What is really a bad link in 2017?
-
Hi,
Routine answer is: A link which doesn't provides any value. Tired of listening to this statement where we can see number of back-links been generated with different scenarios. There are still many low DA websites which speaks exactly about a brand and link a brand naturally. So, is this a bad link or good link? Let's be honest here. No one gonna visit such pages and browse through our website; it's all about what it's been doing in-terms of SEO.
Do these websites to be in disavow list?
Beside the context how a brand been mentioned, what are the other metrics to disavow a domain?
Expecting some real answers for this straight question.
If it's a low DA site and speaking about exactly our website- Good or bad? Vice-versa...high DA website mentioned website with less matching content. What is the proportion of website authority and content context?
Can we keep a medium DA backlinks with some Moz spam score?
-
All this ^ and that ^^
-
All of this ^^
-Andy
-
When sites get in trouble for having spammy links it's never because of one or two links. It's always because of a widespread pattern of self-made links that were made with intention to manipulate Google.
When I'm looking at link quality I really don't care what the DA is. I've seen good links from low DA sites and I've seen super spammy links from high DA sites.
I hear what you're saying though...We keep saying that a link is a good link if it's one that has a purpose outside of SEO. And sure, in many cases that is true. For example, when I did the Whiteboard Friday that Andy linked to above (thanks Andy!), that post linked back to my website. That link brings me traffic and has made me some money. It's a great link for reasons that go beyond SEO. But, there are also times where I get links that probably don't have a lot of value outside of SEO and still help me.
For example, for some of my clients we do a lot of HARO responses. If a dentist client of mine takes part in an interview about teeth whitening and he gets quoted along with a link, I suppose there is some value outside of SEO such as branding and good PR, but really...that interview wouldn't have happened if there was no link involved. I'm ok with that though.
So now that Penguin is simply devaluing spammy links rather than penalizing sites, when do I disavow?
-
If a site has a crazy pattern of ultra spammy links I'll disavow.
-
If there is negative SEO, I'm usually not worried but it doesn't hurt to disavow.
-
If a site has a manual penalty (as seen in Google Search Console --> Search Traffic -> Manual Actions) I'll try to remove unnatural links and then I'll disavow.
I'm not going to disavow the odd potentially unnatural link though.
-
-
I don't think there is as much of a need to worry about disavowing as there was before the update from Google, but it is still something that you need to look at on a case by case basis. I don't think you could classify a particular set of criteria to disavow against or ones to ignore.
-Andy
-
Hi Andy,
Thanks for the reply. So you meant you say that Google will take care of all spammy links and we really must not be using Disavow? Then what is the tool about? We can see many cases where SEO experts removing penalty of websites by using disavow tool by devaluing some bad links. (I am not speaking about paid links). How much Google can be accurate in devaluing all spammy links and not hurting any websites? Many SEO experts insists that Disavow must be used. I am really confused about newly generating backlinks and what to do with them?
-
How can you say if a link is a spammy? Any recent example? So as per your opinion we must use disavow.
So what happens when you keep on receiving backlinks from low DA websites? Does such activity improve ranking?
-
I would only disavow genuinely spammy links or links from spammy websites. If it's a genuine website and the link was placed natural and it is on topic to my product I would not disavow purely because it is a small website with a low DA.
-
HI,
First of all, have a watch / read of this Whiteboard Friday where Marie talks all about links and what can work for you.
https://moz.com/blog/what-links-comply-googles-guidelines-whiteboard-friday
In my view, if someone has linked to your site without you asking, then there is never usually a problem, but it depends on the the type of links / quantity of links.
There is too much at play to give a generic answer that will fit everything you ask here. You should look at each site on its own merits, but with the introduction of Penguin into the main algorithm and this now running in real time, there is less of a need to be worried about these kinds of things. There is less of a need to disavow links because Google has improved how it scores these and if it spots a spammy link, is more likely to just devalue it.
