Services 2 (301 to new site)
Service 3New Business Site
This worked well, and within a week his new site was gaining traffic for the service keyword.
However, we have now had a un-natural link wartning in webmaster tools.
The old page on the old site had minimal links to it (around 400). It had a page authority of 42, and 142 linking domains.
The new website has been live a few weeks now, and has had 3 links to it, all genuine.
He was on page one for the new business name, and is now page 6.
Has anyone else ever seen this happen, and how should we deal with it. We could of course remove the 301 redirect and put in a recon-request, but the 301 seems like thje right thing to have done, and is genuine.
Any advice greatly appreciated.
-
John,
That wouldn't quite work in this situation.
The OLD website is still very much an active functioning site.... its is just one service which has been split into another company. So for example... we only want to redirect;
www.oldwebsite.com/servicename
to the NEW website.
I could of course just edit the old page and say ...."click here to go to the new site"..... but it does wind me up somewhat that the ideal solution, and proper way to do it is a 301.... but if we do it they get put under penalty.
The official Google line about doing what we want to do is a 301 redirect..
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/how-to-move-your-content-to-new.html
To quote them "It’s important to redirect all users and bots that visit your old content location to the new content location using 301 redirects."
I wonder if a cross-domain canonical would be worth doing?
-
Awesome to hear, David! The power of our collective minds
What I'd recommend is this:
- Redirect all the pages on your site to the homepage;
- Put up a splash page saying that the site has moved with a nofollowed link to the new site;
- Do something to make the customers smile - discount code, video of a puppy, something like that.
-
A special thanks to John for his advice on this issue.
To update you.... I submitted a site-map of the OLD website to Google via WMT. Hoping this would encourage a re-crawl and that Google would see the 301 was no longer in place. I then put in another recon request.
Thankfully the penalty has now been removed and I just had email confirmation this morning.
My quandary now is how we redirect from the old site to the new one.
To my mind a 301 redirect is the right way to do it.... but obviously we can't do this again. A 302 would serve the purpose of redirecting users to the new site (which is what we want to do), but obviously a 302 is not the right way to do it.
Any advice or ideas on how we should take people from the old site to the new one?
-
Thanks John, I have just emailed.
-
Gotcha. Would you mind DMing me the URL so I can have a look? Also, a list of any URLs that might be redirected into the site.
-
Yes their traffic dropped by around 90%. Its a brand new website and it ranked very quickly after launch when we put the 301 in place.
After peanty they went from position 4/5 for the main keyword to currently position 99. It is site-wide so affecting everything. The brand name they rank outside the top 50.
-
David -
I'm assuming you saw a traffic drop when you received the unnatural links warning? And is it a partial match or a sitewide penalty?
I'm not convinced that you always need to worry about a warning. If you see a traffic drop, then definitely. Otherwise, why not go do good SEO and create useful stuff that will rank instead of spending all this time worrying about a message that didn't affect you adversely?
-
To update this thread again;
After removing the 301 redirect, we put in a reconsideration request. To my amazement it was declined as they felt the site still had too many un-natural links.
Within webmaster tools the site is showing just 57 links.
The domain is only a few months old, and I'm not sure what else I can do as we haven't actually built any links and the 301 redirect is gone.
-
Just to update this thread. I have removed the 301, and I am going to leave it a week before putting a recon in.
-
Hi David
Without looking at the backlink profile of either domain I can't be certain, but it very much looks like that 301 redirect has brought about the penalty.
It doesn't matter if there are 30 bad links or 30000, if a Google quality reviewer believes the backlinks are poor quality, you run the risk of being penalised. I wonder whether you are seeing all of the links at the moment - it might be worth using the Link Detox tool for a more comprehensive backlink audit than Open Site Explorer can offer. This may reveal more poor quality links.
But it sounds like you're pretty confident that the 301 redirect has caused the penalty. Rightly or wrongly, I'm afraid it's not up to us to judge what links are "bad", it's Googles. So while you and I may think the old backlinks are OK, Google may take a different view. I would also rule out any chance the penalty may have become because of an influx of new links (via the 301) - having set up a number of new websites and redirected old domains (with hundreds of thousands of links) I've never seen this trigger a penalty by itself.
I'd put your theory to the test and remove the 301 and send a reconsideration request detailing you have done so. From what I can tell, that would remove the penalty. Run a deeper audit of your backlinks to see if yet-to-be-revealed bad links are present. And if you really want some authority links from other websites to pass through to the new domain, contact them manually and ask them to update their URLs.
