Search ranking for a term dropped from 1st/2nd to 106th in 3 months
-
Hello all,
Just a couple notes first. I have been advised to be vague on the search term we've dropped on (in case this page ranks higher than our homepage for it). If you search for my name in Google though you should be able to figure out where I work (I'm not the soccer player).
While I am looking for an answer, I've also posted this question on a couple other forums (see https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4934323.htm and https://productforums.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!msg/webmasters/AQLD7lywuvo/2zfFRD6oGAAJ) which have thrown up more questions than answers. So I have posted this as a discussion.
We've also been told we may have been under a negative SEO attack. We saw in SEMRush a large number of backlinks in October/November/December - at about the same time we disavowed around 1m backlinks (more on this below) but we can't see this reflected in Moz. We just got off a call with someone at Moz to try and work this out and he suggested we post here - so here goes...
On 4th October for the search term 'example-term' we dropped from number 2 to number 9 on Google searches (this was confirmed in Google Search Console).
We also paid an external SEO consultant to review our site and see why we are dropping on the term 'example-term'.
We've implemented everything and we're still dropping, the consultant thinks we may have been penalised in error (as we are a legitimate business and we're not trying to do anything untoward).
In search console you could see from the graphs on the term we used to rank 1st and 2nd (you could go back 2 or 3 years and still see this).
The thing we do find confusing is that we still rank very highly (if not 1st) for 'example-term + uk' and our brand name - which is very similar to 'example-term'.
Timeline of events of changes:
-
2nd October 2018 midday: Added a CTA using something called Wisepops over the homepage - this was a full screen CTA for people to pledge on a project on our site helping with the tsunami in Indonesia (which may have had render blocking elements on).
-
4th October: we added a Google MyBusiness page showing our corporate headquarters as being in the UK (we did flag this on the Google MyBusiness forums and both people who responded said adding a MyBusiness page would not affect our drop in rankings).
-
4th October: dropped from number 2 to number 9 on Google searches (this was confirmed in Google Search Console)
-
4th October: Removed the Wisepops popup
-
5th November: Server redirect so anything coming in on / was redirected to a page without a /
-
12th November: Removed around 200 junk pages (so old pages, test cms pages etc that were live and still indexed). Redirects from any 404s resolved
-
19th November: Updated site maps and video site maps to reflect new content and remove old content. Reviewed the whole site for duplicate meta tags and titles and updated accordingly with unique ones. Fixed issues in Google Search Console for Google search console for 404 and Mobile usability. Removed embedded YouTube video from homepage.
-
11th December: Removed old content and content seen as not useful from indexing; 'honey pot' pages, old blog, map pages, user profile pages, project page ‘junk pages which have little SEO value’ (comments, contact project owner, backers, report project) from indexing, added ‘no-follow’ to widgets linking back to us
-
3rd January 2019: Changed the meta title from to remove 'example-term' (we were concerned it may have been seen as keyword stuffing)
-
7th January: Disavow file updated to refuse a set of external sites powered by API linking to us (these were sites like example-term.externalsite.co.uk which used to link to us showing projects in local areas - our SEO expert felt may be seen as a ‘link farm’)
-
11th January: Updated our ‘About us’ page with more relevant content
-
15th January: Changed homepage title to include 'example-term' again, footer links updated to point to internal pages rather than linking off to Intercom, homepage ordering of link elements on homepage changed (so moving external rating site link further down the page, removing underlines on one item that was not a link, fixed and instance where two h1 tags were used), removed another set of external Subdomains (i.e. https://externalsite.sitename.co.uk) from our system (these were old sites we used to run for different clients which has projects in geographical areas displayed)
-
18th January: Added the word 'example-term' to key content pages
We're at a loss as to why we are still dropping. Please note that the above changes were implemented after we'd been ranking fine for a couple years on the 'example-term' - the changes were to try and address the drop in ranking. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
-
-
Thanks for the info! It's good to get a bigger picture of the nefarious 'globe' network which seems to link to every site on the entire internet, with absolutely zero value-add whatsoever for end users. It's interesting to see that you guys got hit by some variants of that pure-spam domain, which didn't seem to hit us. Clearly the problem is far more widespread than we had at first anticipated
We also disavowed a whole load of non-globe related domains, those weren't in our export
What I'm talking about in terms of the 'targeted' methodology, is not the deployment of the disavow - but the decision making process before the disavow file was compiled. We really made sure that, we got a very granular view of each and every link before deciding whether to disavow or not. We had rows of metrics against each link, before we decided whether to keep or disavow any particular link
In almost all situations, once we reached deployment we used to domain-level disavow directives. There were only 1-2 exceptions, where the client had good editorial pieces on a site - yet also spammy banner / sidebar links from paid advertising. In such situations we used a mixture of disavow directives, to try (as hard as we could) to let to good links through the net. That being said, very few people will be in that same situation. In the majority of cases, if you don't want one link from a domain - you don't want any!
