Algorithmically penalized site
-
I have been doing SEO for years, but luckily have never had a client penalized or had to go through that. I see everyone talking about it at conferences and know the absolute basics of recovery, but just had someone come to me that was algorithmically penalized about two years ago. They have no actual data to show me a date and they couldn't tell me a specific date. According to them, their SEO disappeared and wouldn't give them access to the analytics. They are definitely showing just about every red flag with anchor tags and low trust links and tons of duplicate content. Just about everything. I realize you don't have the deep data to go by, but are there cases when it is just better to start over from scratch. They have literally thousands of bad links and strange site pages that they say they weren't even aware of. Whether they were or not I guess isn't the point now, but I have heard rumors that if you start over, Google will still figure it out and follow you with the penalty. Is this true or documented? Don't want to potentially recommend that if that is something that generally happens to bad offenders. Happy to do the work and try to resolve their issues, but it is a lot of work and is going to be expensive and want to present other options. Thanks and any thoughts suggestions are appreciated.
-
No problem. You were just trying to help. Appreciate it.
-
sorry my bad man, should have read the full question!
-
Thanks. unfortunately they don't have access to their analytics from that time period.
-
If you have access to the analytics i would recommend checking out the Panguin Tool
You can line up your analytics with any updates in Google algorithms, very easy to spot any drop off points
-
Thank you!
-
You might be able to see some peaks and troughs in the graphs over at SEMRush. They may not be 100% accurate, but will hopefully demonstrate the timing for when things changed. This will then help you to correlate with which algo updates you were most likely affected.
However based on the info you originally gave and the practices that were originaly undertaken, it would not suprise me if you have been hit with pretty much everything.
Good luck with the recovery. Time and effort will in time see a reward.
-
Thanks. I may dig in to that. Initial consult was to tell them if they had been penalized, which seems clear. Will dig deeper with some of these tools if they decide to move forward and try to fix it. Trying to give them a list of options.
Thanks again.
-
Thanks. Great tip. They have tons of those spammy anchor text links from the same subnets, etc. Definitely will start there, though that is the majority, and move on down from there. Initial consult was just to tell them if they have been penalized. That seems clear. I think they knew that.
-
Hi Jeremy
I understand - that can definitely be an issue. Have you looked into SEMRush? You can line up historical data to see where traffic and rankings began to fall and pinpoint it from there.
That will definitely help out a bit! Let me know!
-
Thanks Patrick. Appreciate it. Just kind of wanted to verify what I originally thought. They are a mess. Though I don't have the historical data to see the specific update that got them, from what I've seen just scratching the surface, they were a candidate for just about every update getting them.
-
No problem at all Jeremy.
With the links, concentrate on those with spammy do-follow anchor text first and remember to disavow from a domain level if you think that there is a chance more will be added from that source in the future. Saves a lot of heartache further down the line.
-Andy
-
Hi there
Do you have any access to Analytics or Webmaster Tools? Reason being, you can line up traffic / ranking drops to algorithm history and go from there.
I would definitely go through a backlink audit and remove & disavow bad backlinks.
As far as redirecting a site, there are differing opinions. Google says it likely won't be negatively affected but then say it might, so there's really no straight answer. I always assume it will.
The best option in my opinion is to assess what data you do have and ask what's the best course of action. I personally would start removing backlinks, make sure the on-site SEO is on point, do a content audit, and start benchmarking traffic / rankings - also, make sure you are annotating analytics.
Whether you attack the problem or start from scratch to build the brand, it's going to take time and money. I would just weigh the options with what data you have present.
Let me know if this helps - good luck!
-
Thanks Andy, Yes, I did mean a new site. I really see very few good links on their profile, but it looks like disavowing them all, from what you are saying is likely their only option if it is going to follow them. Just like to provide options other than paying me a lot of money to fix you, but that may be their only option, other than not ever relying on SEO again. Though apparently, they have gone 2 years without it, so maybe that is an option. Thanks again. I very much appreciate it.
-
are there cases when it is just better to start over from scratch.
I'm sure there are, but they will be very few and far between. In all these years of doing SEO, I haven't ever had to do this.
