When to remove bad links.
-
Hi everyone.
We were hit on the 5th Oct with manual penalties - after building some good links and building good content we saw some gains in our SERPS, not to where they were, but they are definately improving for some low competition keywords.
In this case would people recommend still trying to remove bad links?
We have audited our links and identified ones which seem spammy.
We were going to go through a step by step process, emailing bad link providers where possible, and then sending a disavow for any links we were not able to remove.
If we have started to see gains through other means is it wise in people's opinion to start contacting google?
We watched Matt Cutts video on disavow usage and he states not to use it unless in extreme situations, so we don't want to 'wake the beast'.
Many thanks.
James.
-
Our links were from an SEO company who always vowed their methods were totally adhering to google, but that was before penguin.
I have heard this exact statement countless times. I hate to be harsh on my own industry but things are quite bad for clients. They do not know who to trust, with good reason.
-
many "SEO agencies" have little to no SEO knowledge. They skipped everything and built links, which worked too well in the past and now many site owners are paying the price.
-
many of these same agencies outsourced 100% of their work to other countries were the work was performed in the lowest quality manner, despite assurances to the contrary
-
many sites offer the appearance to be US or UK companies, but a quick inspection shows the veil is very thin and these are actually companies from India or other countries who pay for a virtual office or a single small office in order to funnel business.
Companies and site owners need to know how to navigate the shark infested waters of SEO and work with quality service providers.
Regarding your Penguin issue, based on the information provided your efforts are not even close to what is required to resolve the issue.
1. A comprehensive backlink report is necessary to capture all known links to your site. I use data from Bing, Google, OSE, Majestic and AHREFS. Once combined, this report is the most comprehensive list in the industry. There is no single source, nor any two sources, which can be used to properly capture all the links to your site.
2. The links need to be properly identified. Most site owners and even SEOs struggle in this regard. It cannot be done by any automated tool as there are far too many errors.
3. A comprehensive Webmaster Outreach Campaign needs to be conducted, and it needs to be successful. On a bad campaign the success rate should be about 25%. On a good one, the success rate exceeds 50%. There are numerous factors involved.
I know you are probably thinking "no way! I only get 1 out of 100 site owners to respond". The problem I see is most site owners chose the easy way out when they built manipulative links, and they similarly choose the easy way out when attempting to remove them. That is why forums are full of site owners sharing "I have turned in 10 Reconsideration Requests and all of them were declined".
You need to eliminate a "significant" number of links before using the Disavow Tool. My recommendation is to seek out a quality SEO provider with experience in resolving Penguin issues. If you cannot afford the cost of cleaning up the manipulative links, you can also change domains. The cost of losing all your good links and changing domains is very high in the long term, but in the short term the expenses are quite minimal.
-
-
Hi Ryan.
I guess I would assume this is a Penguin issue now, perhaps thinking it a manual penalty was incorrect and a little ignorant of myself.
I think it is caused by bad links, in my opinion the content is written normally, there are very few issues with it and it is quite varied and updated. Our links were from an SEO company who always vowed their methods were totally adhering to google, but that was before penguin.
Over the last month or so the SERPs have started to go up, after some natural link building with related sites with the same language (French). And some extra additions to the content.
We have been contacting the deemed 'spammy' link websites to ask them to remove, one out of a few hundred have so far.
(Is 'disavow' still a tool we could eventually use in your opinion?)
I guess we are a little in the dark as to if the site is penalized, or if the link juice from the spammy sites has disappeared after penguin, which I guess would be the better reason fro serp loss for our site.
-
Hi James,
I am pleased to hear no manual actions have been taken on your site. You are correct in stating you should not submit any further Reconsideration Requests.
As I look back to your original Q&A, you stated you were impacted by a manual penalty on October 5th. What led you to make that statement?
If your site suffered a ranking drop, you can analyze your analytic data to determine exactly when that drop occurred, and what segment(s) were impacted. Did the drop only impact Google organic? If so, that would indicate an algorithm issue. If the drop impacted other traffic sources, it may be a downturn for your business or industry. In summary, a traffic drop analysis is needed.
