"Unnatural links to your site" manual action by Google
-
Hi,
My site has been hit by a "Unnatural links to your site" manual action penalty and I've just received a decline on my 2nd reconsideration request, after disavowing even more links than I did in the first request. I went over all the links in WMT to my site with an SEO specialist and we both thought things have been resolved but apparently they weren't.
I'd appreciate any help on this so as to lift the penalty and get my site back to its former rankings, it has ranked well before and the timing couldn't have been worse.
Thanks,
Yael -
Yes. It will often take me 3-6 weeks to do a thorough job on a manual penalty. I can do it faster if I dedicate all my time to it, but yeah...it's time consuming.
If you don't get example links it usually means that you have a large number of unnatural links still not addressed.
-
Thanks Marie for your input and advice. I didn't get any examples from Google despite asking for them twice. As you've suggested I'll create a spreadsheet with the list of domains, contacts etc. It's tricky to understand which domain needs to be taken down and which is valid, I don't want to make mistakes and dig a deeper hole for my site if and when it comes out of penalty.
I did get a sitewide manual action so I just hope to get it resolved as quickly as possible. Obviously contacting dozens or hundreds of sites would take some time to complete.
-
I'm working now to get as much information as I can to understand and cope with the issues that caused the penalty. I'm sure I can get the best advice here on Moz. Which site link auditing services would you recommend?
-
When you failed on your first two requests, did Google give you any example links? Those usually hold the key to why you are not passing.
Also, when you get a manual action it is vitally important to make attempts to try to remove links and not just disavow them. If you have links that can't get removed, then you need to show some sort of effort. I usually include a Google doc spreadsheet with the domains and the contact info and notes on how many attempts I have made at contact. Sometimes, if I have a site where I can't get any links removed I'll make a comment as to why. But usually, there are some that can still be removed. For example, you can report spam domains to Blogger or Weebly and they'll probably remove them.
It may be a good idea to have someone else review your links as well to see if there are more that could be removed/disavowed. Sometimes it is obvious which links are unnatural, and sometimes it is not.
I'd appreciate any help on this so as to lift the penalty and get my site back to its former rankings, it has ranked well before and the timing couldn't have been worse.
If you have a sitewide manual action then yes, when your penalty is removed you should see a good return in rankings for brand terms. But, if it is a partial match then you may find that not a lot changes unfortunately. I wrote an article on Moz about this which you can read here: https://moz.com/blog/after-penalty-removed-will-traffic-increase. Sometimes with a partial action I'll see some improvement, but sadly it is usually not dramatic. With that said, if your site has a really good base of truly naturally earned links then you have a good chance to see good improvement.
Hope that helps!
Marie
-
"Your seo specialist" may have got you into the pickle... have you also obtained independent advice and run a deep site link audit?
-
Hi Ishai,
There are a few steps I typically run through in this instance to get the issue resolved.
Firstly, rather than just submitting a disavow file, spend some time actively trying to remove as many links as you can without paying for them. Fixing a penalty isn't as simple as submitting a text file and Google wants to see that you're actively trying to fix the problem before they will lift the penalty.
It's often said they don't read the comments in your disvow file but I always add these in anyway. I mention what I've done to resolve the issue (contacted all possible low-quality sites requesting the links be removed) and even having a separate section for the particularly dodgy sites that want me to pay for removal.
Being able to demonstrate that you're legitimately trying to fix the mistake rather than waving the magic Disavow wand goes a long way to them removing your penalty.
Another tip that you may or may not be aware of - always disavow at the domain level rather than individual links. This way, if some of the dodgy directories shuffle their site structure and link to you from a different page, the links are still disavowed.
The syntax for this is simple: domain:badwebsite.com
This info is all covered in Google's Search Console Help section
EDIT: I should also mention, just pulling Link to Your Site from Search Console isn't going to give you a very comprehensive list. Consider combining this list with an export from Ahrefs or Moz's Open Site Explorer as this will give you a better idea of exactly what sites are linking to you.
Frustratingly, Search Console only seems to show a selection of referring domains.
