Toxic Link Removal
-
Greetings Moz Community:
Recently I received an site audit from a MOZ certified SEO firm.
The audit concluded that technically the site did not have major problems (unique content, good architecture). But the audit identified a high number of toxic links. Out of 1,300 links approximately 40% were classified as suspicious, 55% as toxic and 5% as healthy.
After identifying the specific toxic links, the SEO firm wants to make a Google disavow request, then manually request that the links be removed, and then make final disavow request of Google for the removal of remaining bad links. They believe that they can get about 60% of the bad links removed.
Only after the removal process is complete do they think it would be appropriate to start building new links.
Is there a risk that this strategy will result in a drop of traffic with so many links removed (even if they are bad)?
For me (and I am a novice) it would seem more prudent to build links at the same time that toxic links are being removed. According to the SEO firm, the value of the new links in the eyes of Google would be reduced if there were many toxic links to the site; that this approach would be a waste of resources.
While I want to move forward efficiently I absolutely want to avoid a risk of a drop of traffic.
I might add that I have not received any messages from Google regarding bad links. But my firm did engage in link building in several instances and our traffic did drop after the Penguin update of April 2012.
Also, is there value in having a professional SEO firm remove the links and build new ones? Or is this something I can do on my own? I like the idea of having a pro take care of this, but the costs (Audit, coding, design, content strategy, local SEO, link removal, link building, copywriting) are really adding up.
Any thoughts???
THANKS,
Alan -
Hi Jen:
That is very helpful, thanks!!
The one point I did not understand is the last one one regarding checking to see if the c-blocks are varied. Could you please elaborate.
Also, do you think it would be risky for me as an amateur to do this on my own, that link removal would be better left in the hands of a professional? I am working with a reputable SEO firm, but they are requesting almost $3,800 to identify and remove approximately 225 domains that have toxic links to my site. If I use a professional SEO firm I would probably want to conserve my resources for link building ($2,500/month). But I don't want to be penny wise and pound foolish. So do you think I could disavow bad links on my own?
Also, would you suggest any software of tools for doing so?
Thanks so much.
Alan -
I think Jen gave a great response and you should read it twice!.
A couple of things you might consider if you want to do this on your own, RMOOV.com is an amazing tool for contacting webmasters and asking/tracking link removal. Link Detox is another great affordable tool to evaluate links. If you still have a relationship with the firm you used to buy links, you might see if they can remove those links for you. The reality is that most webmasters won't respond to your requests to remove links. So if you can get the ones who created them to remove them, you will have more success.
I don't see why it would be bad to build good, real links in the mean time or at any time! Hard to believe that would be the advice a MOZ recommended firm gave you. Maybe they were trying to explain that great content is what matters?
Good luck!
-
Hi Alan,
Hmm I don't see their logic in saying the value of good links would be reduced. It's true that the toxic links may be harming your rankings (even if you don't have a manual penalty) and so you might not see the effect of the good links straight away. But once the bad links are sorted, then you will.
You could do the disavows yourself as long as you're confident as to what makes a good / bad link. When we're cleaning links up, we:
- Check to see if the linking domain is listed in Google – if not, we disavow;
- Check what the website actually is – if it is low quality, a spam directory, adult-themed, sites with viruses, gambling, etc, we disavow (this is to protect your brand as well as to clean up your link profile);
- Check and see if there are a huge number of links from a single website – in some cases we disavow; and finally,
- We check to ensure the link is within Google’s webmaster guidelines – for example, genuine recommendations in forums, genuine blog comment links that are on a relevant article, or genuine reviews are fine.
- We also look at links for c-blocks before the process begins and then check after disavow to see if they are varied or if anything’s been missed.
Hope that helps.
Jen
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
-
Broken canonical link errors
Hello, Several tools I'm using are returning errors due to "broken canonical links". However, I'm not too sure why is that. Eg.
