Need help determining how toxic this backlinking is
-
Okay, so my company has an SEO company already. However, we're trying to get people internally cross-trained on SEO, so I've been selected to kind of do a crash-course in SEO and look at our site from a new perspective. We are in the process of getting our old site ported over to a new one we've also created on Wordpress. I've been doing a LOT of online research, but this is definitely a very new field for me.
Here's our current site: www.cedrsolutions.com
So, here's my question: While doing some SEO-optimizing automatic tests on our site, I came across some weird backlinks to one of our pages: http://www.cedrsolutions.com/dental-office-manual/
http://en.calameo.com/read/003415063525a885728e7
Here's the thing: We didn't make this. It looks HORRIBLE, the copy is gibberish, and it looks weird. Doing some more searching, I started finding stuff like this
https://lessons.engrade.com/dentalofficemanual/1
http://pumosust.over-blog.com/2014/09/how-to-get-customized-dental-office-manuals-online.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egMonqa5eRo (???? I don't even understand how someone did this, the photo in the book is just the photo from our page)
http://www.tuugo.in/Companies/cedr-hr-solutions/0150008267958#!
Conservatively, I'd say there's at least 100 of these types of pages out there linking to us, maybe more
Then I started finding comments on blogs
http://blog.kenexa.com/hr-focus-on-increasing-revenue-not-just-managing-costs/
So, my first thought is obviously "Okay, these are gibberish, over-optimized, and ALL of them are trying to bump our relevancy for something along the lines "Dental office manual"
EDIT: I should also mention these links ALL just appeared out of thin air. A whole bunch in early July, and more in mid-September. They didn't just slowly accumulate.
So (finally) here's my questions:
1. Did our current SEO company probably do this? The only thing they've mentioned before is that they were going to create some backlinks for us, with an assurance they'd be genuine links that would build Pagerank without getting us slapped by Google.
2. Am I correct in my opinion that these are toxic links that could get manual action taken against us by Google? I'm not sure how LIKELY it is (as again, there's only about 100 or so) but they seem to be violating multiple Google principles. With how often Google pushes out algorithm updates I feel like we could still get busted for this even if the links are like 6-7 months old and not sending us much traffic.
I'm asking because I've been told to set up a conference call with the account manager at our current SEO place, and I want to know what I'm getting into. I might be wildly over-reacting about nothing, I might be kind of right but it's not that bad, or I might be 100% right and what they are doing is not cool at all, and could kill our SEO if we get busted by Google. I'm not sure which it is.
Checking Google webmaster tools and analytics, I don't see any drops in organic traffic between July '14 and now, so I don't think we've been smacked by Google algorithm-wise. And there's no notice from Google of manual action being taken, or anything being wrong with our backlinks, so I'm fairly confident these links haven't hurt us at least as of today. I'm just worried going forward (especially when we finish the new site and submit it to Google to get crawled, the URLs will be the same)
Sorry this was so long. I'm kind of nervous, honestly. On the one hand, these backlinks seem SUPER sketchy to me, but on the other hand, I don't KNOW any of this stuff. It sounds kind of ridiculous for me, someone with maybe 3 weeks of intense Google-education in SEO, to be questioning something a real, established SEO company is doing. I mean, I kind of have to assume they know better, right?
-
I'd say you need to get a full overview of what's been done so far - and sign-off on anything that they're planning to do for you in the future (including tactics, target media and so on). You might find this helpful: http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/what-is-nofollow/
See the bit here, under "How do we get natural links" http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/unnatural-links/
Switch to PR focused work, in the future, where your submissions are editorially reviewed (sure, some will be rejected - yet this is all about quality over quantity).
This is a good rundown of what not to do: http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/seo-to-avoid/
-
That is tough to say. I think there is more likely the sites themselves can be punished for having poor quality content, but, that being said Penguin is becoming ever more advanced and you can be penalized for being in a bad neighborhood. So far that refers specifically to link profiles, but I don't put it passed Google to start including content in that evaluation as well. My rule of thumb is always go with your gut, because your instinct is usually spot on. If you get bad vibes then do whatever you can to make sure you are satisfied with the end result.
