Site rankings steadily decreasing - do I need to remove links?
-
Since mid-April, our ranking have been steadily declining. Our two main keywords are 'nuts and bolts' and 'bolts and nuts'. 'nuts and bolts' dropped from 7th to 46th in May and has recovered slightly to 28th, and 'bolts and nuts' moved from 7th to 16th, and is today 24th.
Ranking on keywords we specialise in have fared better, but they're fairly niche. 'bsw bolts' has moved from 2nd to 4th, and 'imperial bolts' has moved from 1st to 4th.
I think my link profile is the issue. I don't think we've been penalised by Penguin directly (I may be wrong, I don't think we'd be page 2 on such a competitive term as 'bolts and nuts' after Penguin if we had been penalised.), but I think what's happened is that sites that link to us have been penalised, resulting in a knock on effect. Does that sound right?
Here's my link profile:
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/links?site=www.thomassmithfasteners.com</a>
I've been slowly building relevant links with prospective customers and kept up a very basic social media profile - just the odd blog post and sharing on Facebook and Twitter.
Do I need to delete all the directory links? We do have links from directories that don't look fantastic, more are shown in Webmaster Tools than are listed here. Some of the directories no longer seem to exist, I take it I don't need to do anything and Google will catch up in those cases. Should I attempt to remove (or disavow) all links with names like best-directory etc? Or should I just concentrate on building better links? I'm not sure where to start!
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Best Regards,
Stephen
-
OK, it's now a few months later, with nothing linkbuilding-wise except posting blog posts on Facebook, G+ and Twitter.
I've tried to make the site more accessible - we now have a simple, responsive design and I've tried to make the content clear and concise. In short, written for humans rather than search engines.
As of the end of November, 'nuts and bolts' has now disappeared completely, and 'bolts and nuts' is page 8. There are many pages much higher which are not as relevant and have no links. We still rank highly for more specialised terms - ie 'bsw bolts' and 'imperial bolts' are still page 1, but not as high as before.
We get an 'A' grade on the on-page grader for 'nuts and bolts, and most above us get F. I was cautious about removing links as our profile doesn't seem too bad but it does seem as if it's that. There are a fair few questionable directories in there, no doubt about that, but our overall practice in recent years has been natural building and link earning.
So - I've created a spreadsheet and identified the bad links - ie directories with any SEO connotations. I am about to submit removal requests, I thought two polite requests a couple of weeks apart prior to disavowing with Google.
I am also gradually beefing up the content on the shop pages in case of any 'thin content' issues.
I noticed 100s of broken links in webmaster tools due to 2 broken links on our blog and have fixed those. I have also been fixing errors W3C compliance-wise.
Am I right to do all this? Can anyone offer any suggestions? I'm still not 100% sure if this is Panda, Penguin or something else. My guess is Penguin, but the decline started in March 2013, which correlates with Panda.
Best Regards and thanks for any help,
Stephen
-
Can any of you knowledgeable chaps please help with this?
As my last post says, I'm getting an 'A' grade on the Moz on-page grader, but 31 repeats of 'bsf bolts' meaning it's picking up the list from the shop database.
Is there a way around this? In the description of the item, I've changed BSW to 'Whitworth' where possible (means the same), but I'm stuck on 31 repeats, which is obviously too many. I thought Google ignored shop database lists of items, but seemingly not.
Best Regards,
Stephen
-
Hi Cyrus,
Thank you very much for your response.
I have added content related to the bolt threadforms on my page to give more information. However, the ranking on the BSF Bolts page has decreased from 4th to 9th.
http://www.thomassmithfasteners.com/hexagon_bolts_bsf.html
I ran it through the MOZ on-page grader and the thing that jumps out is it says I have 22 repetitions! I think the PHP list of the shop items is being seen as keyword stuffing. Of course, I have to describe the items on each line. Is there a way to combat this?
Many thanks for your assistance.
Best Regards,
Stephen
-
Hi Stephen,
Without doing a full backlink audit, there's a few things I would do first.
