Black linking exploitation
-
Hi all
After watching our ranking for some primary keywords drop on Google from page 1 to 20 and then totally off the charts in relatively short period I've recently discovered through moz tools that our website along with other competitor sites are victims to black linking (may have the terminology wrong).
Two primary words are anchor linked to our domain (www.solargain.com.au) being sex & b$tch through over 4000 compromised sites - mostly Wordpress - many which are high profile sites.
Searching through the source code through half a dozen compromised sites I noticed that competitors are also linked using other derogatory terms, but the patterns indicate batch or clustered processing. The hacker has left some evidence as to whom they are representing as I can see some credible discussion forums which contain negative feedback on one particular supplier also among the links.
Although this is pretty good evidence to why our ranking has dropped there are some interesting questions:
A) is there any way to rectify the 4000 or so black links, mass removal or other. (Doesn't sound feasible)
B) some competitors who dominate organic ranking through better optimization don't seem to be affected or apparently affected as much as our site at least. Which questions how much we are affected as a direct result from this hack.
C) is there action or support for industrial espionage?
D) can you request from google to ignore the inbound links and would they not have a duty of care to do so?I'm fairly new to this ugly side of the Internet and would like to know how to approach recovery and moving forward. Thoughts ideas very welcome.
Thanks in advance.
-
Hello again,
From what I know, If there is no manual action, then you don't have to worry about reconsideration request. You have to clean up the backlink profile by the next Penguin update.
Try to contact each webmaster first. If they don't answer in a decent time span then use the disavow tool. If there are too many links, then disavow the their whole domain. This should simplify your work. Don't worry about nofollow links, they hurt only in some very extreme cases -> watch this video from Matt Cutts about nofollowed links.
Good luck!
-
Thank you Remus for your repsonse.
There are no manual actions in webmaster tools.
Open Site Explorer picks up the bad links, and google only lists a small amount. There are approx 4000, so its not realistic to approach every webmaster - saying this we have approached some.
Ive seen that Penguin changes released at the end of May 2013 have targetted "unnatural linking" and this incident happened over a few weeks around April/May 2013. So it is likely we were affected.
Like you said if they were followed at some stage and as a result we were indeed affected, then surely we have a case for Google to fairly reposition us?
There is no doubting this attack was deliberate as I've found source code on some of the affected sites which lists not only our website but other compititors in the industry. In fact every major player except for one, which is highly suspicious in itself. Also among the affected links are links to forums and discussion boards to bad reviews of the company which does not have unnatural links.
Its a tough one I know, my first priority is to restore our SEO ranking with Google. Ive researched Googles recommended actions to request reconsideration, but there are no manual actions so Im not sure how to submit that request.
Its seems extremely unfair that someone elses deliberate actions to effectively sabotage your ranking gets great positioning where you get penalised.
-
Hi again Michael,
Yes, strange things with those nofollows. However. In the current setup, if they are nofollowed, they should not have a dirrect effect on your website's ranking, so this is a good thing. But it they were followed and nofollowed at a point in time, you should know that it takes a while until your website recovers the ranking (if only them were the problem).
To identify better what happend you can do the following:
-
Check Webmaster Tools for messages - if you got anything related to manual actions on your website, then you should read more about "reconsideration reqests".
-
If there are no messages in Webmaster Tools section, then it was probably an algorithmic update that affected your website. If it's related to inbound links than there is a big change it's a "Penguin" update. You can search more about Penguin update on Moz or Search Engine Journal. SEJ has a pretty good article about how to identify which update affected your site.
Then use Google Analytics and Mozcast and see exactly what algorithmic change happened when your website lost it's rankings.
- It could be the case that this was some kind of attack against your website. Then removing those links should be enough to get your website's ranking back. If this happens keep an eye regularly on the link profile. If something bad pops up, write fast to those people and use disavow tool if they don't answer fast.
Hopes this helps, send more questions if you have!
-
-
Thanks for your tips Remus - yes the links are inbound links.
There are no follows on the offending links according to open site explorer, which is possibly why Google doesnt list them in Webmaster tools.
I'm yet to work out if Google has been affected by the hack - even if it doesnt list them, I'd think at some point however before the no follows were applied there would have been some impact.
How and who applies these no follows? If it wasnt the webmasters of the compromised site you would expect that these links would have been removed from the web pages by them?
-
Hello,
Yes, it looks like you might be the victim of some kind of attack.
I just have one question, are these links:
-
linking to your website
-
posted on your website.
If they are just links to your website, then there is an answer to all your following questions:
The Google Disavow Links Tool - https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/disavow-links-main
You can read more about it here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487?hl=en
First contact them to remove the links, if it does not work, use this tool.