-
Thanks, you've answered my question! I understand what you're saying, building a backlink profile in this way isn't automatically bad, per se, if it's done really well. But we seem to be in agreement that these were done very poorly.
I'll ask about getting them re-written, of course since this is the first we're seeing of these links, it's entirely possible our SEO company will deny ever making them. Of course, in that case, it's either a poorly done negative-SEO campaign, or someone REALLY likes CEDR and is just incapable of expressing it correctly.
I know removal is the best step, and then disavowal. Do you agree then, that these links are a penalty threat from Google if just left alone and Google later notices them? I'm assuming that's why you didn't mention just ignoring them as an option.
-
Yes, you are not incorrect. As I said, this is not necessarily bad, but it isn't necessarily good. The tactic isn't bad, but the implementation is bad. If you can rewrite the content, that would be my recommendation. Before you disavow, ask the webmaster of the other sites to remove the links if you feel that is what you want to do.
If the current company you are working with published these articles, you should remind them of Hummingbird, Panda and Penguin. I am not saying these links are best practice, but there are alternatives to disavowing them. Without knowing what the rest of your link profile is I cannot say that removing them would be my first jump. I would first try to fix the content and anchor text, second I would ask whichever webmaster has links you can't salvage to remove them, and my last resort would be to disavow them.
-
I'm not disagreeing (I mean, I asked for opinions, so I appreciate your input) but I feel like a lot of what I've read about what kinds of things annoy Google's algorithm, these posts are like Exhibit A for how to do everything incorrectly.
-
Most of the posts are either written by a robot script or a non-english speaker. With how insanely keyword optimized the writing is, and how a lot of it is borderline gibberish, it just screams "SPAM" to me. My understanding the rule of thumb with Google's algorithm is "If it feels really spammy to you, it will come across as spammy to Google"
-
Is it really just kind of frowned-upon for an SEO company to just slap our name on content that like, without discussing it with us first? That fake CEDR e-book, and the Youtube video, those look like a 12 year old made it. A potential customer who sees that kind of stuff isn't going to think "Well, these guys sure seem competent and like someone I can trust with my livelihood!" I would think doing this sort of thing without telling us would be a HUGE red-flag no-no.
-
Bottom line though, your feeling is that these links are very unlikely to get us penalized at all, SEO-wise?
-
-
These all look like directory listings and guest blog posts. I don't believe they are toxic, but I also don't think they are the best kind of links either. I would have a chat with your seo company and give them the clear understanding of exactly what you want your content to sound like and where you want it to be.
Guest blogging is not an unacceptable form of backlinking. In my opinion it is just not 100% best practice anymore. You want high authority natural links.
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
-
More or Less pages helps in SEO?
Hi all, I have gone through some articles where less pages are suggested and they claim that they will be favoured by Google. I'm not sure as with limited pages, we can only target limited keywords. There might be threat from Google in-terms of doorway pages for more pages. But one of our competitor has many pages like dedicated page for every keyword. And their website ranks high and good for all keywords. I can see three pages created with differnet phrases for same on keyword. If less pages are good, how come this works for our competitor? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | vtmoz0 -
Backlinks in Footer - The good, the bad, the ugly.
I tried adding onto a question already listed, however that question stayed where it was and didn't go anywhere close to somewhere others would see it, since it was from 2012. I have a competitor who is completely new, just popped onto the SERPs in December 2015. Now I've wondered how they jumped up so fast without really much in the way of user content. Upon researching them, I saw they have 200 backlinks but 160 of them are from their parent company, and of all places coming from the footer of their parent company. So they get all of the pages of that domain, as backlinks. Everything I've read has told me not to do this, it's going to harm the site bad if anything will discount the links. I'm in no way interested in doing what they did, even if it resulted in page 1 ( which it has done for them ), since I believe that it's only a matter of time, and once that time comes, it won't be a 3 month recovery, it might be worse. What do you all think? My question or discussion is why hasn't this site been penalized yet, will they be penalized and if not, why wouldn't they be? **What is the good, bad and ugly of backlinks in the footer: ** Good Bad Ugly
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Deacyde0 -
Ever seen this tactic when trying to get rid of bad backlinks?
