How to remove the inbound links of a website from Google Webmaster Tools?
-
Hello viewers,
One of my projects (BannerBuzz.com) is having linked with this Site: http://www.article-niche.com/ and we can see so many inbound links in our Webmaster account from this site, we have already disavowed this site but still it is found in our Webmaster Tools and we don’t have option to mail them as the site is down, so kindly anyone help us out how to remove this back-links and I want to remove it from my Webmaster account as well as from “Search Results” as the site is down.
Currently as this site is show down from long time and because of its back-links, our website (BannerBuzz.com) has been penalized by Google.
-
Firstly, have you received a manually penalty, I say this because its far too easy to disavow loads of links but are they really doing you any harm?
If you feel it really is a problem you can disavow the whole domain:
domain:article-niche.com When you disavow it will dissassociate that domain (or links) from your site. More info - [https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487?hl=en) Hope that helps, Good luck!
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
-
Google penalty removal expert questions
We have searched online for a Google penalty “expert” (individual or company) and have located what appear to be “experts”. Please provide feedback on the following 2 individuals/companies we have found that can help with penalty removal. Have you or one of your clients used either of the “experts” below? What were the results? How many disavows and reconsideration requests did you/they have to make? 1.www.penaltypros.com . To give a quote and to see what your links are they use links from Google Webmaster Tools only. Penaltypros.com disavows first and then removes bad links second. This is opposite of what Google and Seo’s recommend but penaltypros.com claims 100% success using this non-traditional approach. See imgur.com link for screenshot. 2.http://www.hiswebmarketing.com/ To give a quote and to see what your links are they use links from https://ahrefs.com/ only. Please provide any and all feedback on the above 2 “experts” and also post the websites, individual names, company names of those that you consider Google penalty removal “experts” so that we may obtain a quote from them. Lp9F3FI
Industry News | | RetractableAwnings.com1 -
How many different webmasters should I maintain for educational based website for different search engines ??
Hi, I am working on an educational website that cater to different geographical region. My query is that how many different webmaster should I maintain. What is general trend. Is Google and Bing enough. Will this process increase by PR/DA ?
Industry News | | SunnyJain0 -
Google Penguin 2.0 - Coming soon
There is an interesting article on SEW that Google is going to update Penguin to the next major version - http://bit.ly/15Vkr6O So what do you think, what should we expect? And also, is there available updated webmaster guidelines?
Industry News | | ditoroin1 -
Google Releases Penguin Update 1.1
So what affect is this playing on you guys? http://searchengineland.com/google-pushes-first-penguin-algorithm-update-122518 It was not to nice to me... Why over the holiday Google, why!? -Chenzo
Industry News | | Chenzo0 -
Paste 'do a barrel roll' into Google - See what happens!!
Hi, Paste the words 'do a barrel roll' in Google and see what happens!
Industry News | | activitysuper0 -
Is a canonical to itself a link juice leak
Duane Forrester from Bing said that you should not have a canonical pointing back to the same page as it confuses Bingbot,
Industry News | | AlanMosley
“A lot of websites have rel=canonicals in place as placeholders within their page code. Its best to leave them blank rather than point them at themselves. Pointing a rel=canonical at the page it is installed in essentially tells us “this page is a copy of itself. Please pass any value from itself to itself.” No need for that.” He also stated that a canonical is much like a 301 except that it does not physically move the user to the canonical page. This leads me to think that having such a tag may leak link juice. “Please pass any value from itself to itself”
Google has stated that GoogleBot can handle such a tag, but this still does not mean that it is not leaking link juice.0 -
Google+ profiles and Rel Author. Extensive question
A bit of a mammoth question for discussion here: With the launch of Google+ and profiles, coupled with the ability to link/verify authorship using rel=me to google+ profile - A few questions with respect to the long term use and impact. As an individual - I can have a Google+ Profile, and add links to author pages where I am featured. If rel=me is used back to my G+ profile - google can recognise me as the writer - no problem with that. However - if I write for a variety of different sites, and produce a variety of different content - site owners could arguably become reluctant to link back or accredit me with the rel=me tag on the account I might be writing for a competitor for example, or other content in a totally different vertical that is irrelevant. Additionally - if i write for a company as an employee, and the rel=me tag is linked to my G+ profile - my profile (I would assume) is gaining strength from the fact that my work is cited through the link (even if no link juice is passed - my profile link is going to appear in the search results on a query that matches something I have written, and hence possibly drain some "company traffic" to my profile). If I were to then leave the employment of that company - and begin writing for a direct competitor - is my profile still benefiting from the old company content I have written? Given that google is not allowing pseudonyms or ghost writer profiles - where do we stand with respect to outsourced content? For example: The company has news written for them by a news supplier - (each writer has a name obviously) - but they don't have or don't want to create a G+ profile for me to link to. Is it a case of wait for google to come up with the company profiles? or, use a ghost name and run the gauntlet on G+? Lastly, and I suppose the bottom line - as a website owner/company director/SEO; Is adding rel=me links to all your writers profiles (given that some might only write 1 or 2 articles, and staff will inevitably come and go) an overall positive for SEO? or, a SERP nightmare if a writer moves on to another company? In essence are site owners just improving the writers profile rather than gaining very much?
Industry News | | IPINGlobal541 -
External Sitemap Tool?
Can anyone recommend a good external sitemap generator (that is not also a tool owned by a search engine)? I'm looking for a reputable tool that is independent of Google, Yahoo!, Bing, etc that will crawl, index, report problems, but also that will submit to the search engines. Would love to hear what other Mozzers recommend!
Industry News | | JeanieWalker0