Try your site with Panguin Tool to see if you've been hit by a known update: http://www.barracuda-digital.co.uk/panguin-tool/
Also try this over-optimization tool to check your anchor text: http://www.removeem.com/ratios.php
Your theory about the decrease in value of your link profile may be spot on. It never hurts to build more quality links.
On another note, I couldn't help but notice quite a lot of your site is "thin" content. Pages such as this: http://www.thomassmithfasteners.com/full_nuts_bsf.html . While this is common with your competitors as well, beefing these sections up with more descriptive content could never hurt.
Also, you might want to check your title tags. The seem to mostly start with "Thomas Smith Fasterners". Normally, you want to place the keywords you want to rank for towards the begining of the tag, and avoid repeating the same phrases across multiple title tags.
http://moz.com/learn/seo/title-tag
Thomas Smith Fasteners - UNC Full Nuts BS 1768 Online Shop
or
Shop UNC Full Nuts, BS 1768 from Thomas Smith Fasteners -
I would disagree with only one aspect of Kurt's comment, Stephen, and only because I tend to try to err on the safe side. I would remove/disavow any links from questionable directories. There are still a few good ones out there, but I believe the majority carry a nasty connotation.
Kurt is absolutely correct when he says that "recovery" of previous rankings by no more that link removal is a pipe dream... ain't gonna happen! The equity that you lost by any links that were devalued before removal is gone forever and will have to be replaced with new activity.
Since it seems that a major portion of your losses are focused around "nuts and bolts" and "bolts and nuts", you might also try changing your anchor text on a significant portion of the links using that anchor text, at least on any source sites that seem worth hanging onto.
-
Stephen,
Dropping in ranking because you loose links either from them being devalued by Google or the sites shutting down is quite possible. It could also be a combination of lost links and a spammy profile. But you've gleaned onto something a lot of people don't get about Penguin and spammy link. People like to talk about "recovering" from Penguin, but what they often don't understand is that the link authority that was getting them their earlier rankings is gone. There's nothing to recover to. What's really going on is that their site's new authority level is lower and they are going to just have to build their site's authority level up as though they never had a higher authority site before. So, it's not something where they can disavow a few links, get a few links removed and "Alakazam!" rankings have returned...but they seem to expect that.
If you had a lot of links pointing to your site which are now either gone or devalued, then it would make sense that your site lost rankings. You just have to build the site back up with some natural link building.
As to your question about spammy directories, I wouldn't worry about the initially. Focus on putting out great content and sharing it and see how that goes. If, after several months, you find that you aren't getting any movement, then perhaps you go in and have links removed and start disavowing links.
And, yes, Google will eventually remove the old links from your profile. It just takes Google forever and a day to do so. The link list in Google Webmaster Tools is never up to date. It's always months behind.
-Kurt Steinbrueck
OurChurch.Com -
Hi Kurt,
Many thanks for your response.
The report on links in Google Webmaster Tools shows a lot more links - but the sites no longer exist for a fair amount of them. I'm guessing that they were removed from Google's index and then the webmaster, seeing no benefit, deleted the site. I did see on here that Google delisted 1000s of blogs and directories in March - which ties in with when we started losing rankings. So maybe we haven't been penalised directly but lost ranking due to say, 100 links (just a guess) no longer being active, so we aren't gaining anything from them - which is a lot when we only have 400-500 anyway. Does that sound right?
As an example, one is something like freeseo24x7. something, which is a dead link now.
I presume directories like that are obvious bad news now, I'm going through the Google list to see if there's any more like that. Would you delete / disavow those?
If the sites are no longer accessible for a lot of the 'bad' directories that link to us, will Google update its list for my site over time?
-
Hi Stephen,
A quick review of your link profile didn't actually look too bad, at least I didn't notice anything glaring. You have some keywords that have lots of links, but those appear to all be internal links that are part of the navigation of your site which is normal.