Technical SEO | | GhillC
Page URL: domain.com/page.html?xxxx
Canonical link URL: domain.com/page.html
Returns an error. Any idea why? Am I doing it wrong? Thanks,
G1 -
#Page Jump link sharing
Hi I'm managing an in-house link building campaign in order to help in our key search term 'Location Holidays'. We were historically number 1 for this term until a recent re-design in May where our web design agency butchered our SEO. All of the main issued fixed, we're now fluctuating between 3rd & 4th on a daily basis. I'm putting together a social share comp to promote through the press in order to boost our backlink profile. We're nesting the competition within the body of the page we want to improve the rankings for. I will be including a #page jump link to quickly access it as it will be further down the page. My question is that if we get press to link to http://holidaycompany.com/destination/#comp will http://holidaycompany.com/destination/ receive the link juice or will http://holidaycompany.com/destination/#comp be looked upon as a whole new page? Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | MattHolidays0 -
Link Spam from Competitor Help
A clients link profile is recently getting lots of spam links related to "abortion pills" and "does my husband cheat" I found a few of the sites that link, and it appears that there is some malicious code on the site injecting links at the top of the site. http://www.med-reporter.at/index.asp?men=Gesundheit&submen=Produkte&artid=1587&kategorie=&blockzl=3 Can anyone look at the link above and tell me what network or software is creating these links?
Technical SEO | | webbroi0 -
Are links still considered reciprocal if the link from one website is rel="nofollow" and the other isnt ?
Im working on a site that has some press coverage due in the next couple of days from quite a big site in the niche. The press outlet has requested that we link back to the content they post about us, they said the link can be rel="nofollow" if we'd prefer. Id really like to get the full benefit of the link back to our website, obviously if i did a straight link back to the 3rd party press site the links would be reciprocal and cancel each other out in terms of "link juice", but i was wandering if we make our link back to the 3rd party rel="nofollow" will we still get the full benefit of their link to us in terms of link juice ? ie. having the link back to them, but nofollow wouldn't been seen as a reciprocal link. ? (Obviously either way there is still benefit of having the link even if it reciprocal as it will send traffic to our site, but just no "link juice") Note - Ive used the phrase"Link Juice" for lack of a better term, any ideas on how else to refer to this ?
Technical SEO | | Sam-P1 -
Linking to AND canonicalizing to a page?
I am using cross domain rel=canonical to a page that is very similar to mine. I feel the page adds value to my site so I want users to go to it, but I ultimately want them to go to the page I'm canonicalizing to. So I am linking to that page as well. Anyone foresee any issues with doing this? And/or have other suggestions? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | ThridHour0 -
Penalised due to links?
Hi, Is there a way to tell if a site has been penalised for it's links? Our site dropped last Friday, and we would like to rule out links, as we plan to move the site to our main site and re-direct the links, unless Google would punish the new url due to this. Our old site does not show any warnings for the link, and neither does our Google WM account, the only thing we have to go by is a big drop in SERP. Many thanks. Quime.
Technical SEO | | Quime0 -
Linking C Class Blocks Problem
Hi 🙂 I've just discovered that my client, who has a medical practice, has created a series of micro sites about their doctors (around 10 or so). The problem is that they're on a shared host with the same C-class, providing no real link benefit at all. Would it be best to: A) Look for seperate C class hosts for each site & migrate B) Recreate the pages on the main site & 301 all doctor micro sites to new pages C) Leave as is and pursue other link building activites? Has anyone run into a similar issue before? Thanks a bunch! Woj
Technical SEO | | wojkwasi0 -
Removing GWT Geo-Targeting
Hi, if I have a website in Google Webmaster Tools > Geographic Target set to United States, but I want to promote it in other specific countries, 1. Do I have to change the geo-targeting in GWT so it does not target a specific country? (discarding the option of adding sub-domain to GWT) 2. If I remove the GWT geo-targeting would it affect my rankings in the US? Thank you
Technical SEO | | andresgmontero0