Unnatural Link Warning Removed - WMT's
-
Hi, just a quick one.
We had an unnatural link warning for one of our test sites, the message appeared on the WMT's dashboard.
The message is no longer there, has it simply expired or could this mean that Google no longer sees an unatural backlink profile? Hoping it's the latter but doubtful as we haven't tried to remove any links.. as I say it's just a test site.
Thanks in advance!
-
Sounds good Tom.
-
I would as it is a test site (if it matters you don't do this) Ask Google Apps for some good way to talk to Google (can't hurt) http://google/a
All The best man,
Tom
PS John I meet with you guys very soon
-
Still waiting John.. as expected!
-
Hi Lee, any update on the status of this? Did you ever hear back from Google?
-
Hi Lee,
You got a stay optimistic man sometimes it's essential. Look at your good luck now no penalties and we don't know why but I bet many people would've said that would never happen.
all the best man,
Tom
-
A response from Google Thomas, like your optimism!!
-
Hi Lee,
I would bet if the links are the same it you could have a single link coming from a site that had been connected to a link farm then that link farm was taken down thus eliminating your problem. I can only really guess because unfortunately so many third-party people have some control over whether or not our sites get that links pointed towards them. I wish I could tell you for sure I wonder if because it's only a test site it would be worth actually asking Google? I'd love to hear what they have to say if you do.
All the best,
Thomas
-
Many thanks Thomas, interesting to hear that it may mean that the penalty has been lifted!
No 301's were done, am not sure if any third party site cleaned up their act and by the looks of it no backlinks have been removed, unless of course they simply weren't picked up by Majestic and OSE and we weren't aware of them.
Am still swaying towards the idea of the message simply expiring, but your theory has a lot of legs.. still confused!!!
Lee
Webresence.
-
I would ask myself a few questions as this is test site
1st did I possibly undo a 301 redirect?
2nd did whoever was linking to you that was spamming possibly clean up their act and report that Google?
3rd I would imagine and less the message was deleted or was for another test site that you receive mail for on that webmaster account that Google would not just it in less either somebody else resubmitted the site or somebody else cleaned up your links.
If I had to bet I would say you had some one linking to you that took down their link on their own fixing your problem.
I wish you the best and I hope this is not a real problem.
Sincerely,
Thomas von Zickell
Blueprint Marketing
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
-
What's the best way to handle product filter URLs?
I've been researching and can't find a clear cut answer. Imagine you have a product category page e.g. domain/jeans You've a lot of options as to how to filter the results domain/jeans?=ladies,skinny,pink,10 or domain/jeans/ladies-skinny-pink-10 or domain/jeans/ladies/skinny?=pink,10 And in this how do you handle titles, breadcrumbs etc. Is the a way you prefer to handle filters and why do you do it that way? I'm trying to make my mind up as some very big names handle this differently e.g. http://www.next.co.uk/shop/gender-women-category-jeans/colour-pink-fit-skinny-size-10r VS https://www.matalan.co.uk/womens/shop-by-category/jeans?utf8=✓&[facet_filter][meta.tertiary_category][Skinny]=on&[facet_filter][variants.meta.size][Size+10]=on&[facet_filter][meta.master_colour][Midwash]=on&[facet_filter][min_current_price][gte]=6.0&[facet_filter][min_current_price][lte]=18.0&per=36&sort=
Technical SEO | | RodneyRiley0 -
Why is robots.txt blocking URL's in sitemap?
Hi Folks, Any ideas why Google Webmaster Tools is indicating that my robots.txt is blocking URL's linked in my sitemap.xml, when in fact it isn't? I have checked the current robots.txt declarations and they are fine and I've also tested it in the 'robots.txt Tester' tool, which indicates for the URL's it's suggesting are blocked in the sitemap, in fact work fine. Is this a temporary issue that will be resolved over a few days or should I be concerned. I have recently removed the declaration from the robots.txt that would have been blocking them and then uploaded a new updated sitemap.xml. I'm assuming this issue is due to some sort of crossover. Thanks Gaz
Technical SEO | | PurpleGriffon0 -
New domain's Sitemap.xml file loaded to old domain - how does this effect SEO?
I have a client who recently changed their domain when they redesigned their site. The client wanted the old site to remain live for existing customers with links to the new domain. I guess as a workaround, the developer loaded the new domain's sitemap.xml file to the old domain. What SEO ramifications would this have if any on the primary (new) domain?
Technical SEO | | julesae0 -
What's our easiest, quickest "win" for page load speed?