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
-
Issue with Google Structured Data Testing Toll asking for "logo" - ld+json
Hi I am trying to get schema set up for a number of articles we are putting on our site (eg:https://www.plasticpipeshop.co.uk/temporary-KB-page_ep_88-1.html) the mark up I think I should use is : Google structured data testing tool keeps insisting I have "publisher" and then "logo" but doesn't seem to want accept anything for the "logo" entry no matter how I seem to code it. Any assistance would be much appreciated as after three hours on this I am pulling what little hair I have left out! Bob
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobBawden10 -
Realtor site with external links in navigation
I have a client with a realtor site that uses IDX for the listings feed. We have several external links going over to the IDX site for various live custom searches (ie: luxury listings, waterfront listings, etc...). We are getting a Moz spam ranking of 2/7 for both "Large Number of External Links" and "External Links in Navigation". Chances are, these are related. My question is this: (1) Being the score is only 2/7, should I bother with fixing this? (2) If I add a rel="nofollow" to all the site-wide links (in header, footer & menu) will this help? I couldn't find anything definitive in the Q&A search. Looking forward to any insights!!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lcallander1 -
Own Domains shown as Spam Links in Open Site Explorer
Hi ! I have 7 Domains that I bought that point to the same webspace as my main domain. In Open Site Explorer they are showed as spam links. So to solve the issue I redirected the links to an empty subdirectory on the same server which is different from the directory the main domain is linking to. But nevertheless the domains are still showing up as spam. Why might that be? What can I do to get rid of these domains? In fact I only need the main domain. Cheers, Marc
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RWW0 -
PDF Cached by Google, but not showing as link
The following pdf is cached by google: http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/REFERRAL%20LIST%20OF%20BOND%20AGENCIES_Florida.pdf However, OpenSiteExplorer is not listing any of the links as found in it. With such an authoritative site, I would think Google would value this, right? None of the sites listed rank well though and OpenSiteExplorer's inability to see the links makes me wonder if Google provides these sites any value at all. Is there any link juice or brand mention value here for Google?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheDude0 -
Why is this site not indexed by Google?
Hi all and thanks for your help in advance. I've been asked to take a look at a site, http://www.yourdairygold.ie as it currently does not appear for its brand name, Your Dairygold on Google Ireland even though it's been live for a few months now. I've checked all the usual issues such as robots.txt (doesn't have one) and the robots meta tag (doesn't have them). The even stranger thing is that the site does rank on Yahoo! and Bing. Google Webmaster Tools shows that Googlebot is crawling around 150 pages a day but the total number of pages indexed is zero. It does appear if you carry out a site: search on Google however. The site is very poorly optimised in terms of title tags, unnecessary redirects etc which I'm working on now but I wondered if you guys had any further insights. Thanks again for your help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | iProspect-Ireland0 -
Brackets vs Encoded URLs: The "Same" in Google's eyes, or dup content?
Hello, This is the first time I've asked a question here, but I would really appreciate the advice of the community - thank you, thank you! Scenario: Internal linking is pointing to two different versions of a URL, one with brackets [] and the other version with the brackets encoded as %5B%5D Version 1: http://www.site.com/test?hello**[]=all&howdy[]=all&ciao[]=all
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mirabile
Version 2: http://www.site.com/test?hello%5B%5D**=all&howdy**%5B%5D**=all&ciao**%5B%5D**=all Question: Will search engines view these as duplicate content? Technically there is a difference in characters, but it's only because one version encodes the brackets, and the other does not (See: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_urlencode.asp) We are asking the developer to encode ALL URLs because this seems cleaner but they are telling us that Google will see zero difference. We aren't sure if this is true, since engines can get so _hung up on even one single difference in character. _ We don't want to unnecessarily fracture the internal link structure of the site, so again - any feedback is welcome, thank you. 🙂0 -
301 redirect a old site that has been "dead" for a while?
Hi guys, A quick question. I have a client who has an old business website that had some great links (Forbes.com, CocaCola.com, etc). The problem is that he knew nothing about SEO and let the hosting expire. He still owns the domain, but the site is no longer listed in Google. He did no SEO, so I am not worried about being hit by any artificial anchor text penalties, since the links are as natural as it gets. So my questions is, would there be any benefit from 301 redirecting that site to his new business? The new business is in almost exactly the same niche as the old site. I am thinking of 301'ing to a sub-page which will refer to his past venture with the old business, not to the homepage of the new site. Thanks in advance for your help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rayvensoft0