-
This is really useful thank you. We've reviewed our spammy backlinks and noticed we also have a load of links from the Globe network also.
Looks like a few of the urls we're seeing were not in your disavow list, so I've listed them below so you can update your disavow file if needed.
earth.firm.in
theglobe.shop
advertisewebpages.org
searchingweb.org
accent-rugs.search-web.us
search-web.us
theworld.gen.in
globe.clothing
the-seek.net
theglobe.ru
www.search-internet.net
theglobe.capital
theglobe.co.za
theglobe.insure
theglobe.rocks
the-internet.co
www.internet-advertising.us
www.internetads.us
advertise.country
advertise-web-pages.org
internet-seek.org
the-web.in
theworld.capital
advertise.loans
acne.search-web.us
ad-net.net
advertise.contractors
advertisewebpage.net
arizona-mortgages.search-web.us
globe.video
jitensha.seek-web.net
online-seek.com
seekinternet.net
submit-urls.org
theglobe.exchange
theglobesearch.com
the-globe.today
the-globe.tv
theworld.diamonds
theworlds.marketing
the-world.tv
web-advertisement.com
websearch.world
www.advertising.recipes
www.earth.shopping
www.web-page.org
www.websearch.cz
www.web-seek.net
advertise.cologne
theglobe.bid
web-seek.org
the-internet.in
theseek.org
advertise.cruises
kitsukekyoshitsu.seek-web.net
theglobe.education
advertising.shoes
advertise.condos
advertise-webpages.com
advertise-website.org
seek-internet.com
seek-web.org
theglobe.org.in
theglobe.yt
the-world.site
globe.ru.com
auto-insurance.search-web.us
theglobe.loans
globe.com.de
www.theglobe.ru
theworld.estate
advertise-web-page.net
globe.com.ar
globe.pe
theglobe.ee
worlds.games
searching-web.com
advertise.computer
theglobe.cn.com
add-urls.net
globe.br.com
theglobe.ae
theglobe.sk
web-advertising.net
netfind.eu
theglobe.international
theglobe.gr
theglobe.fi
advertise.jewelry
searchinginternet.net
search-pages.org
submit-page.com
submit-pages.com
submitwebpages.com
theglobe.bz
theglobe.cl
theglobe.email
theglobe.gallery
theglobe.my
the-globe.siteWhen you said you disavowed the links in a targeted way - was that doing each link or grouped domain one by one in a disavow file?
Thanks again
-
So firstly, remember that Google's rankings are a competitive environment. It might be that others are rising as the query-space has been identified as lucrative by a number of competitors, rather than that you are 'dropping'
Another factor to consider is algorithmic devaluation. If you haven't had a message from Google within Search Console saying that you have had a penalty of some kind, then Google aren't adjusting your rankings to be lower than they were before.
When sites which previously gave you SEO authority are deemed as 'manipulative' by Google, the pipe from their site to your site (which was previously sending across ranking power) is switched off, so you drop. No one has edited your rankings to be lower, it's just that previously 'suspect' links have been switched off by Google. From Google's POV those links should never have contributed to your rankings, so it's not an attack on you - it's Google balancing the table to 'how things should always have been'
I recently wrote an in-depth post on this phenomenon, you can find it here as my primary answer to the asked question. I recommend you have a read of that one!
