Should I Disavow More Links
-
My SEO website got hit with a very severe penalty about a year ago and it was totally banished from the rankings for all of the money terms like SEO, SEO company and search engine optimisation (before the penalty I ranked in the top 10-15 for all of those phrases, top 3 for SEO company). I was probably hit for being listed in shed loads of paid directories, low quality free directories, footer links in client sites, keyword forum signature links and articles with keyword rich text links.
A month or so after I got hit I started trying to clean up my link profile, I got rid of all of the client website links, I changed the link text on the majority of forum signature links and article links, I managed to get rid of about 50 directory links and the ones that I could not get taken down I disavowed - about 150.
During that time I sent 2-3 separate reconsideration requests and I got this message each time:
"Links to your site violate Google's quality guidelines"
After doing all of that work and being rejected I pretty much gave up - things just seemed to get worst, not only was I no longer ranking for the money terms, but all of my blog posts tanked as well.
I got my site redesigned and switched to Wordpress - I used 301 redirects and everything but they totally didn't work. My organic traffic went down to less than 50 hits a day - before the penalty I was getting over 300 a day.
Then on Saturday just gone, almost exactly a year after I got hit with the penalty I noticed my site ranking in position 23 on Google.co.uk in the UK for the competitive phrase SEO company from being absolutely nowhere and I do mean nowhere.
This sign has given me hope and the motivation to get rid of the penalty altogether, update all of my articles, get rid of bad advice in old blog posts and get rid of the rest of the bad links.
Thing is that I am nervous to go getting rid of more links and disavowing, what if I do more harm then good? Do you think the penalty has been removed and I should just leave the rest of the bad links or should I continue trying to clean things up?
By the way, my website is http://www.seoco.co.uk
-
Hi David,
It sounds like you have had a partial recovery and looking at your other replies below, that the manual action you have applies to the links themselves which means Google have reduced their value and your rankings accordingly. So whilst they may not be actively hurting you, it is always good to have a clean slate and remove manual penalties if you can so that you know there is nothing holding you back from ranking.
In terms of your actual question, if you have links that are clearly outside of Google guidelines, you may as well get rid of them if you can. They're probably not helping and if you are able to get rid of them, then it may help prevent any future problems if Google tweak how they treat those links.
It sounds like you have recovered a little though with your ranking returning, so removing other links may not be a high priority for you, but like I said, it's good to get a clean slate and be sure that you can move forward building good links with nothing else holding you back.
I hope that helps a bit!
Paddy
-
That's a tough one. At one time, John Mueller (Google employee) said that WMT links were all that you needed in order to get rid of a link related problem. But, when Google started giving example links for failed reconsideration requests they commonly would give links that are not in WMT. Sometimes they can be found in ahrefs or majestic but sometimes they can't be found in any of the backlink checkers!
I use WMT (both sample and most recent), OSE, Majestic and Ahrefs. You can also get links by registering for Bing WMT and Yandex as well. Plus, you can look at your GA referral data over the last few years which may find you more.
If you kept any records of where you had made links then that can help as well.
-
I have another question, because I have over 1000 domains linking to my site in webmaster tools I cannot see all of the domains linking to my site, how do you recommend I get around this? I have already gone through all of the links in Open Site Explorer.
-
Thanks Marie, I think I am going to take your advice and keep going with cleaning up bad links.
Most of the organic links use my company name "The SEO Company", my domain name "Seoco", my name "David Eaves", or the name of the article/blog post, but there are a few that simply say "SEO company".
-
OK, so now that you know you have a manual action, you know that you've got work to do. Some people would argue that if you have a partial action that you don't need to do anything because Google has already discounted those links. So, in other words, if you take action to remove the warning message it's not like Google is going to start counting them already. But, I would disagree. If you have a manual action, in most cases it's almost a blessing because if you do the work to get the warning lifted then you will have also done the work needed to escape the Penguin algorithm.