They have literally thousands of bad links and strange site pages that they say they weren't even aware of.
Spend a little time going over these and a disavow will take care of it. However, don't expect positive changes in days. Some take many months to update.
Google will still figure it out and follow you with the penalty
Do you mean build a new site to start again? Well if you have a Penguin hit, then this will follow you. Other penalties could be resolved by a rebuild / refresh of the site though as this will all be on-page.
-Andy
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
-
Leveraging A Second Site
Hi, A client of mine has an opportunity to buy/control another site in the same niche. The client's site is the top-ranked site for the niche. The second site is also often top half of page one. The second site has a 15 year old design that is a really bad, almost non-functional, user experience and thin content. The client's site (site 1) has the best link profile and dominates organic search, but the second site's link profile is as good as our nearest competitor's link profile. Both sites have been around forever. Both sites operate in the affiliate marketing space. The client's site is a multi million dollar enterprise. If the object were to wring the most ROI out of the second site, would you: A) Make the second site not much more than a link slave to the first, going through the trouble to keep everything separate, including owner, hosting, G/A, log-on IPs, so as not to devalue the links to 1st site, etc? Or... B) Develop the second site and not worry about hiding that both are the same owner. Or... C) Develop the second site and still worry about it keeping it all hidden from Google. Or... D) Buy the second site and forward the whole thing to site 1. I know the white hat answer is "B," but would like to hear considerations for these options and any others. Thanks! P.S., My pet peeve is folks who slam a fast/insufficient answer into an unanswered question, just to be the first. So, please don't.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | 945010 -
Site build in the 80% of canonical URLs - What is the impact on visibility?
Hey Everyone, I represent international wall decorations store where customer can freely choose a pattern to be printed on a given material among a few milions of patterns. Due to extreme large number of potential URL combinations we struggle with too many URL adressess for a months now (search console notifications). So we finally decided to reduce amount of products with canonical tag. Basing on users behavior, our business needs and monthly search volume data we selected 8 most representative out of 40 product categories and made them canonical toward the rest. For example: If we chose 'Canvas prints' as our main product category, then every 'Framed canvas' product URL points rel=canonical tag toward its equivalent URL within 'Canvas prints' category. We applied the same logic to other categories (so "Vinyl wall mural - Wild horses running" URL points rel=canonical tag to "Wall mural - Wild horses running" URL, etc). In terms of Googlebot interpretation, there are really tiny differences between those Product URLs, so merging them with rel=canonical seems like a valid use. But we need to keep those canonicalised URLs for users needs, so we can`t remove them from a store as well as noindex does not seem like an good option. However we`re concerned about our SEO visibility - if we make those changes, our site will consist of ~80% canonical URLs (47,5/60 millions). Regarding your experience, do you have advices how should we handle that issue? Regards
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | _JediMindBender
JMB0 -
Should I submit a sitemap for a site with dynamic pages?
I have a coupon website (http://couponeasy.com)
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | shopperlocal_DM
Being a coupon website, my content is always keeps changing (as new coupons are added and expired deals are removed) automatically. I wish to create a sitemap but I realised that there is not much point in creating a sitemap for all pages as they will be removed sooner or later and/or are canonical. I have about 8-9 pages which are static and hence I can include them in sitemap. Now the question is.... If I create the sitemap for these 9 pages and submit it to google webmaster, will the google crawlers stop indexing other pages? NOTE: I need to create the sitemap for getting expanded sitelinks. http://couponeasy.com/0 -
Strange referral site: www.cyberonlineclicking.com would like some insights from the community
Hello Mozzers! I've noticed that our site has been receiving a significant amount of referral traffic from a rather suspect looking site: www.cyberonlineclicking.com Can anyone shed any light on this beast. Stopped receiving traffic around 11th November, but was getting 20K sessions over a 4 week period. The traffic was of poor quality, but would be good to know how or why they were linking to my site (fejobs dot com). Looks very suspicious. Thanks Justin
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Eteach_Marketing0 -
Can I use content from an existing site that is not up anymore?
