Links from music/celebrity based fansites - sitewide images with no alt text
-
We're currently in the middle of a link audit on our website OneDirection.net and a large part of our incoming links come from fansites such as the following:
- ladygaganow.net
- nickjonline.com
- justinbieberhood.com
- joejonashq.com
- harrystylesfan.org
- brunodaily.org
- onedirectiondaily.com
- onedirectionfans.net
Now, our previous way of thinking was that these are very relevant websites in the same niche as us, and therefore should be passing some value? However all of the links on these sites come from sitewide images with no alt-text. Some of the sites are passing 1000+ links to us.
We've been wary to disavow or request removal of these links as we've usually gone with the thinking that Google applies "common-sense" based logic in its algorithms, and therefore these backlinks should be ok - in our opinion.
However we think we are suffering from some kind of algorithmic penalty with our current rankings, and are now thinking these could be the cause.
What are people's opinions on these links? Should we stay clear of sitewide links altogether? Should we contact the site owners and try to get them to mix up the alt-text? Or should we get rid of them altogether?
Thanks,
Chris.
-
Further to my previous update, it now seems that Penguin 2.1 positively affected our site. So there's still the chance that the disavowed links have not been taken into account yet.
Either way, rankings have remained strong, but we still think there is further to go. We're continuing to contact sites directly, asking them to remove or nofollow our links.
-
Update...
Our rankings suddenly improved on Saturday October 5th, and we've seen an uplift in google traffic by a factor of 20/30% so far, but manually checking some of our rankings puts us on page 1 for a lot of medium/long tail keywords. We've not seen rankings this strong for ages.
It's still a little too early to tell fully so I'll update again in another week or so, but from an initial couple of days of data & analysis we're seeing better rankings right across the Google network
As well as simply disavowing the links, we also contacted 10 of the sites asking them to remove our links directly. Two of them responded saying they had done this on Wednesday, but this seems a little too soon to see an effect from so we're putting more belief that the the disavow links have been reflected.
This is the first time I've felt like we're finally seeing daylight, and it was the last source of links we've thought were damaging us!
-
Quick update on this - we've disavowed 22 entire domain links from these fansites and will monitor rankings to see if anything improves.
As mysterious as the disavow tool is, we're expecting to have to wait anything from 3 weeks to 3 months before anything happens. Will report back here with our findings.
Cheers.
-
The problem with sitewide links and sidebar links is that they have been abused by the spamming world so stick out as if a paid link despite in a lot of cases actually being genuine.
You have got to remember that at the end of the day it is a computer analysing these links and they are not quite there yet. Although they are legitimate there are hundreds of thousands that are not and this im guessing is what Google is basing it on.
-
Thanks for your quick responses guys.
Since the original penguin update back in April 2012, we've cleaned up our link profile immensely, improved the load speed of our site by over 150% and totally reworked & simplified our UI. Throughout all this we've provided unique, daily content.
As such it's been annoyance that we've only seen our rankings drop, but frankly we've never touched our core of fansite links. I'll be quite surprised if these are indeed the source of our problems - but at the same time delighted to have finally found the culprit.
Still, ignoring whatever decisions Google has made in its algorithms, are these fansites (and ourselves) actually doing anything wrong with their sitewide links? What is it that Google doesn't like about them? Usually the individuals who run the sites provide a lot of up-to-date content that other fans like to see, and quite often users will be interested in similar artists/bands, hence the links to "friends" or "affiliate" sites in the sidebar.
Is this a niche way of doing things that probably should have an exception from Google's calculations?
Or are they just bad, bad, bad?
-
I agree with Mark. Sitewide links are an extremely quick way to get a penalty these days.
Another option is to ask those links to be no-followed if they do give traffic (and try to get an editorial link on the front page, or some other page), but at the end of the day if they refuse, your only option will be to dissavow.
-
I don't think sitewide links are a good idea any more. Im sure they have been legitimately placed but in the eyes of a computer could look like paid links which as we all know is a bad thing.
My advice would be contact each website in turn and ask for an editorial link rather than a sidebar/sitewide link. This way you keep a genuine link.
If they refuse then I would ask for it to be removed as in my opinion these links are more than likely the cause of your penalty despite them being relevant as if they link to your fan site they are probably linking to lots of fan sites so could also look like a link ring of some sort.
