How to idesntify "inorganic" links
-
I am intending to remove spammy link of my website http://cellspyexpert.com/ which has been ranking well but I noticed a sudden drop in its ranking. I took a lot of care while building links, I tried to get links from relevant high authority websites with high page rank. I used profiling and guest blogging method only and never participated in any link scheme but received following message in google webmaster tools "
Google Webmaster Tools notice of detected unnatural links to http://www.cellspyexpert.com/"
I got this message on 19<sup>th</sup> Sep and ranking dropped on 6<sup>th</sup> Oct
1- Is this EMD issue?? I am pretty sure it is not because of EMD (Exact match domain) as I have been using phrase match, brand name+phrase and other anchor texts. I used exact match also but only 2%.
2- If it is bad quality, inorganic link issue?? Then I am intending to remove inorganic links so that I could send reconsideration request but facing problem in detecting inorganic links.
Please advise!!
-
Uhhh, how much alcohol? I have a reasonably stocked wine cellar.... Good point re JCPenny.
Best to you,
-
**Is there a way to tell whether or not a penalty was caused by a webspam report to Google? **
Of course! Where there is a will, there is a way.
The question is, are you determined enough to find the answer by bribing Matt or another member of his team with enough alcohol / money / goodies to get them to violate their NDA? I have seen them share in a general manner they have taken action on sites based on spam reports, but I can't recall any example where they have said "we have taken action on your site based on a spam report".
If pressed for an example, I would use JC Penney's. According to the public story, a NY Times reporter called Google to inquire about JC Penney's amazing performance in Google. You could view this as a spam report.
Thanks for the kind words Robert.
-
Ryan,
I do not believe I have seen this laid out more clearly or succinctly. The most important part that most seem to gloss over in this quest of reconsideration is your statement, ..."** forums are full of angry site owners sharing stories of how they submitted 10 Reconsideration Requests and all 10 have been denied**."
If you rush to get site reconsidered, you are slowing yourself down. You might as well do it all first and not be unhappy because you did no research on links, got two or three you saw as bad (or knew were bad) removed and ask for reconsideration. Without documentation (proof you did all in your power to have the links removed) of what you have done, what reasonable person would believe you did it?
"It does beg a question for me:
Is there a way to tell whether or not a penalty was caused by a webspam report to Google?
Thanks for great response.
-
**Is this EMD issue?? **
No. You do not have a EMD.
Clearly you have an issue with unnatural links. Those links should be located and removed. The process involves three main steps:
1. Compile a comprehensive list of ALL known links to your site. That does not mean simply downloading the links Google shows as that often represents about 50% of the links to your site. It also does not mean using Google + OSE as that still is not enough. I generate a report using Google + Bing + OSE + Majestic + AHREFs. This report consistently finds enough links to remove a manual penalty or relieve a Penguin issue.
2. Visit every linking site and properly identify each link as organic or manipulative. This task sounds much easier then it is. It requires training and experience. A large percentage of SEOs are simply not calibrated to look at a link the same way Google does. In other words, they cannot properly identify a manipulative vs organic link.
If you identify manipulative links as organic, then Google is unlikely to honor your Reconsideration Request. If you identify organic links as manipulative, you are damaging your site.
3. A comprehensive Webmaster Outreach program needs to be implemented to contact every site providing a manipulative link and requesting the removal of the link(s). This involves sending emails to the site's WHOIS email address, the email address found on the site, and using the Contact Form on the site. At times you need to call sites, use regular mail or chase site owners down via social networks. You need to take any and all reasonable actions to remove the link.
For each of the above steps, you need to thoroughly document your actions if you are dealing with a manual penalty. You need to prove the above steps were taken. For example, when you send an email to the WHOIS email address, a copy of that email needs to be saved as a pdf or text file, uploaded to a file server and then a link to that message should be placed in a spreadsheet. This example is simply one of many.
The process takes a massive amount of time by properly trained personnel. I have examined numerous software tools designed to automate the link identification process, and they all fail quite badly in my experience. That is why the forums are full of angry site owners sharing stories of how they submitted 10 Reconsideration Requests and all 10 have been denied.
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
-
What to do with these toxic links?
Back in July I had posted here that I thought someone was doing negative SEO against us. We monitor our links on a daily basis, and a lot of toxic links came in quickly within a few days. So we were pro-active and ended up disavowing those links soon after we saw them. Shortly after that our ranking start to drop and we lost a good amount of traffic, though I do not know if its really connected since we only disavowed those toxic links and we weren't ranking FROM those links since they were disavowed so quickly. Now, its happening again. 20 new inbound domains linking to us from complete crap websites with crap content and not done by us. I want to disavow them, but I am thinking that maybe the first time we disavowed the links, it hurt us, and maybe disavowing now will hurt us further? I think Google should be able to filter out this crap but who knows, too much depends on this being handled correctly. Here are some of the crappy links: http://optibike.com/?home.php=page/loans/student-loan-without-a-cosigner-2.html
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | DemiGR
http://designsbynickthegeek.com/?index.php=finance/loans/loan-for-you-3.html
http://www.nuvivaweightloss.com/?index.php=article/loans/300-loan-today.html
http://ecommercesalesmultipliersystem.com/?home.php=board/loans/fast-loan-with-monthly-payments-2.html They are mostly duplicate content across a network of sites. How would you guys handle this?0 -
Unnatural inbound links message from Google Webmaster Tools!