If you know your site acquired spammy links (i.e. you hired link builders or "SEOs") then you may be impacted by Penguin. If you have low quality content, which includes thin and duplicate content, then you may have a Panda issue. There are other numerous other algorithm changes besides those two. There could be a new issue on your site as well. It's time to dive in to your analytics to gain all the data possible surrounding this drop in traffic.
-
Hi Ryan,
Just to follow up...
We got our response from Google today, the confirm no manual penalties from Google.
'We've reviewed your site and found no manual actions by the web spam team that might affect your site's ranking in Google. There's no need to file a reconsideration request for your site because any ranking issues that you may be experiencing are not related to a manual action taken by the web spam team.' (Google)
Would this indicate just an algorithm change, in this case would you still recommend disavow and removing links, they say we should not send another reconsideration request, so we are not really sure where to take it from here.
Many thanks,
James.
-
Thanks Marcus, I know it is solid advice, we have taken it on board and plan to use it.
-
James, this is real solid advice here and you have to look at the long term picture. Just because you may (or may not) be penalised due to spammy links, if they exist, and you know about them, there is a noose their ready for your site to slip it's neck into.
If you have resources and care about the long term game get everything cleaned up and you can push forward in a positive way without having to worry about any potential problems rearing their head or the positive value of solid links being diminished by historical issues.
Great advice as ever from Ryan.
-
_You said your website is making progress in some less competitive keywords. If this is the case, I think this is not a severe penalty. But since this is a manual penalty, you have to [and I mean it] send a reconsideration request and wait for the response. And yes, there is no such beast exists here. You gotta problem and you have to fix this. _
-
That would be just fine.
-
Sorry to disturb you again, would this be a good first contact message on the reconsideration form?
'Our rankings dropped for this site. We are trying to do everything possible to make it compliant with Google's guidelines - please can you tell us if there is any manual action taken on the site that we can fix.'
James.
-
Exactly!
-
Thanks for the comprehensive answer! It is really appreciated. So even if no warning message was received by us, you recommend firstly sending a reconsideration request, just asking them if the site has been penalised, in the very beginning, while we are still in the process of removing links?
And then is the answer is 'yes' sending another recon request when we have done our best at removing any spammy links?
-
Time and money is less of an issue, we just want to do what is best for the site
That is a fantastic position. SEO is a long-term proposition. This thinking should guide your entire decision making process.
Some people have mentioned in the past that sending a reconsideration request could do more harm than good
I cannot comment on what "some people" have shared. I read a lot of SEO related articles and there is a high percentage of questionable and outright incorrect information shared. I would ask you exactly who shared the advice and in what context.
Here is what Matt Cutts has shared on this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rsWc78dits
My strong opinion on the matter is as follows:
1. If no manual actions have been taken on your site, Google auto-replies. Accordingly, there is no harm in asking.
2. Matt shared in a different video (sorry, I was unable to easily locate the link) that his team does not go looking for problems as a result of a Reconsideration Request. Based on my knowledge and experience, if you have a penalty on your site and you submit a Reconsideration Request asking if you have a penalty, a member of the spam team will likely just push a button and share the canned response Google offers for penalties of that type. A Google employee would not go searching your site looking for issues.
3. For 100% of clients, I submit a Reconsideration Request upon accepting them as clients. It has never once been a cause for concern on any level.
Running a website is the act of a business. You cannot run your business in fear, and there is no reason to fear any aspect of the Google Reconsideration Request process as a white hat SEO or site operator.
Is it worth just removing links with no reconsideration request? Or is that essential?
It is essential to submit a Reconsideration Request if you are manually penalized.
One final note. There are legitimate other opinions on this topic. I have tremendous respect for Dr. Pete and agree with his approach 99.9% of the time, but I do recall him sharing a different viewpoint on this topic suggesting site owners not to submit a Reconsideration Request unless they had reason to believe they were penalized. Even if that were the case, in your instance there is strong reason to believe a manual penalty may exist on your site. Submit the Reconsideration Request and find out. Knowing is better then not knowing.