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
-
SEO Strategy - Content/Outreach/Links
Hi everyone I'm trying to prioritise my tasks for 2018 & wondered if anyone had any useful templates they use? In terms of SEO tasks, my priority was going to be content/outreach/links - Focusing on user guides/blogs onsite Then outreach articles/some PR that doesn't go against Google guidelines offsite. My struggle with the onsite content/blogs we produce is we have no real social media plan/manager so my content outreach always seems hampered by this. I've tried taking on some of the social stuff, but this ends up being too much for just me to do. I wondered if there were any other SEOs who face this issue and who have found some good solutions? I'm stuck in a bit of a rut and can't seem to effectively push forward with outreach/content writing. Thank you Becky
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey1 -
Links not removed
Hello, I want some help regarding Bad links, I have Uploaded Disavow links, webmaster tools before 4-5 months But still, They are showing in Back links to my Site & Not disavow, can any one Help For this ? why they still appears in backlinks to my site, Why not removed Still ? Thanx in Advance, Falguni
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Sanjayth0 -
OSE link report showing links to 404 pages on my site
I did a link analysis on this site mormonwiki.com. And many of the pages shown to be linked to were pages like these http://www.mormonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Planning_a_trip_to_Rome_By_using_Movie_theatre_-_Your_five_Fun_Shows2052752 There happens to be thousands of them and these pages actually no longer exist but the links to them obviously still do. I am planning to proceed by disavowing these links to the pages that don't exist. Does anyone see any reason to not do this, or that doing this would be unnecessary? Another issue is that Google is not really crawling this site, in WMT they are reporting to have not crawled a single URL on the site. Does anyone think the above issue would have something to do with this? And/or would you have any insight on how to remedy it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThridHour0 -
How are PDF image alt tags and "subject" field in document properties used for search
Hello, 1. Does google use image alt tags? According to this 2011 document, the answer is no, but I have seen others claiming yes- has google since begun using alt tags for images within PDFs? http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pdfs-in-google-search-results.html I am trying to decide if it is worth updating existing PDFs with alt tags for images for the purpose of SEO. 2. How does Google use the "Subject" field in document properties for a PDF? Should it be used as a description field for the document, similar to a meta description? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | winstoncho0 -
Advice on forum links
Hi guys, Looking for some good advice on forum links and there potential negative impact. I am analysing the links of a URL and around 60% of the links are coming from a forum (on a different domain). The forum is very relevant - about the same product he is selling and also has a decent user base. This 60% of links account for roughly 6,500 links. All with different varying keyword anchor text's, and some with excessive usage of a particular keyword anchor text. They are also all do-follow. They are in a mixture of signature links and in post links. The site they link to has been hit by penguin which also has an EMD. MY question is even though these links are relevant and on a good site with good traffic, do you think they have likely been picked up in the penguin algorithm? My initial thought was yes only because they are all do follow and mostly keyword based. But id love to hear thoughts on this as well as possible recovery options, i.e should he remove the forum links, reduce drastically or make them all no follow so traffic can still pass through? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ROIcomau0 -
Does Google WMT download links button give me all the links they count
Hi Different people are telling me different things I think if I download "all links" using the button in WMT to excel, I am seeing all the links Google is 'counting' when evaluating my site. is that right?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | usedcarexpert0 -
Fading Text Links Look Like Spammy Hidden Links to a g-bot?
Ah, Hello Mozzers, it's been a while since I was here. Wanted to run something by you... I'm looking to incorporate some fading text using Javascript onto a site homepage using the method described here; http://blog.thomascsherman.com/2009/08/text-slideshow-or-any-content-with-fades/ so, my question is; does anyone think that Google might see this text as a possible dark hat SEO anchor text manipulation (similar to hidden links)? The text will contain various links (4 or 5) that will cycle through one another, fading in and out, but to a bot the text may appear initially invisible, like so; style="display: none;"><a href="">Link Here</a> All links will be internal. My gut instinct is that I'm just being stupid here, but I wanted to stay on the side of caution with this one! Thanks for your time 🙂 http://blog.thomascsherman.com/2009/08/text-slideshow-or-any-content-with-fades
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeterAlexLeigh0 -
301 or 302 - www.yoursite.com/uk/content
If your website CMS forces you to redirect from the homepage should it be a 301 or 302 Example includes www.direct.gov.uk which 302's it My view is that it should be a 302 in this instance and almost all others should be a 301 - the reason for this is that you want the www.direct.gov.uk to be the "primary" and one that is displayed in Google, whereas for anything else you want the URL of the location. Yes I know that ideally you don't have any redirection at all...
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AxonnMedia0