If the links are posted on your website just clean everything up, then remove backdors and stuff
-
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
-
Link Getting Deleted for Few Days
If a link gets deleted for few days and re-appears... Will Google treat it as a "new link" or give it the same old link-age.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Akshayshr0 -
Canonicalize vs Link Juice
I recently wrote (but have not published) a very comprehensive original article for my new website (which has pretty much no domain authority). I've been talking to the publisher of a very high Domain Authority site and they are interested in publishing it. The article will include 2-3 follow backlinks to my website. My question is should I: Repost the article in my own site and then request a "rel=canonical" from the high authority site Not re-post the article on my own site and just collect the link juice from the high authority site Which would be better for my overall SEO? Assume in case 1) that the high authority site would add a rel=canonical if I asked for it.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | wlingke20 -
WP Datar site shady linking to my site
Hello, I have done some research on this but cannot find a solid answer to my question. After recently reviewing my "not found" errors in webmaster tools, I see that a site called "WP Datar" has linked to a number of our pages that actually do not exist. I am wondering first, if this will harm our site, and second, what is the best way to get those links from their site taken down? I tried emailing, but of course, the email address listed on the site did not work. 🙂 Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | lfrazer0 -
Are back links from audio sites any good?
In light of G's view of links from directories and other sources I have heard that links for audio sites like soundcloud.com can be beneficial. Has anyone had any positive experiences building likes from sources like this?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Aikijeff0 -
Advice on using the disavow tool to remove hacked website links
Hey Everyone, Back in December, our website suffered an attack which created links to other hacked webistes which anchor text such as "This is an excellent time to discuss symptoms, fa" "Open to members of the nursing/paramedical profes" "The organs in the female reproductive system incl" The links were only visible when looking at the Cache of the page. We got these links removed and removed all traces of the attack such as pages which were created in their own directory on our server 3 months later I'm finding websites linking to us with similar anchor text to the ones above, however they're linking to the pages that were created on our server when we were attacked and they've been removed. So one of my questions is does this effect our site? We've seen some of our best performing keywords drop over the last few months and I have a feeling it's due to these spammy links. Here's a website that links to us <colgroup><col width="751"></colgroup>
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | blagger
| http://www.fashion-game.com/extreme/blog/page-9 | If you do view source or look at the cached version then you'll find a link right at the bottom left corner. We have 268 of these links from 200 domains. Contacting these sites to have these links removed would be a very long process as most of them probably have no idea that those links even exist and I don't have the time to explain to each one how to remove the hacked files etc. I've been looking at using the Google Disavow tool to solve this problem but I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not. We haven't had any warnings from Google about our site being spam or having too many spam links, so do we need to use the tool? Any advice would be very much appreciated. Let me know if you require more details about our problem. <colgroup><col width="355"></colgroup>
| | | |0 -
Is using twiends.com to get twitter followers considered black hatting?
Hi, I've been struggling to get followers on Google Plus and Twitter, and recently stumbled upon twiends.com. It offers an easy service that allows you to get twitter followers very quickly. Is this considered black hating? Even if Google doesn't consider the followers as valid, am I likely to be punished if using their service? Even if it doesn't help rankings, it is nice to have lots of followers so that they will see my tweets which has the potential to drive more traffic to my site, and give awareness to my business. What are your thoughts?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | eugenecomputergeeks0 -
Partners and Customers logo listing and links
We have just created a program where we list the customers that use our software and a link to their websites on a new "Customers" page. We expect to have upwards of 100 logos with links back to their sites. I want to be sure this isn't bordering on gray or black hat link building. I think it is okay since they are actual users of our software. But there is still that slight doubt. Along these same lines, would you recommend adding a nofollow or noindex tag? Thanks for your help.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | PerriCline0 -
Why Does Massive Reciprocal Linking Still Work?
It seems pretty well-settled that massive reciprocal linking is not a very effective strategy, and in fact, may even lead to a penatly. However, I still see massive reciprocal linking (blog roll linking even massive resource page linking) still working all the time. I'm not looking to cast aspersion on any individual or company, but I work with legal websites and I see these strategies working almost universally. My question is why is this still working? Is it because most of the reciprocally linking sites are all legally relevant? Has Google just not "gotten around" to the legal sector (doubtful considering the money and volume of online legal segment)? I have posed this question at SEOmoz in the past and it was opined that massively linking blogs through blog rolls probably wouldn't send any flags to Google. So why is that it seems that everywhere I look, this strategy is basically dismissed as a complete waste of time if not harmful? How can there be such a discrepency between what leading SEOs agree to be "bad" and the simple fact that these strategies are working en masse over the period of at least 3 years?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Gyi0