Our stage site got crawled and we got an unnatural inbound links warning. What now?
-
live site: www.mybarnwoodframes.com
stage site: www.methodseo.net
We recently finished a redesign of our site to improve our navigation. Our developer insisted on hosting the stage site on her own server with a separate domain while she worked on it. However, somebody left the site turned on one day and Google crawled the entire thing. Now we have 4,320 pages of 100% identical duplicate content with this other site. We were upset but didn't think that it would have any serious repercussions until we got two orders from customers from the stage site one day. Turns out that the second site was ranking pretty decently for a duplicate site with 0 links, the worst was yet to come however.
During the 3 months of the redesign our rankings on our live site dropped and we suffered a 60% drop in organic search traffic. On May 22, 2013 day of the Penguin 2.0 release we received an unnatural inbound links warning. Google webmaster tools shows 4,320 of our 8,000 links coming from the stage site domain to our live site, we figure that was the cause of the warning.
We finished the redesign around May 14th and we took down the stage site, but it is still showing up in the search results and the 4,320 links are still showing up in our webmaster tools.
1. Are we correct to assume that it was the stage site that caused the unnatural links warning?
2. Do you think that it was the stage site that caused the drop in traffic? After doing a link audit I can't find any large amount of horrendously bad links coming to the site.
3. Now that the stage site has been taken down, how do we get it out of Google's indexes? Will it be taken out over time or do we need to do something on our end for it to be delisted?
4. Once it's delisted the links coming from it should go away, in the meantime however, should we disavow all of the links from the stage site? Do we need to file a reconsideration request or should we just be patient and let them go away naturally?
5. Do you think that our rankings will ever recover?
-
Hi,
Indeed the stage site is still out there .. http://screencast.com/t/ZbmvsYE7njYv
Again, that's easy to fix  - if you want to - as you just need to verify the site in Web master tools and then use the removal tool.
For the main site - your visibility is low now ->Â http://screencast.com/t/PQzdxTih
Can you identify in this graph when the stage site was pushed into the index ? (in order to see if that was the reason for any drops in visibility / rankings)
Anyway - the main site was not very stabile even before .. the link profile is not strong enough to set it on a stabile course.
-
I edited the post and included links to both the live site and the stage site. Wondered if you have any more feedback after seeing taking a look at the backlinks to the site?
-
Hi,
1. Are we correct to assume that it was the stage site that caused the unnatural links warning?
** I don't think this is the case. However - if you post the url someone here can have a look.
2. Do you think that it was the stage site that caused the drop in traffic? After doing a link audit I can't find any large amount of horrendously bad links coming to the site.
** It can be the case - but if the test site will be removed and that was the case for the drop then you should get back on track very fast.
3. Now that the stage site has been taken down, how do we get it out of Google's indexes? Will it be taken out over time or do we need to do something on our end for it to be delisted?
** Verify the stage site in Google Web master Tools and then use site removal tool there and you will get the site out in one single move. (if tjis is really what you want).
4. Once it's delisted the links coming from it should go away, in the meantime however, should we disavow all of the links from the stage site? Do we need to file a reconsideration request or should we just be patient and let them go away naturally?
** You can disovow but is better to remove them - see #3.
You should send a reconsideration request after you remove the stage site and explain. If you will get a response that you are still in violation of the guidelines and they still see un natural links that means the stage site was not the reason
5. Do you think that our rankings will ever recover?
** Hard to tell without seeing the domain name. If the stage site was the issue and you solve it (remove it) then yes - although I doubt that - at least based on the information available so far.
Hope it helps.
Cheers.
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
-
"One Page With Two Links To Same Page; We Counted The First Link" Is this true?
I read this to day http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-one-page-two-links-page-counted-first-link-192718 I thought to myself, yep, thats what I been reading in Moz for years ( pitty Matt could not confirm that still the case for 2014) But reading though the comments Michael Martinez of http://www.seo-theory.com/ pointed out that Mat says "...the last time I checked, was 2009, and back then -- uh, we might, for example, only have selected one of the links from a given page."
