Unnatural Links Removal - are GWMT links enough?
-
Hi,
When working on unnatural links penalty, is removing and disavowing links shown on the GWMT enough or should the list be broaden to include OSE and Majestic etc.?
Thanks
-
Hi BeytzNet,
The answer to that question really depends on another question:
Are you looking for a short-term solution that may or may not get your current penalty lifted, or are you genuinely interested in dealing with links that really shouldn't be there?
If you're after the band-aid solution then you can try going with the arrogant suggestion from some Googlers that only links which offend Google at this point in time need to be dealt with. (Given Google's current propensity for adding to its list of what is "unnatural", their attitude borders on sadistic.)
If you really want to get some control over your backlink profile and future proof your site in the face of changing spam targets, impending Penguin updates and whatever else may be coming down the line, you might find it useful to try this little exercise:
Download backlink data from as many of the following as possible (free download limits for the tools you don't subscribe to will give you enough of a sample)
- Google Webmaster Tools
- Bing Webmaster Tools
- Open Site Explorer
- Majestic SEO
- ahrefs
- Raven Tools (pulls in data from Open Site Explorer & Majestic SEO)
Open each csv, select all and change text color so that the data for each list is a different color.
Copy and paste the content of each into one Excel spreadsheet so that all of the URLs are in one list.
Deduplicate the list.
Check out the different colored URLs left in your list...the takeaway is that every tool will bring you different link data. If you want a true picture of your backlink profile, you are now much closer to having it.
Incidentally, Google is not the only search engine to apply manual penalties. Others just don't talk about it as much as Google does. You might also find it helpful to read this post from Ryan Kent about identifying the source of your link penalty.
Hope that helps,
Sha
-
I don't usually worry about removing/disavowing those links. Google is concerned about the links that you have personally made (or an SEO on your behalf) in order to increase pagerank.
It's pretty common to have a lot of them.
-
Thanks Marie,
Question -
Going through my link profile I have encountered dozens of links from different SEO sites that analyzed my domain - whether on its own or showing it as a competitor to another site on the same niche.Weirdly, these are dofollow links (dozens!).
Should I disavow them?
Obviously these are not requested links of any kind. These sites are kind of aggregation sites that show practically any site worth mentioning.
-
Thanks Ben. This is the article I remember seeing.
-
That's great information and process.
-
Thanks Ben for that article. A few days ago I was searching for that and couldn't find it!
The vast majority of SEOs will tell you that you need to include links from as many sources as possible. However, John Mueller (a Google employee) recently said that in the majority of cases, focusing on the links in your WMT is enough. I could not find the thread where he said this, so I asked in WMF if someone could find it. Here is the thread.
In the past I have used a combo of links from WMT and also from ahrefs. However, for the current sites that I am working on I am just using WMT. If for some reason we do not get reconsidered then I will go back and add links from other sources.
I think the reason why people say to get links from all sources is that historically WMT has only given you a sample of your links. But in the last few months or so, in the "Download latest links" section they give a much larger number. Don't be fooled by the fact that it says, "Latest links". I have seen sites where this list included thousands of links going back as far as 2008.
-
According to Google Search Quality engineer, Uli Lutz, you only need to include the links in GWMT. Here is an article with more information on that.
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
-
Is a page with links to all posts okay?
Hi folks. Instead of an archive page template in my theme (I have my reasons), I am thinking of simply typing the post title as and when I publish a post, and linking to the post from there. Any SEO issues that you can think of? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Nobody16165422281340 -
Internal Linking - Can You Over Do It?
Hi, One of the sites I'm working on has a forum with thousands of pages, amongst thousands of other pages. These pages produce lots of organic search traffic... 200,000 per month. We're using a bit of custom code to link relevant words and phrases from various discussion threads to hopefully related discussion pages. This generates thousands of links and up to 8 in-context links per page. A page could have anywhere from 200 to 3000 words in one to 50+ comments. Generally, a page with 200 words would have fewer of these automatically generated links, just because there are fewer terms naturally on the page. Is there any possible problem with this, including but not limited to some kind of internal anchor text spam or anything else? We do it to knit together pages for link juice and hopefully user experience... giving them another page to go to. The pages we link to are all our pages that produce or we hope to produce organic search traffic from. Thanks! ....Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
OSE link report showing links to 404 pages on my site
I did a link analysis on this site mormonwiki.com. And many of the pages shown to be linked to were pages like these http://www.mormonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Planning_a_trip_to_Rome_By_using_Movie_theatre_-_Your_five_Fun_Shows2052752 There happens to be thousands of them and these pages actually no longer exist but the links to them obviously still do. I am planning to proceed by disavowing these links to the pages that don't exist. Does anyone see any reason to not do this, or that doing this would be unnecessary? Another issue is that Google is not really crawling this site, in WMT they are reporting to have not crawled a single URL on the site. Does anyone think the above issue would have something to do with this? And/or would you have any insight on how to remedy it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThridHour0 -
Removing A Blog From Site...
Hi Everyone, One of my clients I am doing marketing consulting for is a big law firm. For the past 3 years they have been paying someone to write blog posts everyday in hopes of improving search traffic to site. The blog did indeed increase traffic to the site, but analyzing the stats, the firm generates no leads (via form or phone) from any of the search traffic that lands in the blog. Furthermore, I'm seeing Google send many search queries that people use to get to the site to blog pages, when it would be much more beneficial to have that traffic go to the main part of the website. In short, the law firm's blog provides little to no value to end users and was written entirely for SEO purposes. Now the law firm's website has 6,000 unique pages, and only 400 pages of the site are NON-blog pages (the good stuff, essentially). About 35% of the site's total site traffic lands on the blog pages from search, but again... this traffic does not convert, has very high bounce rate and I doubt there is any branding benefit either. With all that said, I didn't know if it would be best to delete the blog, redirect blog pages to some other page on the site, etc? The law firm has ceased writing new blog posts upon my recommendation, as well. I am afraid of doing something ill-advised with the blog since it accounts now for 95% of the pages of the website. But again, it's useless drivel in my eyes that adds no value and was simply a misguided SEO effort from another marketer that heard blogs are good for SEO. I would certainly appreciate any guidance or advice on how best to handle this situation. Thank you for your kind help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gbkevin0 -
Google Manual Action (manual-Penalty)- Unnatural inbound links
Dear friends, I just get from Google two "Unnatural inbound links" notifications via Google Webmaster Tools, the first is for our WWW version of the site and the second is for the NON-WWW version. My question, I should send two identical reconsideration request for WWW and NON-WWW or treat them as different sites? Thank you Claudio
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SharewarePros0 -
Should I remove Meta Keywords tags?
Hi, Do you recommend removing Meta Keywords or is there "nothing to lose" with having them? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet0 -
Link Acquisition - link building
When using Site Explorer to find out my competiters links so I can do some link aquisition SEO do I look for the "inbound" links or or "linking domains"? Also, what filters should I choose? I want to make a spreadsheet as Rand suggested in his video and start to prioritize my link building.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | musicforkids0 -
Dynamic Links vs Static Links
There are under 100 pages that we are trying to rank for and we'd like to flatten our site architecture to give them more link juice. One of the methods that is currently in place now is a widget that dynamically links to these pages based on page popularity...the list of links could change day to day. We are thinking of redesigning the page to become more static, as we believe it's better for link juice to flow to those pages reliably than dynamically. Before we do so, we need a second opinion.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RBA0