-
Hi Agree with what your saying, one other reason not to address the penalty is that we have not received any warning on webmasters. The ranks are now lets say 10 - 20 further down in the serps than they were originally. But have gained perhaps 20 - 30 in the last few months.
Some people have mentioned in the past that sending a reconsideration request could do more harm than good, (I don't know if that is true, just something I read).
Is it worth just removing links with no reconsideration request? Or is that essential?
Time and money is less of an issue, we just want to do what is best for the site.
-
HI James,
We were previously hit with a manual penalty and did 3 re-submissions before the manual penalty was removed.
Google just release a disavow tool in webmaster tools where you can effectively tell google which links you don't want. Check it out here. I'd read up on it first, lots of pro's and cons.
My advice show Google you are trying to do good. Highlight the links you don't like and have had removed or asked to have removed, keep it all in a spreadsheet/google docs highlighting which ones have now been removed/asked to be removed/aren't your fault.
Then once your confident you've cut out the bad, resubmit with the evidence, close your eyes, cross fingers and wait roughly 2-4 weeks in the hope they will remove the manual penalty.
But be warned you may be in for the long haul, I mean months.
-
after building some good links and building good content we saw some gains in our SERPS, not to where they were, but they are definately improving for some low competition keywords.
The degree of penalization for manipulative links varies greatly from site to site. At the worst case, your site does not rank for anything except your domain name when entered with the TLD (i.e. mysite.com). It sounds like in your case you are penalized but not severely.
You can create new pages and rank for those new terms, but your penalization will remain a problem until you deal with it. You are asking if you can ignore the penalty. I would suggest that would be unwise. Why?
1. Most sites built links to their most important pages / keywords. For small to medium businesses, a group of a few keywords typically produces a large chunk of their traffic. For example "Los Angeles Auto Insurance" may provide 40% of the traffic to a website whereas those other pages you are building do not even provide 1% of the traffic of the core keyword.
2. It is hard enough for a non-penalized site to compete for traffic in search results. To move up a single position in ranking can make a huge difference in sales. It is likely at some point you will want to improve back to your pre-penalized ranking. The first step you need to take is removing the penalty.
3. You are presuming you will not be further penalized. In August Matt Cutts shared future Penguin changes were coming and the effects would be "jarring and jolting". I suspect the sites which are currently penalized and ignored the penalty will be further penalized.
The sole reason not to address the penalty is the cost (time / money). I would suggest you do whatever it takes to remove the penalty, then deal with the costs later. Sure, that's easy for me to say but the question is, how committed are you to this business? If you had the website up 5 years ago and intend to be in business 5 years from now, then it is an easy call. Remove the penalty and distribute the costs over time.
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
-
Does using non-https links (not pages) impact or penalise the website rankings?
Hi community, We have couple of pages where we we have given non-https (http) hyperlinks by mistake. They will redirect to http links anyway. Does using these http links on page hurt any rankings? Thansk
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
How to take down a sub domain which is receiving many spammy back-links?
Hi all, We have a sub domain which has less engagement for last few years. Eventually many spammy back links pointed to this sub domain. There are relevant back links too. We have deleted most of the pages which are employing spammy content or which have spammy back links. Still I'm confused whether to take this sub domain down or keep it. The confusion between "relevant backlinks might be helping our website" and "spammy backlinks are affecting to drop in rankings"? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Bad Grammar's Effect on Rankings
Mozzers, I have a client who's brand style guide dictates that they write in all lowercase letters. Do you think this will hurt rankings? Nails
Algorithm Updates | | matt.nails1 -
Is it bad from an SEO perspective that cached AMP pages are hosted on domains other than the original publisher's?
Hello Moz, I am thinking about starting to utilize AMP for some of my website. I've been researching this AMP situation for the better part of a year and I am still unclear on a few things. What I am primarily concerned with in terms of AMP and SEO is whether or not the original publisher gets credit for the traffic to a cached AMP page that is hosted elsewhere. I can see the possible issues with this from an SEO perspective and I am pretty sure I have read about how SEOs are unhappy about this particular aspect of AMP in other places. On the AMP project FAQ page you can find this, but there is very little explanation: "Do publishers receive credit for the traffic from a measurement perspective?