Hope this helps
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
-
Hreflang and canonical tag for new country specific website - different base domain
I have a little different situation compared to most other questions which asks for hreflang and canonical tags for country specific version of websites. This is an SEO related question and I was hoping to get some insight on your recommendations. We have an existing Australian website - say - ausnight.com.au now we want to launch a UK version of this website - the domain is - uknight.co.uk please note, we are not only changing from .com.au to .co.uk.... but the base domain name as well changed - from ausnight to uknight as you can understand, the audience for both websites is different. Both websites has most pages same with same contents.... the questions I have is - Should we put canonical tag on the new website pages? If we don't put canon tag on new website pages, what is the impact on the SEO ranking of current website? I believe we need to put hreflang tag on both websites to tell google that we have another language version (en-au vs en-gb) of the same page. Is this correct?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TinoSharp0 -
Internal Linking
Hi, I'm doing internal anchor text links. Relative path. if I use /destination-page instead of https://website.com/destination-page will I still receive a transfer of internal Google trust to the destination page? Does google treat just the / url the same as full url??
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Scotty_Wilson0 -
New websites
Hi Moz community, My company updated and used a new developer to build and re-design their charity websites: www.runforcharity.com, www.cycleforcharity.com and www.sportforcharity.com. This sites were "re-launched" at the beggining of December 2015 and I have now been able to get a good 6 weeks worth of data. I've been religiously using Moz.com for a couple of years and I use it simply for SEO purposes. Our websites are built upon organic traffic being driven to them and I have noticed that the PA on the new sites has taken a hammering. They all appear to have a PA of 1 and I'm at a loss why? It appears that no page has h1 text? Would this be an issue with the developer or something the content team is doing wrong? Any help of advice would be much appreciated. Many thanks Ryan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bennerya0 -
Can we have 2 websites with same business name and same business address?
I have 2 websites with same business name and same business address, and obvious 2 different domain names. I am providing the same services from 2 websites. Is this is a problem?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AlexanderWhite0 -
One Way Links vs Two Way Links
Hi, Was speaking to a client today and got asked how damaging two way links are. i.e. domaina.com links to domainb.com and domainb.com links back to domaina.com. I need a nice simple layman's explanation of if/how damaging they are compared to one way links. And please don't answer with you lose link juice as I have a job explaining link juice.... I am explaining things to a non techie! Thank you!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JohnW-UK0 -
Launching a new site with old, new and updated content: What’s best practice?
Hi all, We are launching a new site soon and I’d like your opinion on best practice related to its content. We will be retaining some pages and content (although the URLs might change a bit as I intend to replace under-scores with hyphens and remove .asp from some extensions in order to standardise a currently uneven URL structuring). I will also be adding a lot of new pages with new content, along with amend some pages and their content (and amend URLs again if need be), and a few pages are going to be done away with all together. Any advice from those who’ve done the same in the past as to how best to proceed? Does the URL rewriting sound OK to do in conjunction with adding and amending content? Cheers, Dave
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Martin_S0 -
Brand new domain with a lot of old links.
So I just bought http://penny-auctions.co/ a couple of days ago, ignore the fact it's not set up yet and generally just a mess, and something kept bugging me about why the domain authority kept showing as 25 in the SEOmoz toolbar. Now initially I'd set it up as www. and with the trailing slash so the PA was 1, however after a bit of exploration it seems that someone has been building links to the non-www version of the domain for at least a year! The site has never been owned before so I've now made the non-www version the default and have a 5 day old site with PA 35 and DA 25! SEOmoz shows PA - 45 links, 20 domains and DA - 341 links, 113 domains. Majestic Historic - 8598 links, 236 domains and Fresh - 160 links, 62 domains. Brilliant! Except they're all spamtastic. What do you think this will do for my future attempts at ranking? Should I create pages that have links to them or just 301 them?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | StalkerB0 -
Should subdomains be avoided for brand new websites?
When creating a brand new website, will setting it up as a subdomain provide ranking benefits? I understand that if it's an existing domain, it's better to use a subfolder because a subdomain is treated as a different domain. But is there any reason not to start a website with the keyword in the subdomain? For example: keyword.domain.com The SERP's are dominated by websites which contain some variation of the head term, but the disadvantage of doing a similar this is your website looks very similar. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JonDavies540