If what you are saying about self made links is true then aren't you breaking the guidelines by having a link to your real estate website in your moz profile?
I think in Google's eyes it's mostly about scale and intent to manipulate the search results. The link that I have from my Moz profile could potentially be seen as unnatural on a manual review, but the odd link like that is not likely to do me harm. It's not anchored with a keyword and it's obvious that I have not used links in profiles as an attempt to manipulate Google. I'm not saying that your profile links are necessarily bad as I haven't analyzed your site, but if you've got lots of them, and if a good number of them are keyword anchored, then they could be causing you problems. Also, if there are profile links made on sites where you don't actively participate then Google may pick up on this as a manipulating scheme. (I'm not saying that you have links like this...just throwing it out as an idea.)
My website has hundreds of totally organic links from websites like Techcrunch, Mashable, this site, search engine land and loads more thanks to blog posts and a popular infographic I did
What kind of anchor text are they linking back with? If it's a money term then this can definitely be a factor in your penalty even if the links are on high quality sites.
Manual penalties and Penguin are created to catch sites that are cheating their way to the top. They're not created to demote sites that have the odd unnatural link here and there. I have yet to analyze a Penguin hit site or a manually penalized site that I thought was hit unfairly.
I have far more organic links then almost any other UK SEO company.
If you've got good links beneath the unnatural ones then this means that if you do a good cleanup of the unnatural links then you have a good chance for an excellent recovery. You may need to wait for the next Penguin refresh to fully see the effects though.
-
I have just checked in WMT and in the partial matches section it says:
"Some manual actions may apply to specific pages, sections or links
Reason
Unnatural links to your site - impact links"
If what you are saying about self made links is true then aren't you breaking the guidelines by having a link to your real estate website in your moz profile? The links I have in forums are signature links and have been earned through participation just like your links on your moz profile - I have not spammed or anything to get them.
My website has hundreds of totally organic links from websites like Techcrunch, Mashable, this site, search engine land and loads more thanks to blog posts and a popular infographic I did, I have far more organic links then almost any other UK SEO company.
Thanks for your response.
-
When you get an unnatural links penalty, Google wants to see that you have made attempts to remove almost every single link that was self made. It's not enough to get most of them...you need to address close to 100%
Just changing anchor text in self made links is probably not going to work. If you control the link then it's probably unnatural and needs to go.
Do you have naturally earned links to your site? If not, then you may not be able to rank again unfortunately.
The main question that you are asking though is why you have popped back up to position #23. It's possible that you had a manual penalty that has expired. Take a look in WMT under Search Traffic --> Manual Actions and see if you still have manual action there. Even if the penalty has expired though it's important to do the work to clean things up completely because you can get re-penalized again.
I am suspicious that Google has been testing Penguin refresh data as I have seen a couple of my Penguin hit clients make slight recoveries and then drop back down again. It's possible that when Penguin refreshes you will bump up higher which would be good!
-
Thanks, will bare that in mind
-
While I agree with your advice, I am not sure that getting rid of more links right away is the right thing to do.
@David
Without knowing the entire story of this site, it seems to me that your appearance on page three indicates that the penalties are no longer affecting your site as it has positively improved. I think in this case spending your time trying to get some very authoritative and trusted links would do you the most good. Remember, most sites have spam links pointing to them for one reason or the other but if those links make up only a small portion of the total link profile, they often do not harm the site. If this wasn't the case negative SEO would be the only way people boosted their own sites.
Good luck and keep at it!
-
Hi Bill, with the 150 directory links that I disavowed I sent each of them two separate link removal requests before I disavowed and I marked all of it down in a google doc and sent it to google in the reconsideration requests. The only thing I didn't do was actually send Google a copy of the emails I sent. Are you saying that I need to send Google a copy of the emails I send to each directory owner/website owner?
Thanks for your response by the way.