I'm trying to get rid of a Google penalty, but one of the URLS is particularly bizarre. Here's the penalized site: http://www.travelexinsurance.com. One of the external links Google cited as not being natural that links to the penalized site is: http://content.onlineagency.com/index.aspx?site=6599&tide=769006&last=3111516 In the backlink profile of the penalized site, there are about 100 different backlinks pointing to www.travelexinsurance.com from content.onlineagency.com/... So when I visit http://content.onlineagency.com/index.aspx?site=6599&tide=769006&last=3111516 it actually is displaying content from http://www.starmandstravel.com/787115_6599.htm, which you can see after clicking the "Home" button. That company is a legit travel agency who I assume knows nothing about content.onlineagency.com and is not involved in whatever is going on. And that's the case for every link from content.onlineagency.com. So I'm just wondering if someone can help me understand what sort of tactic content.onlineagency.com is using. One of my predecessors I fear used some black hat tactics. I'm wondering if this is a remnant of that effort.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Patrick_G0 -
SERPs Help
Hey Mozzers, Please can someone advise? I manage the on-line content for an estate of Gyms in the UK. We had an existing gym location in Birmingham - www.nuffieldhealth.com/gyms/birmingham and 5 months ago we opened a new location in Birmingham - www.nuffieldhealth.com/gyms/birmingham-central. The 2 pages have different in-page content, different H1's, different title tags, different citations in page both have a few back links from different root domains, however the 2nd page (birmingham-central) does not rank in the top 50 results even though our domain is strong that the vast majority of results? Our original page (/gyms/birmingham) also slipped from page 1 in SERPs to the bottom of page 2 when the second Birmingham gym page was deployed?? I am guessing Google does not know which page to serve in SERPs, bud i am at a lose as to how to fix this issue. Can anyone please advise?? Regards Ben
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Bendall0 -
Duplicate Content for e-commerce help
Hi. I know I have duplicate content issues and Moz has shown me the issues on ecommerce websites. However a large number of these issues are for variations of the same product. For example a blue, armani t-shirt can be found on armani page, t-shirt page, armani t-shirt page and it also shows links for the duplicates due to sizing variations. Is it possible or even worthwhile working on these issues? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | YNWA0 -
Help required as difficulty removing Google algorithmic penalty
I am not an SEO expert but I am trying to recover my company's ranking on Google. We are a UK based baby shower company. Been established since 2003. We have used SEO companies a few years ago. On September 28th 2012 our rankings in Google dropped significantly on certain landing pages, others like our baby shower gifts page has remained position 1 for UK Google searches . Bing and Yahoo were unaffected. Searches for baby shower and baby shower decorations has gone from position 1 or 2 (behind wikipedia ) to these 2 landing pages being unranked in Google. I have for the first time ever gone through our back links, tried to locate bad or low quality links, emailed where possible, and set up in webmaster tools a dissavow file ( currently not acted upon by Google). I have also amended the text in the baby shower department so it does not read as keyword stuffed. It has been two and a half months now and sales has dropped significantly and me and the staff are getting very concerned. Our site is www.showermybaby.co.uk . We have not received a manual penalty. Any suggestions or help in removing this Google penalty would be greatly appreciated.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | postagestamp0 -
Check For Bad Directory Backlinks For Free
I used http://deletebacklinks.com/ yesterday to search 7 of the directories they have access to for searching bad links. I found one of my sites had links on these directories and I was able to remove them for fairly reasonable price. Thought this is a good tool to do a free quick check for any bad linkbacks on deindexed directories. I know this may be a small portion but every little bit helps.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TheSEODR0 -
Can you block backlinks from another domain
Wondering if this is somehow possible. A site got hacked and created a /data folder with hundreds of .php files that are web pages selling all sorts of stuff. We deleted the /data folder and blocked Google from indexing it. Just noticed in Webmaster Tools that the site has 35,000 backlinks from other sites that got hacked with the same way. Is there a way to block these sites? I am assuming there isn't, but wanted to see if anyone ran into the same problem. It is a wordpress site is that helps.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | phatride0