I can confirm that at our agency, from late Summer last year to the end of the year (Autumn to Winter period) we did notice an increase in terms of negative SEO attacks. 2-3 of our client's sites were hit and on one of our client's websites, the attack actually worked and drained some of their ranking positions a little. We recovered from it pretty fast via accurate disavow work. The main offending network was this crappy one which as you can see is just a series of spam domains linked together with billions of pages listed, in Google's least-favourite manipulative 'link-list' format
For reference we purged a load of globe-related domains:
- https://d.pr/f/PLkscH.txt (list of globe-related domains we disavowed)
I'm giving you the above as our timelines somewhat converge for very similar issues, actually if you'd be open to it I'd like to compare lists of disavowed spam domains to see if it was part of the same attack
This list isn't exhaustive, we actually did a much more thorough job of the work than just that. We fetched tens or hundreds of thousands of backlinks from all relevant tools (SEMRush, Ahrefs, Moz Link Explorer, Majestic SEO, Google Search Console) and aggregated all the data. We then used Google Analytics (site-visits / sessions metrics) and URL Profiler (fetching metrics like Citation Flow, Trust Flow, Page Authority, Domain Authority, Ahrefs Rating - all from different data sources) and boiled each link down to a single 'SEO Authority' metric
Once we had that we began deciding which links were 'fake' ore 'negative SEO' links and we disavowed them in a very, very targeted way
The problem is that, when you get penalties or algorithmic devaluations, Google won't explicitly tell you which links are the problem. If you get too aggressive and do the disavow work in a non-data-led, non-targeted way, you can end up disavowing some links which were giving you some SEO ranking power. That makes you dip down further
Even with out solid tools and methodology, we _still _usually experience slight dips from disavow work. But after it's done, limiters on performance are removed and then you can begin to see it trend up again. Especially if you replace some of the bad links with good ones (or compensate for having less authority by introducing better content), you very quickly start to see the site recovering
IMO it sounds like you have had:
- Spammy inbound links and / or negative SEO
- Which led to algorithmic devaluations, not a penalty
- Which was then back-plated with low quality disavow work
- Which then hit you harder than was necessarry
- Which then nullified your content efforts
I'm not a gambling man, but if I had to roll some dice - that's what I'd say
This is the kind of lengths we were going to, in order to get an accurate disavow which killed negative links whilst preserving decent ones:
- https://d.pr/i/o4GM8p.png (screenshot of Excel)
This particular sheet has over 5,000 rows of data, but before we began our cull it had many more (into the tens or hundreds of thousands of rows of data, from memory)
A lot of the colouration is conditional formatting, designed to make stuff stand out. There were also rules saying stuff like, actually if this link is already a no-follow it therefore can't be a risk so don't disavow (basic logic)
If this doesn't look like the lengths to which your agency or freelance partner went to (with very sensitive disavow work) then the work wasn't done right
Sorry that I haven't provided a clear-cut, out of the box answer to your query. Hopefully the knowledge and resources which I have shared here, will be some use to you on your **quest for restored **rankings
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
-
How can i Rank this website
here is my website www.onlinehackingtricks.com with fresh content and with proper on page seo but if i will do some off page seo then google will give penality to me because my one website got deindexed so how can i rank this?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SEORAMAN0 -
Click Through's for ranking
Back in April of 2014, Rand performed an experiment to determine if Google clicks-throughs made a difference on rankings. He Tweeted and asked people to search on a specific term, and then click on a specific listing, to determine if the immediate clicks made a difference. Within 2.5 hours, his search listing went from #10 position to #1 position. My question is this: If this experiment still works today, could you right click, copy link address of the SERP listing from Google's page and put it in a Facebook or Twitter post, and receive the same results? Or would this be gaming the system? Here is an example of the link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiaqZD9-cXLAhUKyWMKHfFID70QFghYMAk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbuzzy4shots.com%2Ffocus-pain-relief%2F&usg=AFQjCNElHaso_vXP4rWQdsaX1JdP8IItMQ&sig2=Sg9r6zSbW0pZQtb4ZbzJqg&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | tdawson090 -
The purpose of these Algo updates: To more harshly push eCommerce sites toward PPC and enable normal blogs/forums toward reclaiming organic search positions?