I'd recommend focusing on building links rather than removing links. Your site doesn't have a ton of links pointing to it. According the the Open Site Explorer report you referenced, you have 434 links. Even if there is some issue with an unbalanced link profile, it should take many good, natural links to balance it out.
-Kurt Steinbrueck
OurChurch.Com
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
-
Site architecture, inner link strategy and duplicate or thin content HELP :)
Ok, can I just say I love that Moz exists! I am still very new to this whole website stuff. I've had a site for about 2 years that I have re-designed several times. It has been published this entire time as I made changes but I am now ready to create amazing content for my niche. Trouble is my target audience is in a very focused niche and my site is really only about 1 topic - life insurance for military families. I'm a military spouse who happens to be an experience life insurance agent offering plans to active duty service members, their spouses as well as veterans and retirees. So really I have 3 niches within a niche. I'm REALLY struggling on how to set up my site architecture. My site is basically fresh so it's a good time to get it hammered down as best as possible with my limited knowledge. Might I also add this is a very competitive space. My competitors are big, established brands who offer life insurance along with unaffiliated, informational sites like military.com or the va benefits site. The people in my niche rarely actually search for life insurance because they think they are all set by the military. When they do search it's very short which is common as this niche lives in a world of acronyms. I'm going to have to get real creative to see if there are any long tail keywords I can use as supporting posts but I think my best route is to attempt to rank for the short one to three keyword phrases this niche looks for while searching. Given my expertise on the subject I am able to write long 1000-5000 content on the matter that will also point out some considerations my competitors dont really cover. My challenge is I cant see how this can be broken into sub topics without having thin supporting content. It's my understanding that I should create these in order to inner link and have a shot at ranking. In thinking about my topic I feel like the supporting posts can only be so long. Furthermore, my three niches within my small overall niche search for short but different keywords. Seems I am struggling to put it all into words. Let me stop here with a question - is it bad to have one category in a website? If not I feel like this would solve my dilemma in making a good site map and content plan. it is possible to split my main topic into 3 categories. I heard somewhere you shouldn't inner link posts from different categories. Problem is if I dont it's not ideal for the user experience as the topics really arent that different. Example a military member might be researching his/her own life insurance and be curious about his spouses coverage. In order to satisfy this user's experience and increase the time on my site I should link to where they can find more dept on their spouses coverage which would be in a different category. Is this still acceptable since it's really not a different subject?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | insuretheheroes.com0 -
Site Rollback for Careless Website Design That Caused Rank Drop
New PPC Client (out of necessity) had their site redesigned for mobile without much care given to it by a "SEO Expert". None of the meta data was copied over to the new images and pages, much of the old content was simply deleted, intra site links completely changed. Huge hits in organic rank, resulting in traffic declines occurred as their lead volume hit zero the following month (April 21 until Present). Any concerns I should have in doing a simple rollback beyond redirects and GWT (Search Console) ops? Current plan is 1. Setup redirects back to old site 2. Launch PPC campaign to recover call volume and leads. 3. Optimize old site for mobile simultaneously with simple responsive framework for menu, text. 4. Start disavowing poor-quality links that were added (got 10 with spam rating >4). 5. Eventually move them back to Wordpress and the theme they paid for with site content, meta data, etc all in tact.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jclmns0 -
Should I remove all vendor links (link farm concerns)?
