Manual Removal Request Versus Automated Request to Remove Bad Links
-
Our site has several hundred toxic links. We would prefer that the webmaster remove them rather than submitting a disavow file to Google.
Are we better off writing web masters over and over again to get the links removed? If someone is monitoring the removal and keeps writing the web masters will this ultimately get better results than using some automated program like LinkDetox to process the requests? Or is this the type of request that will be ignored no matter what we do and how we ask?
I am willing to invest in the manual labor, but only if there is some chance of a favorable outcome.
Does anyone have experience with this? Basically how to get the highest compliance rate for link removal requests?
Thanks, Alan
-
I agree with Moosa here. When we went through this we used Link Detox to help identify the links we wanted to remove/disavow and RMOOV to send an automated email campaign. The response rate was less than 5%as I recall and usually took multiple emails if there was to be a response.
This is the nice thing about the tools as they track success for you. It's also a really good idea to use a "throw away"email address,as many of these may be reported by the recipients as spam and get your email account added to spam filters.I think the personal touch thing is more for outreach. Not worth the effort here.
Best!
-
Alan, if I would be at your place, I would have moved to a program like link detox instead of the manual labor and here are some reasons why!
- You are emailing to the real people so no matter what trick you use, there are chances that you may fail, especially if they have decided not to remove the links.
- The removal ratio can dramatically increase if you offer a small amount to remove a link but again disavow is a better and easy option that will help you save your time and money.
- Manual Labor to do a work that might or might not work is a bad investment in my opinion, on the other hand manual labor will be much more expensive as compare to a tool like Link Detox.
Link Detox will find bad links, email them and give you the list of bad links that contain your website link. You can get that data and create a disavow file and submit it to Google.
All in all, I understand your point but in my opinion it is not a very good investment.
Hope this helps!
-
Hi Alan
When I pull links, I do so from WMT, Majestic, OSE, and Ahrefs.
Reason being, you're going to see different links from different tools. No one source covers them all, so it's best to get as much data as you can from different places.
I will read into LinkDetox and tell you if anything is a red flag to me, but again, your statement from the other question thread seems like a lot money for automation and "too good to be true".
Please let me know if you have any more questions or comments - would love to help where I can and see you through! Best of luck!
-
Hi Patrick:
Thanks for your in depth response!! The expedite tools in Link Detox is described here: http://www.linkdetox.com/boost.
But if Google will now process disavow files in a few months as the MOZ blogpost your refer to states, I guess there is no point in using boast.
Our site never received a manual penalty from Googlebut did drop in ranking after the first Penguin in April 2012. Recover since then has been sporadic and uneven despite a major investment in SEO.
I have pretty much followed the procedure you describe. Only deviation is that I compiled the links from Google Webmaster Tools plus the Link Detox database. I wonder if we are missing a significant number of links by not sourcing AHREFs, MOZ. If I can identify 80-90% of the bad links I think it is sufficient. I don't expect 100% in removing them.
Thanks again for your assistance!!
Alan
-
Hi there
Based on some previous work I have done, webmasters are substantially more responsive to manual outreach and can definitely tell the difference.
Always include:
-
Their name
-
Both in the subject line and greeting
-
I like "Attn: (name) / Link Removal Request"
-
Their site domain name
-
Links to pages with examples of your link
-
Thank them for their time
-
Signature with proper contact information
Always respond to emails - good, bad, or indifferent - people respond to a real human being. Thank them for removal, kindly respond to apprehension or irritability, and answer (within reason) questions they may have. Do not be hostile back. I would usually send three emails:
1. Stating my reason for reaching out and where my link is located.
2. If I didn't hear back, about four days later, I would follow up. Again letting them know where my link is located.
3. If I didn't hear back, about 3-5 days later, I would let them know that this would be my last email before disavowing their link.Usually, I didn't make it to three. Remember to document and keep records of your outreach in case you somehow get a manual action - you'll need it.
Here is a great link removal resource:
Link Audit Guide for Effective Link Removals & Risk Mitigation (Moz)Always consider disavow files a tool and friend - they do work. If you can't get links removed and you fear a manual action, these will be your next line of defense - especially if you are dealing with hundreds of bad links.
Take the time to manually reach out to webmasters if you can - it will pay off. I also want to suggest LinkRisk as another tool to look into for your link audits and outreach. It has been a big help for me.