I want to take down a current website and create a new site or two (with new url, ip, server). Can I use the content from the deleted site on the new sites since I own it? How will Google see that?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RoxBrock0 -
What happens when content on your website (and blog) is an exact match to multiple sites?
In general, I understand that having duplicate content on your website is a bad thing. But I see a lot of small businesses (specifically dentists in this example) who hire the same company to provide content to their site. They end up with the EXACT same content as other dentists. Here is a good example: http://www.hodnettortho.com/blog/2013/02/valentine’s-day-and-your-teeth-2/ http://www.braces2000.com/blog/2013/02/valentine’s-day-and-your-teeth-2/ http://www.gentledentalak.com/blog/2013/02/valentine’s-day-and-your-teeth/ If you google the title of that blog article you find tons of the same article all over the place. So, overall, doesn't this make the content on these blogs irrelevant? Does this hurt the SEO on these sites at all? What is the value of having completely unique content on your site/blog vs having duplicate content like this?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MorganPorter0 -
Merging four sites into one... Best way to combine content?
First of all, thank you in advance for taking the time to look at this. The law firm I work for once took a "more is better" approach and had multiple websites, with keyword rich domains. We are a family law firm, but we have a specific site for "Arizona Child Custody" as one example. We have four sites. All four of our sites rank well, although I don't know why. Only one site is in my control, the other three are managed by FindLaw. I have no idea why the FindLaw sites do well, other than being in the FindLaw directory. They have terrible spammy page titles, and using Copyscape, I realize that most of the content that FindLaw provides for it's attorneys are "spun articles." So I have a major task and I don't know how to begin. First of all, since all four sites rank well for all of the desired phrases-- will combining all of that power into one site rocket us to stardom? The sites all rank very well now, even though they are all technically terrible. Literally. I would hope that if I redirect the child custody site (as one example) to the child custody overview page on the final merged site, we would still maintain our current SERP for "arizona child custody lawyer." I have strongly encouraged my boss to merge our sites for many reasons. One of those being that it's playing havoc with our local places. On the other hand, if I take down the child custody site, redirect it, and we lose that ranking, I might be out of a job. Finally, that brings me down to my last question. As I mentioned, the child custody site is "done" very poorly. Should I actually keep the spun content and redirect each and every page to a duplicate on our "final" domain, or should I redirect each page to a better article? This is the part that I fear the most. I am considering subdomains. Like, redirecting the child custody site to childcustody.ourdomain.com-- I know, for a fact, that will work flawlessly. I've done that many times for other clients that have multiple domains. However, we have seven areas of practice and we don't have 7 nice sites. So child custody would be the only legal practice area that has it's own subdomain. Also, I wouldn't really be doing anything then, would I? We all know 301 redirects work. What I want is to harness all of this individual power to one mega-site. Between the four sites, I have 800 pages of content. I need to formulate a plan of action now, and then begin acting on it. I don't want to make the decision alone. Anybody care to chime in? Thank you in advance for your help. I really appreciate the time it took you to read this.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SDSLaw0 -
Should this site be punished?
Every summer for the past 4 years one of our customer's competitors suddenly has a big jump in Google's (.co.uk) rankings for some of the main industry phrases, particularly "air conditioning". We were always under the impression that they bought links before the busy summer season, as they have these strange massive jumps in the rankings. (for the rest of the year they often drop down) I recently checked out some of the back-links going to their site and noticed something I'd not seen before. Of the (approx) 480 links that showed up, around 80% of the SourceURL's ended with "?Action=Webring" (see 1st attached image). To me it doesn't look natural at all and I'm surprised that Google hasn't picked up on. Their site is www.aircon247.com. It had been mentioned to me that this may be to do with link sharing sites (which I assume is black-hat) but I'm not 100% sure that they are doing this. They also have an identical long spammy-looking footer at the bottom of every page which is clearly only for search engines to see. We reported it to Google a year ago but no action was taken. Do you think that it is acceptable to have it on every page? (see 2nd attached image) I would be interested to know your thoughts on both of these, and whether this would be a dangerous tactic to try and emulate? Gc5MU.png iXGA9.png
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | trickshotric0