-
David, whenever you get that message from Google, they're looking for you to make a considerable effort to remove the links, not just disavow the links. So, before you submit another reconsideration request, you'll need to do a few things:
-
identify all of the links. Don't just get the links that OSE gives you, get the webmaster tools links, the ahrefs links, and the majestic SEO links, as well
-
review all of the links and identify the toxic/bad/unhealthy/paid links (the ones that Google is having a problem with).
-
contact site owners to get those links removed. You'll need to document everything, even show the emails you sent as well as when you sent them, etc. etc.
Google is looking for you to spend time getting the links removed, and a disavow will not be enough in order to get a manual penalty revoked.
-
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
-
Inbound Links - Redirect, Leave Alone, etc
Hi, I recently download the inbound links report for my client to look for some opportunities. When they switched to our platform a couple years ago, the format of some of their webpages change, so a number of these inbound links are going to an error page and should be redirected. However, some of these are spammy. In that case, someone recommended to me to disavow them but still redirect anyway. In other cases, some were "last seen" a year or two ago, so when I try to go to the URL the link is coming from, I also get an error page. Should I bother to redirect in these cases? Should I disavow in both cases? Or leave them alone? Thanks for any input!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AliMac261 -
Site Footer Links Used for Keyword Spam
I was on the phone with a proposed web relaunch firm for one of my clients listening to them talk about their deep SEO knowledge. I cannot believe that this wouldn’t be considered black-hat or at least very Spammy in which case a client could be in trouble. On this vendor’s site I notice that they stack the footer site map with about 50 links that are basically keywords they are trying to rank for. But here’s the kicker shown by way of example from one of the themes in the footer: 9 footer links:
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RosemaryB
Top PR Firms
Best PR Firms
Leading PR Firms
CyberSecurity PR Firms
Cyber Security PR Firms
Technology PR Firms
PR Firm
Government PR Firms
Public Sector PR Firms Each link goes to a unique URL that is basically a knock-off of the homepage with a few words or at the most one sentences swapped out to include this footer link keyword phrase, sometimes there is a different title attribute but generally they are a close match to each other. The canonical for each page links back to itself. I simply can’t believe Google doesn’t consider this Spammy. Interested in your view.
Rosemary0 -
Competitor Black Hat Link Building?
Hello big-brained Moz folks, We recently used Open Site Explorer to compile a list of inbound linking domains to one of our clients, alongside domains linking to a major competitor. This competitor, APBSpeakers.com, is dominating the search results with many #1 rankings for highly competitive phrases, even though their onsite SEO is downright weak. This competitor also has exponentially more links(602k vs. 2.4k) and way more content(indexed pages) reported than any of their competitors, which seems physically impossible to me. Linking root domains are shown as 667 compared to 170 for our client, who has been in business for 10+ years. Taking matters a step further, linking domains for this competitor include such authoritative domains as: Cnn.com TheGuardian.com PBS.org HuffingtonPost.com LATimes.com Time.com CBSNews.com NBCNews.com Princeton.edu People.com Sure, I can see getting a few high profile linking domains but the above seems HIGHLY suspicious to me. Upon further review, I searched CNN, The Guardian and PBS for all variations of this competitors name and domain name and found no immediate mentions of their name. I smell a rat and I suspect APB is using some sort behind-the-scenes programming to make these "links" happen, but I have no idea how. If this isn't the case, they must have a dedicated PR person with EXTREMELY strong connections to secure this links, but even this seems like a stretch. It's conceivable that APB is posting comments on all of the above sites, along with links, however, I was under the impression that all such posts were NoFollow and carried no link juice. Also, paid advertisements on the above sites should be NoFollow as well, right? Anyway, we're trying to get to the bottom of this issue and determine what's going on. If you have any thoughts or words of wisdom to help us compete with these seemingly Black Hat SEO tactics, I'd sure love to hear from you. Thanks for your help. I appreciate it very much. Eric
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | EricFish0 -
No cache still a good link for disavow?