-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
-
Links Identified in WMT not on Webpages
Hi, We're currently reviewing one of our clients backlinks in Google Webmaster Tools, Majestic & OSE as we can see many toxic links. However we cannot find the links on the webpages that are listed on Google WMT. We have searched through the website along with checking through the source code. Should we still disavow the domain? Thanks, Edd
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | tomcraig860 -
SEO companies that own linking properties
Hi everyone, I do some SEO work for a personal injury attorney, and due to his profession, he gets cold-called by every digital marketing company under the sun. He recently got called by a company that offers packages that include posting in multiple directories (all on domains they own), creating subdomains for search listings, and PR services like writing and distributing press releases for distribution to multiple media outlets. The content they write will obviously not be local. All this and more for less than $500 a month! I'm curious if any of you have any experience with companies like this and whether you consider them black hat. I realize I'm asking you to speculate on a very broad description of what they offer, but their linking strategies sound risky to me. What experiences have you had with companies like this? Do you know anyone who has ever gotten a penalty using these tactics? Thanks, in advance, for sharing your thoughts.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ptdodge0 -
Embedded links/badges
Hi there Just picking up on something Rand said in his blog analysing his predictions for 2014. Rand predicted that Google will publicly acknowledge algorithmic updates targeting...embeddable infographics/badges as manipulative linking practices While this hasn't exactly materialised yet, it has got me thinking. We have a fair few partners linking to us through an embedded badge. This was done to build the brand, but the positives here wouldn't be worth being penalised in search. Does anyone have any further evidence of websites penalised for doing this, or any views on whether removing those badges should be a priority for us? Many thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | HireSpace0 -
What is your opinion on link farm risks and how do I explain this to a client?
Hi All, I have a new monthly retainer client who still has a $600/month "linkbuilding" contract with a large national advertising/directory organization (I won't name them but I'm sure you can guess). I just got a "linking" report and it's filled with garbage: Comment spam (on huffington post). Fake G+ Account Links from multiple sites with Domain Authority of 1 (http://encirclehealth.net/, http://livingstreamhealth.co/ , etc). These have no "about" sections, no ads, no products - just blatant link farms. I've told the client that these links pose a danger in Google, that he should get them to remove them, and that he should request a refund. Their rep is pushing back hard and saying there's absolutely nothing to worry about. Am I overestimating how bad/dangerous these are? How would you explain to the client the risks? I've already shared a report and my recommendations with the client but am really just looking for some affirmation of my position that these MUST get removed. Any advice much appreciated!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | PlusROI0 -
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 -
Site being targeted by hardcore porn links
We noticed recently a huge amount of referral traffic coming to a client's site from various hard cord porn sites. One of the sites has become the 4th largest referrer and there are maybe 20 other sites sending traffic. I did a Whois look up on some of the sites and they're all registered to various people & companies, most of them are pretty shady looking. I don't know if the sites have been hacked or are deliberately sending traffic to my client's site, but it's obviously a concern. The client's site was compromised a few months ago and had a bunch of spam links inserted into the homepage code. Has anyone else seen this before? Any ideas why someone would do this, what the risks are and how we fix it? All help & suggestions greatly appreciated, many thanks in advance. MB.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MattBarker0 -
Dealing with internal pages with bad backlinks - is this approach OK?
Hi all, I've just been going through every page of my company website, and found a couple of internal pages with nasty backlinks/profiles. There are a significant number of article marketing and rubbish directory pages pointing to these internal pages. These internal pages have low PR, yet are performing well in terms of SERPs. I was planning to: (1) change URLs - removing current (soon to be former) URLs from Google via Webmaster Tools. Then (2) remove website's 404 for a while so nasty links aren't coming anywhere near the website (hopefully nasty links will fail to find website and broken links will result in link removal - that's my thinking anyway). PS. I am not planning to implement any kind of redirect from the old URLs. Does this sound like a sensible approach, or may there be problems with it? Thanks in advance, Luke
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Can our white hat links get a bad rap when they're alongside junk links busted by Panda?
My firm has been creating content for a client for years - video, blog posts and other references. This client's web vendor has been using bad links and link farms to bolster rank for key phrases - successfully. Until last week when Google slapped them. They have been officially warned on WMT for possibly using artificial or unnatural links to build PageRank. They went from page one of the most popular term in Chicago for their industry where they had been for over a year - to page 8 - overnight. Other less generic terms that we were working on felt the sting as well. I was aware of and had warned the client of the possibility of repercussions from these black hat tactics (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-google-makes-liars-out-of-the-good-guys-in-seo#jtc170969), but didn't go as far as to recommend they abandon them. Now I'm wondering if one of our legitimate sites (YoChicago.com), which has more than its share of the links into the client site is being considered a bad link. All of our links are legitimate, i.e., anchor text equals description of destination, video links describe the entity that is linked to. Our we vulnerable? Any insight would be appreciated.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | mikescotty0