Algorithm Updates | | Brian_Dowd
Yes, an AMP file is the same as the rest of your site – this space is the publisher’s canvas." So, let's say you have an AMP page on your website example.com:
example.com/amp_document.html And a cached copy is served with a URL format similar to this: https://google.com/amp/example.com/amp_document.html Then how does the original publisher get the credit for the traffic? Is it because there is a canonical tag from the AMP version to the original HTML version? Also, while I am at it, how does an AMP page actually get into Google's AMP Cache (or any other cache)? Does Google crawl the original HTML page, find the AMP version and then just decide to cache it from there? Are there any other issues with this that I should be aware of? Thanks0 -
Why have my external followed links risen from 271 to 9961 in three weeks?
I've noticed a massive increase in the number of external followed links to my root domain (from 271 to 9961) - has anyone else experienced this?
Algorithm Updates | | HeatherBakerTopLine0 -
Setup WordPress with www in General -> Settings to get benefits of old links or does it matter?
Hello, I looked through many other Q&A and couldn't find this answer exactly... We build all of our client's sites on WordPress which automatically assign the new websites with no www. at the beginning. Recently one of our customers was upset because his new site (non-www) had only 3 links to it and his old www.domain.com site had 548. Is the simplest way to fix this to go into the WordPress Settings -> General and just change the WordPress Address and Site Address to the www version? Does it even matter or does WordPress tell Google to look at both versions. We don't see any SERP impact by having the non-www version up, but if it is an easy fix to get the 548 link credit I'll take it! Reason I'm concerned is I do see the difference in OSE and would prefer to have 548 links vs. 3 also! Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks community!
Algorithm Updates | | Tosten0 -
Would Google Remove Pages for Inactivity?
Hi, I've been watching the Total Indexed number for 4 domains that I work with for the last few months. In Google Webmaster Tools three of them were holding steady up until August-September, when suddenly they started declining by hundreds of thousands of URLs a week. I've asked my IT department and they say they haven't done anything technically different in the last few months that would affect indexation. I've also searched on google and on search marketing blogs to see if anyone else has experience this to no avail. As you can see in the image, the "Not Selected" pages have not increased so it appears this is not due to duplicate content (of which we have a lot). However, the "Ever Crawled" number is increasing. The only reasonable answer that I can conclude is that Google is now de-indexing inactive URLs? Anyone have a better answer? yIYDm.jpg
Algorithm Updates | | OfficeFurn0 -
Site-wide Footer Link on Client/Friend Website - Dangerous?
Hi Guys, I've got a friend / client / business associate who's website I helped develop. It's a three letter dot-com, so good trust, and an eCommerce site, so lot's of pages. When I launched my new site about 6 weeks ago I put "Official IT Partner of MySite.com" in the footer. No keywords in the anchor text, just the domain URL... There are no other external links like that on the site whatsoever, and I haven't been hit by Penguin. I'm ranking well for local targeted keywords a few weeks after launch, and traffic continues to increase... I am worried that Google will see this is unnatural, but I've received no warning or experienced any decline in rankings. There's about 2800 pages linking from the site to my site, all in the footer of course. Would it be better to remove the link from the footer and add it just to the home page and a couple of other high authority pages, or should I leave it be. It's not "unnatural", I am affiliated with the site and work in partnership with the site, but it does fit that profile. I'm thinking about removing the footer link and adding a small graphic on the home page of the linking site which links to my root domain, with a couple of broad keyword anchored links in a description underneath that also link to relevant pages on my site... What do you think? 2800 links w/ my URL as anchor text from high Domain Authority / Low Page Authority pages (the homepage and a few other pages have decent authority) to my root domain OR Three different links from one High DA/ High PA homepage (one image alt, two anchored w/ broad keywords) to three different pages on my site. Again, there are no other site-wide external links on the domain, and I'm pretty sure I escaped the Penguin. Looking forward to hearing the different points of view. Thanks, Anthony
Algorithm Updates | | Anthony_NorthSEO2