Hi Yall, 2 scenarios: 1. I'm on the border line of disavowing some websites that link to me. If the page is N/A (not available) for the cache, does that mean i should disavow them? 2. What if the particular page was really good content and the webmaster just has the worse seo skills in not interlinking his old blogs, hence why the page that's linking to me is N/A for cache, should i still disavow it? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Shawn1240 -
When you get a new inbound link do you submit a request to google to reindex the new page pointing at you?
I'm just starting my link building campaign in earnest, and received my first good quality inbound link less than an hour ago. My initial thought was that I should go directly to google, and ask them to reindex the page that linked to me... If I make a habit of that (getting a new link, then submitting that page directly to google), would that signify to google that this might not be a natural link building campaign? The links are from legitimate (non-paid, non-exchange) partners, which google could probably figure out, but I'm interested to know opinions on this. Thanks, -Eric
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ForForce0 -
What EMD Meta Title should we use and what about getting links to the same C-Block IP?
Situation: Recently I encountered two problems with both internal and external SEO for my company websites.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TT_Vakantiehuizen
This Dutch company has four websites on one server. Three closely related EMD(Exact Match Domain) websites and one overarching website. (Holiday homes rental websites) Vakantiehuizen-Verhuur.nl (overarching)
Vakantiehuizen-Frankrijk.nl (EMD)
Vakantiehuizen-Italie.nl (EMD)
Vakantiehuizen-Spanje.nl (EMD) Question 1:
What would be a preferable Meta Title for the EMD websites (homepage/subpages)? Keep in mind that the domains are EMD. The homepage will target the most important keywords and should not compete with subpages. Options for the homepage:
1. Vakantiehuizen Frankrijk | Alle vakantiehuizen in Frankrijk op een rij!
2. Vakantiehuizen Frankrijk | Vakantiehuizen-Frankrijk.nl onderdeel van Vakantiehuizen-Verhuur.nl
3. Suggestions? Options for the subpages:
1. Vakantiehuis Normandie | Vakantiehuizen Frankrijk
2. Vakantiehuis Normandie | Vakantiehuizen-Frankrijk.nl
3. Suggestions? And concerning the keywords in the beginning; is it wise to use both plural and singular terms in the meta title? For Example:
Hotel New York. Best hotels in New York | Company Name Question 2: Many SEOs state that getting (too many) links from the same C-Block IP is bad practice and should be avoided. Is this also applicable if one website links out to different websites with the same C-Block IP? Thus, website A, B and C (on the same server) link to website D (different server) could be seen as spam but is this the same when website D links to website A, B and C?0 -
Fix Bad Links in Google
I have a client who had some grey hat SEO done in the past. Some of their back links aren't from the best neighborhoods. Google didn't seem to mind until 9/28, when they literally disappeared for all searches except for their domain name. Google still has their site indexed, but it's just not showing up. There are no messages in Webmaster Tools. I know Bing has the tool where you can disavow bad links and ask them to discount them. Google doesn't have such a tool, but what is the strategy when you don't have control over the link sources, such as in blog comments? Could this update have been a delayed Penguin ranking change from the latest Penguin Update on the 18th? http://www.seomoz.org/google-algorithm-change Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Tom
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TomBristol0 -
What's been your experience with profile link-building?
What have your experiences been? Short Term? Long Term? There isn't a lot written about it, and I'm wondering where it falls in the order of things. I was very hesitant to jump in, but have launched a few campaigns, both for local geo targeting phrases, and national accounts. Surprisingly, I've seen a surge in rankings, but also wonder how short lived they will be. I've noticed the links still don't come up in tools like open site explorer, but I'm able to find them when searching for the unique username I used while building the profiles. The sites I'm listing on have no relevance to industry, unless by chance, although the PR's I'm using are all 4 or higher. Is this considered gray hat?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | skycriesmary720