This is a follow up question to an earlier thread located here: http://www.seomoz.org/q/we-just-fixed-a-meta-refresh-unified-our-link-profile-and-now-our-rankings-are-going-crazy In that thread, Dr. Pete Meyers said "You'd really be better off getting all that script into external files." Our IT Director is willing to spend time working on this, but he believes it is a complicated process because each script must be evaluated to determine which ones are needed "pre" page load and which ones can be loaded "post." Our IT Director went on to say that he believes the quickest "win" we could get would be to move our SSL javascript for our SSL icon (in our site footer) to an internal page, and just link to that page from an image of the icon in the footer. He says this javascript, more than any other, slows our page down. My question is two parts: 1. How can I verify that this javascript is indeed, a major culprit of our page load speed? 2. Is it possible that it is slow because so many styles have been applied to the surrounding area? In other words, if I stripped out the "Secured by" text and all the syles associated with that, could that effect the efficiency of the script? 3. Are there any negatives to moving that javascript to an interior landing page, leaving the icon as an image in the footer and linking to the new page? Any thoughts, suggestions, comments, etc. are greatly appreciated! Dana
Technical SEO | | danatanseo0 -
404 error - but I can't find any broken links on the referrer pages
Hi, My crawl has diagnosed a client's site with eight 404 errors. In my CSV download of the crawl, I have checked the source code of the 'referrer' pages, but can't find where the link to the 404 error page is. Could there be another reason for getting 404 errors? Thanks for your help. Katharine.
Technical SEO | | PooleyK0 -
Is it worth changing our blog post URL's?
We're considering changing the URL's for our blog posts and dropping the date information. Ex. http://spreecommerce.com/blog/2012/07/27/spree-1-1-3-released/ changes to http://spreecommerce.com/blog/spree-1-1-3-released/ Based on what I've learned here the new URL is better for SEO but since these pages already exist do we risk a minor loss of Google juice with 301 redirects? We have a sitemap for the blog posts so I imagine this wouldn't be too hard for Google to learn the new ones.
Technical SEO | | schof0 -
Negative effect on google SEO with 301's?
Cleaning up the website by consolidating pages - each with a little bit of useful info - into one definitive page that is really useful and full of good content. Doing 301's from the many old pages to the one new really good one. Didn't want to do rel canonicals because I don't want the old pages around, I want to get rid of them. Will google see the 301s and go nuts or see that there is one definitive, really good page with no duplicate content? The change is very good from a user perspective. Also, On-Page Report Cards on SEOMoz suggests that you put a rel canonical on a page to itself to tell google that this page is the definitive page. What do you think? Thanks so much for anyone who has time to answer - so many gurus - this is a great forum. - jean
Technical SEO | | JeanYates0 -
How do i properly combine these two schema's from schema.org
So we're redoing our reviews/testimonials page on our website right now and moving over to the schema.org format as described here: http://schema.org/Review But we would like to combine each of our reviews with a location for which it was reviewed using this: http://schema.org/LocalBusiness What i can't wrap my head around would be the correct syntax? is it just the first block and then the next block? or is there a way of putting the actual physical address within the review page itself? So is this the correct way to do a page full of reviews that are reviewing various physical locations? * <div< span="">itemprop="reviews" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Review"></div<>* <span< span="">itemprop="name">Value purchase</span<> -* by <span< span="">itemprop="author">Lucas</span<>,* <meta< span="">itemprop="datePublished" content="2011-03-25">March 25, 2011</meta<>* <div< span="">itemprop="reviewRating" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Rating"></div<>* <meta< span="">itemprop="worstRating" content = "1"/></meta<>* <span< span="">itemprop="ratingValue">4</span<>/* <span< span="">itemprop="bestRating">5</span<>stars* <span< span="">itemprop="description">Great microwave for the price. It is small and</span<>* fits in my apartment. 1. <div< span="">itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/LocalBusiness"></div<> 2. # <span< span="">itemprop="name">Beachwalk Beachwear & Giftware</span<> 3. <span< span="">itemprop="description"> A superb collection of fine gifts and clothing</span<> 4. to accent your stay in Mexico Beach. 5. <div< span="">itemprop="address" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/PostalAddress"></div<> 6. <span< span="">itemprop="streetAddress">3102 Highway 98</span<> 7. <span< span="">itemprop="addressLocality">Mexico Beach</span<>, 8. <span< span="">itemprop="addressRegion">FL</span<> 10. Phone: <span< span="">itemprop="telephone">850-648-4200</span<> <div< span="">itemprop="reviews" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Review"></div<>* <span< span="">itemprop="name">Value purchase</span<> -* by <span< span="">itemprop="author">Lucas</span<>,* <meta< span="">itemprop="datePublished" content="2011-03-25">March 25, 2011</meta<>* <div< span="">itemprop="reviewRating" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Rating"></div<>* <meta< span="">itemprop="worstRating" content = "1"/></meta<>* <span< span="">itemprop="ratingValue">4</span<>/* <span< span="">itemprop="bestRating">5</span<>stars* <span< span="">itemprop="description">Great microwave for the price. It is small and</span<>* fits in my apartment. <div< span="">itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/LocalBusiness"></div<> <span< span="">itemprop="name">Beachwalk Beachwear & Giftware</span<> <span< span="">itemprop="description"> A superb collection of fine gifts and clothing</span<> to accent your stay in Mexico Beach. <div< span="">itemprop="address" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/PostalAddress"></div<> <span< span="">itemprop="streetAddress">3102 Highway 98</span<> <span< span="">itemprop="addressLocality">Mexico Beach</span<>, <span< span="">itemprop="addressRegion">FL</span<> Phone: <span< span="">itemprop="telephone">850-648-4200</span<>
Technical SEO | | adriandg0