Hope this 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
-
Tumblr links
I have several Tumblr blogs. Created when Tumblr links were worth more, and now primarily for my amusement. But, I'd like to get whatever link juice I can out of them. I thought only the footer links were do follow, but when I check Moz it's showing all links as do follow. Any idea which is true?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | julie-getonthemap1 -
6 .htaccess Rewrites: Remove index.html, Remove .html, Force non-www, Force Trailing Slash
i've to give some information about my website Environment 1. i have static webpage in the root. 2. Wordpress installed in sub-dictionary www.domain.com/blog/ 3. I have two .htaccess , one in the root and one in the wordpress
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NeatIT
folder. i want to www to non on all URLs Remove index.html from url Remove all .html extension / Re-direct 301 to url
without .html extension Add trailing slash to the static webpages / Re-direct 301 from non-trailing slash Force trailing slash to the Wordpress Webpages / Re-direct 301 from non-trailing slash Some examples domain.tld/index.html >> domain.tld/ domain.tld/file.html >> domain.tld/file/ domain.tld/file.html/ >> domain.tld/file/ domain.tld/wordpress/post-name >> domain.tld/wordpress/post-name/ My code in ROOT htaccess is <ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">Options +FollowSymLinks -MultiViews RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase / #removing trailing slash
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteRule ^(.*)/$ $1 [R=301,L] #www to non
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.(([a-z0-9_]+.)?domain.com)$ [NC]
RewriteRule .? http://%1%{REQUEST_URI} [R=301,L] #html
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteRule ^([^.]+)$ $1.html [NC,L] #index redirect
RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]{3,9}\ /index.html\ HTTP/
RewriteRule ^index.html$ http://domain.com/ [R=301,L]
RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} .html
RewriteRule ^(.*).html$ /$1 [R=301,L]</ifmodule> The above code do 1. redirect www to non-www
2. Remove trailing slash at the end (if exists)
3. Remove index.html
4. Remove all .html
5. Redirect 301 to filename but doesn't add trailing slash at the end0 -
Internal Linking
Hi I've been looking over my pages and it says for this page for example http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/1-6kw-halogen-heater I have too many links, I think it was about 178. These links are from the menu and bottom of the page - how much of an issue is this for internal linking structure? I wouldn't want to remove the menus or change them too much. Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Link Type Analysis
Howdy Moz Fans, Just wondering if anyone knows any tools to which can identify link types. E.g. is the link - navigational, in the footer or in the body text. Specifically for internal links. Any suggestions? Cheers, RM
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MBASydney0 -
Should I try to change these links or no?
Hey guys, I need some advice on a link profile I'm currently working on. Our client sells a product in the hunting industry and has been around for over ten years. I just finished up classifying and looking at all of their links today and found that around half of them are sponsor links, links on "link pages," and a few directory links with almost all of them being followed. Because we are the first company to do SEO for them, I know that these aren't maliciously solicited links, but I'm worried that they may be having a negative impact on the site. Most of the links are coming from other non-competing websites in the outdoor industry which typically tends to have very antiquated sites with very antiquated practices. Essentially, I don't want to go out and try to nofollow or disavow all of these links that the website has had for a long time on other related websites if they're helping us, but I also don't want to be leaving anything up that could algorithmically be identified as spam. Below are some examples to show you what I'm referring to by the sponsor links and link resource pages. Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks! Sponsored - http://www.becomeabetterhunter.com/ or http://outdoorobsession.tv/ or http://thehollywoodhunter.com/ Link Resource Pages - http://bowhuntamerica.com/links or http://cornerarchery.com/CompanyLinks.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CaddisInteractive0 -
Should sitewise links always be branded
Hello, A client has 8 sitewide links with the same anchor text - their main keyword. They have 84 linking root domains total. 3 of the 8 are his own sites. 4 of the sitewide links are in the footer (all 3 of his own sites interlink in the footer) In the last 5 months, rankings for the the top 2 short-tail keywords have dropped even though they should rank higher. In a few days they're going to do some major rearranging with one of the 8, adding nofollows sitewide because of a partnership disagreement. Would there be any negative consequences, do you think, to right away changing all of the footer links of the 3 sites that the site owner owns to branded anchor text (domain.com)? Should we change all the sitewides to branded anchor text? There have been no problems in GWT.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobGW0 -
Link masking in WordPress
in Wordpress, I want to block Google from crawling my site using the primary navigation. I want to use anchor text links in the body and custom menus in the sidebar to make maximum benefit of the "first link counts" rule. In short, I want to obfuscate all of the links in my primary navigation without using the dreaded nofollow. I do not want to block other links to the pages - body text, custom menus, etc. . This would be site wide. I'd rather not use Ajax or any type of programming unless it's part of a plugin. Can anyone make a simple, Google-friendly suggestion?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CsmBill0 -
Dynamic Links vs Static Links
There are under 100 pages that we are trying to rank for and we'd like to flatten our site architecture to give them more link juice. One of the methods that is currently in place now is a widget that dynamically links to these pages based on page popularity...the list of links could change day to day. We are thinking of redesigning the page to become more static, as we believe it's better for link juice to flow to those pages reliably than dynamically. Before we do so, we need a second opinion.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RBA0