I have a web site that has been around for a long time. The industry we serve includes many, many small vendors and - back in the day - we decided to allow those vendors to submit their details, including a link to their own web site, for inclusion on our pages. These vendor listings were presented in location (state) pages as well as more granular pages within our industry (we called them "topics). I don't think it's important any more but 100% of the vendors listed were submitted by the vendors themselves, rather than us "hunting down" links for inclusion or automating this in any way. Some of the vendors (I'd guess maybe 10-15%) link back to us but many of these sites are mom-and-pop sites and would have extremely low authority. Today the list of vendors is in the thousands (US only). But the database is old and not maintained in any meaningful way. We have many broken links and I believe, rightly or wrongly, we are considered a link farm by the search engines. The pages on which these vendors are listed use dynamic URLs of the form: \vendors<state>-<topic>. The combination of states and topics means we have hundreds of these pages and they thus form a significant percentage of our pages. And they are garbage 🙂 So, not good.</topic></state> We understand that this model is broken. Our plan is to simply remove these pages (with the list of vendors) from our site. That's a simple fix but I want to be sure we're not doing anything wring here, from an SEO perspective. Is this as simple as that - just removing these page? How much effort should I put into redirecting (301) these removed URLs? For example, I could spend effort making sure that \vendors\California- <topic>(and for all states) goes to a general "topic" page (which still has relevance, but won't have any vendors listed)</topic> I know there is no distinct answer to this, but what expectation should I have about the impact of removing these pages? Would the removal of a large percentage of garbage pages (leaving much better content) be expected to be a major factor in SEO? Anyway, before I go down this path I thought I'd check here in case I miss something. Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarkWill0 -
Is removing inorganic links a bad idea?
Hey there, We have recently been in touch with a SEO agency that recomended we remove all inorganic links from our backlink profile. Most of the links are pretty good but there are some news sites that have sitewide links to our site. The link is in the nav menu, as a useful link. We didn't ask for this link it was totally organic. Also some link building in the past was focused on anchor text so some of the keywords may have been over emphasised. Is it a good idea to go about removing all of the potentially inorganic looking links? My concern is that we wipe out links that google are actually valuing. I still know sites are ranking #1 with much more dubious backlink profiles, and then there's this guy who removed his sitewide backlinks and dropped in his ranking: http://www.seomoz.org/q/removed-site-wide-links If a competitor decided to add negative links to our site, it would take longer to find and remove negative links than it would for them to add them. It seems odd that google would allow negative SEO to be that easy.. What do you think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | timscullin0 -
How to remove duplicate content, which is still indexed, but not linked to anymore?
Dear community A bug in the tool, which we use to create search-engine-friendly URLs (sh404sef) changed our whole URL-structure overnight, and we only noticed after Google already indexed the page. Now, we have a massive duplicate content issue, causing a harsh drop in rankings. Webmaster Tools shows over 1,000 duplicate title tags, so I don't think, Google understands what is going on. <code>Right URL: abc.com/price/sharp-ah-l13-12000-btu.html Wrong URL: abc.com/item/sharp-l-series-ahl13-12000-btu.html (created by mistake)</code> After that, we ... Changed back all URLs to the "Right URLs" Set up a 301-redirect for all "Wrong URLs" a few days later Now, still a massive amount of pages is in the index twice. As we do not link internally to the "Wrong URLs" anymore, I am not sure, if Google will re-crawl them very soon. What can we do to solve this issue and tell Google, that all the "Wrong URLs" now redirect to the "Right URLs"? Best, David
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rmvw0 -
Should I remove all rel=nofollow links?
I have a 60 page site that had some nofollow links sprinkled throughout, 50% of which are probably on its mailto: email links. Should I remove all nofollows all in one go, or just the mailto links first, and later the others? Or has anyone had any negative effects in 2012 from this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | emerald0 -
Our site has lost significant rankings over the past couple of weeks
One of the sites I work with is, ukvisaandimmigration.co.uk which has lost a lot of ground in terms of SERPS. We were up to 12 and 13 for keywords such as uk visa and uk immigration but have since dropped down to 30-40. Has something changed recently? We know of the panda update, is it this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | qtasad0 -
Newish site dropped out of rankings - is this normal?
I've got a small, 3 month old site that was ranking for a few low-competition keywords. Then, yesterday, it dropped out of the rankings almost completely. The only way to find it is to google the URL/site name, and then it does come up. There are pages in the index, they're just not ranking like they did two days ago. I'm not doing anything black hat or even slightly shady - just writing articles and clean link building. Is this a normal part of the Google process? I've never seen it happen on any other sites I've been involved with.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | damoncali0