Hi Everyone, I just got this message from GWT(image below) This is probably a penguin Penalty. What is clear is I have to find the best and most efficient way to tackle this issue. We will probably lose tons of traffic in the next couple of weeks so I would like to get the best suggestions and maybe a guideline on how to do this in the most effective way! Thank you! 1a0X2M2a1h0A
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
Do inbound links from forums hurt our traffic?
We have a manual action against us on Google webmaster tools for unnatural links. While evaluating our back links, I noticed that forums with low page rank/domain authority are linking to us. Is this hurting us?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | imlovinseo0 -
How cloudflare might affect "rank juice" on numerous domains due to limited IP range?
We have implemented quite a few large websites onto cloudflare and have been very happy with our results. Since this has been successful so far, we have been considering putting some other companies on CL as well, but have some concerns due to the structure of their business and related websites. The companies run multiple networks of technology, review, news, and informational websites. All have good content (Almost all unique to each website) and rankings currently, but if implemented to cloudflare, would be sharing DNS and most likely IP's with eachother. Raising a concern of google reducing their link juice because it would be detected as if it was coming from the same server, such as people used to do for their blog farms. For example, they might be tasked to write an article on XYZ company's new product. A unique article would be generated for 5-10 websites, all with unique, informative, valid and relevant content to each domain; Including links, be it direct or contextual, to the XYZ product or website URL. To clarify, so there is no confusion...each article is relevant to its website... technology website- artciel about the engineering of xyz product
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MNoisy
business website - How xyz product is affecting the market or stock price
howto website - How the xyz product is properly used Currently all sites are on different IP's and servers due to their size, but if routed through cloudflare, will Google simply detect this as duplicate linking efforts or some type of "black hat" effort since its coming from cloudflare? If yes, is there a way to prevent this while still using CL?
If no, why and how is this different than someone doing this to trick google? Thank you in advance! I look forward to some informative answers.0 -
Disavow - Broken links
I have a client who dealt with an SEO that created not great links for their site. http://www.golfamigos.co.uk/ When I drilled down in opensiteexplorer there are quite a few links where the sites do not exist anymore - so I thought I could test out Disavow out on them .. maybe just about 6 - then we are building good quality links to try and tackle this problem with a more positive approach. I just wondered what the consensus was?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | lauratagdigital0 -
Negative SEO impacting client rankings - How to combat negative linking?
I have a client which have been losing rankings for the key term "sell gold" in Google AU. However, while doing some investigating I realized that we have been receiving links from bad neighborhoods such as porn, bogus .edu sites as well as some pharmaceutical sites. We have identified this as negative SEO and have moved forward to disavow the links in Google. However, I would like to know what other measures can be taken to combat this type of negative SEO linking? Any suggestions would be appreciated!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | dancape0 -
Blogger Reviews w/ Links - Considered a Paid Link?
As part of my daily routine, I checked out inbound.org and stumbled upon an article about Grey Hat SEO techniques. One of the techniques mentioned was sending product to a blogger for review. My question is whether these types of links are really considered paid links. Why shouldn't an e-commerce company evangelize its product by sending to bloggers whose readership is the demographic the company is trying to target? In pre e-commerce marketing, it was very typical for a start-up company to send samples for review. Additionally, as far as flow of commerce is concerned, it makes sense for a product review to direct the reader to the company, whether by including a contact phone number, a mailing address, or in today's e-commerce world, a link to their website. I understand the gaming potential here (as with most SEO techniques, black-hat is usually an extreme implementation), but backlinks from honest product reviews shouldn't have a tinge of black, thus keeping it white-hat. Am I wrong here? Are these types of links really grey? Any help or insight is much appreciated!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | b40040400 -
How do I know what links are bad enough for the Google disavow tool?
I am currently working for a client who's back link profile is questionable. The issue I am having is, does Google feel the same way about them as I do? We have no current warnings but have had one in the past for "unnatural inbound links". We removed the links that we felt were being referred to and have not received any further warnings, nor have we noticed any significant drop in traffic or rankings at any point. My concern is that if I work towards getting the more ominous looking links removed (directories, reciprocal links from irrelevant sites etc.), either manually or with the disavow tool, how can I be sure that I am not removing links that are in fact helping our campaign? Are we likely to suffer from the next Penguin update if we chose to proceed without moving the aforementioned links? or is Google only likely to target the serious black hat links (link farms etc.)? Any thoughts or experiences would be greatly appreciated.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BallyhooLtd0