Technical SEO | | PaddyDisplays
Which would imply that is does not not mean it always the first link. Michael goes on to say "Back in 2008 when Rand WRONGLY claimed that Google was only counting the first link (I shared results of a test where it passed anchor text from TWO links on the same page)" then goes on to say " In practice the search engine sometimes skipped over links and took anchor text from a second or third link down the page." For me this is significant. I know people that have had "SEO experts" recommend that they should have a blog attached to there e-commence site and post blog posts (with no real interest for readers) with anchor text links to you landing pages. I thought that posting blog post just for anchor text link was a waste of time if you are already linking to the landing page with in a main navigation as google would see that link first. But if Michael is correct then these type of blog posts anchor text link blog posts would have value But who is' right Rand or Michael?0 -
Does Google differentiate between a site with spammy link building practices from a victim of a negative SEO attack?
I've be tasked with figuring out how to recover our rankings as we are likely being hurt by an algorithmic penalty.  I have no idea if this was the workings of a previously hired SEO or the result of negative SEO, **how does Google differentiate between a site with bad/spammy link building practices from a victim of a negative SEO attack? **
Technical SEO | | Syed_Raza0 -
Linking shallow sites to flagship sites
We have hundreds of domains that we are either doing nothing with, or they are very shallow. We do not have the time to build enough quality content on them since they are ancillary to our flagship sites that are already in need of attention and good content. My question is...should we redirect them to the flagship site? If yes, is it ok to do this from root domain to root domain or should we link the root domain to a matching/similar page (gymfranchises.com to http://www.franchisesolutions.com/health_services_franchise_opportunities.cfm)? Or should we do something different altogether? Since we have many to redirect (if this is the route we go), should we redirect gradually?
Technical SEO | | franchisesolutions0 -
Should I add 'nofollow' to site wide internal links?
I am trying to improve the internal linking structure on my site and ensure that the most important pages have the most internal links pointing to them (which I believe is the best strategy from Google's perspective!).  I have a number of internal links in the page footer going to pages such as  'Terms and Conditions', 'Testimonials', 'About Us' etc.  These pages, therefore, have a very large number of links going to them compared with the most important pages on my site. Should I add 'nofollow' to these links?
Technical SEO | | Pete40 -
Broken link
I know SEO Moz has a lot of info about 404 301 302 etc but I am trying to figure out easy way to fix two of the broken links from flash. I am redirecting following links with wordpress redirect plug in http://soobumimphotography.com/gallery.php?GalleryID=126&GalleryName=Wedding&OrderNum=1 http://soobumimphotography.com/gallery.php?GalleryID=126&GalleryName=Wedding&OrderNum=1 What would be the best way to solve this? Â Is there anyway I can remove those?
Technical SEO | | BistosAmerica0 -
Can anyone help me understand why google is "Not Selecting" a large number of my webpages to include when crawling my site.
When looking through my google webmaster tools, I clicked into the advanced settings under index status and was surprised to see that google has marked around 90% of my pages on my site as "Not Selected" when crawling. Please take a look and offer any suggestions. www.luxuryhomehunt.com
Technical SEO | | Jdubin0 -
Rel="no follow" for All Links on a Site that Charges for Advertising
If I run a site that charges other companies for listing their products, running banner advertisements, white paper downloads, etc. does it make sense to "no follow" all of their links on my site? For example: they receive a profile page, product pages and are allowed to post press releases. Â Should all of their links on these pages be "no follow"? It seems like a gray area to me because the explicit advertisements will definitely be "no followed" and they are not buying links, but buying exposure. However, I still don't know the common practice for links from other parts of their "package". Thanks
Technical SEO | | zazo0 -
Image Link
If I have an image that is well optimiswed for a keyword that the page it is on is ranking for but i put a no follow in the image link - is this going to lose the value of the image on that page. A strange question i know but this image i have on my homepage is optimised around a keyword, the image is also a link but when i changed the link in the image to no follow i seem to have dropped rankings for that keyword. Probably consicidence but i thought i would throw this question out there and get some views?
Technical SEO | | pauledwards0