Hi everyone, This is my first post here, and absolutely loving the site and the services. Just a quick background, I have dabbled in SEO in the past, and have been reading up over the last few months and am amazed at the speed at which things are changing. I currently have a few clients that I am doing some SEO work for 2 of them, and have had an ecommerce site enquire about SEO services. They are a medium sized oak furniture ecommerce site. From all the major changes..the devaluing of spam links, link networks, penalization of overuse of exact match anchor text and the overall encouraging of earned links (often via content marketing) over built links, adding to this the (not provided) section in Google Analytics, and the increasing screen real estate that PPC is getting over organic search...all points to me thinking on major thing..... That the search engine is trying to push eCommerce sites and sites that sell stuff harder toward using PPC and paid advertising and allowing the blogs/forums and informational sites to more easily reclaim the organic part of the search results again. The above is elaborated on a bit more below.. POINT 1 Firstly as built links (article submission, press releases, info graphic submission, web 2.0 link building ect) rapidly lose their effectiveness, and as Google starts to place more emphasis on sites earning links instead - by producing amazing interesting and unique content that people want to link to. The fact remains that surely Google is aware that it is much harder for eCommerce sites to produce a constant stream of interesting link worthy content around their niche (especially if its a niche that not an awful lot could be written about). Although earning links is not impossible for eCommerce sites, for a lot of them it is more difficult because creating link worthy content is not what eCommerce sites were originally intended for. Whereas standard blogs and forums were built for that exact purpose. Therefore the search engines must know that it is a lot easier for normal blogs/forums to "earn" links through content, therefore leading to them reclaiming more of the organic search ranking for transaction and non transaction terms, and therefore forcing the eCommerce sites to adopt PPC more heavily. POINT 2 If we add to the mix the fact that for the terms most relevant to eCommerce sites, the search engine results page has a larger allocation of PPC ads than organic results (above the fold), and that Google has limited the amount of data that sites can see in terms of which keywords people are using to arrive on their sites, which effects eCommerce sites more - as it makes it harder for them to see which keywords are resulting in sales. Then this provides further evidence that Google is trying to back eCommerce sites into a corner by making it more difficult for them to make sense of and track sales from organic results in comparison to with PPC, where data is still plentiful. Conclusion Are the above just over exaggerations? Can most eCommerce sites still keep achieving a good percentage of sales from organic search despite the above? if so, what do the more niche eCommerce sites do to "earn" links when content topics are thin and unique outreach destinations can be exhausted quickly. Do they accept the fact that the are in the business of selling things, so should be paying for their traffic as opposed to normal blogs/forums which are not. Or is there still a place for them to get even more creative with content and acquire earned links..? And finally, is the concentration on earned links more overplayed than it actually is? Id really appreciate your thoughts on this..
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | sanj50500 -
Better ranking competitors have paid links from blog pages
I have a trial of all the tools at the moment and it's a lot of fun. I have been delving into site explorer and found that some competitors have links to them from obvious seo promoting paid blog sites. One has no other links except a paid for blog from a site that openly admits it offers paid marketing and they shot up to 4th on page one for a main keyword phrase. The info from moz and matt cuts video's say not to do this, but it's so tempting. The blog is well written, while I sit here and do the right thing, my competitors have page one. If the blog is well written and is meaningful is it OK and if google ever decide it's paid and don't like it, wouldn't it be better to be page one for 6 months and then recover? I'd love to give the link to the seo, blogger thingy but don't want to come across as promoting it in any way. I am sure there are loads of them anyway.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Peter24680 -
Will implementing 301's on an existing domain impact massively on rankings?
Hi Guys,I have a new SEO client who only has the non-www domain setup for GWT and I am wondering if implementing a 301 for www will have a massive negative impact on rankings. I know a percentage of link juice and PageRank will be affected. So my question is: If I implement the 301 should I brace myself for a fall in rankings. Should I use a 301 instead to maintain link juice and PageRank? Is it good practice to forward to www? Or could I leave the non www in place and have the www redirect to it to maintain the data? Dave
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | icanseeu0 -
Main keyword decline in SERPs ranking :-(
Hi Moz, My very humble attempts at SEO has been doing very well for over a year with the keyword phrase 'vintage chanel bags'. Recently, about 3-4 months ago I noticed it dropped from rank 1 to rank 5. I've slowly but steadily been building up more social marketing interaction (Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram mostly), brand awareness in company is increasing more searches for 'Vintage Heirloom', great in-links from reputable companies & bloggers. What I'm confused about is that one of our competitors Rewindvintage now appears as no.1 for this keyword but tracking with Moz every metric we outperform them on, namely domain authority & Page Authority. I have noticed they have 4 anchor text links (dubious quality wordpress comments), with the anchor term vintage chanel bags and we have none despite ranking no. 1 for so long?? I'm trying to use the Moz science here, just a bit confused. Any help, insights, similar experience would be much appreciated. I engage only in white hat and look for slow & honest SEO growth (as far as I'm aware ! ). Thanks for looking Kevin
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | well-its-1-louder0 -
Big Rank Drop - Is My Site Spammy?
Like many others one of our niche sites - aluminumeyewear.com got slammed in the recent algo updates (4/18). All of our pages dropped at least 40/50 places which seems like a penalty to me. The site still ranks for its name thankfully. I'm trying to figure out if this is an over-optimization penalty, or a devaluing of back links or both. I would be grateful if I could get some feedback as to whether you feel the site is over optimized and how I could check if sources of back links have been penalized which in turn has effected us? Thanks in advance!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | smckenzie750