Content Caching Memory & Removal of 301 Redirect for Relieving Links Penalty
-
Hi,
A client site has had very poor link legacy, stretching for over 5 years. I started the campaign a year ago, providing valuable good quality links. Link removals and creating a disavow to Google have been done, however after months and months of waiting nothing has happened. If anything, after the recent penguin update, results have been further affected.
A 301 redirect was undertaken last year, consequently associating those bad links with the new site structure. I have since removed the 301 redirect in an attempt to detach this legacy, however with little success. I have read up on this and not many people appear to agree whether this will work.
Therefore, my new decision is to start a fresh using a new domain, switching from the .com to .co.uk version, helping remove all legacy and all association with the spam ridden .com.
However, my main concern with this is whether Google will forever cach content from the spammy .com and remember it, because the content on the new .co.uk site will be exactly the same (content of great quality, receiving hundreds of visitors each month from the blog section along) The problem is definitely link related and NOT content as I imagine people may first query.
This could then cause duplicate content, knowing that this content pre-existed on another domain - I will implement a robots.txt file removing all of the .com site , as well as a no index no follow - and I understand you can present a site removal to Google within webmaster tools to help fast track the deindexation of the spammy .com - then once it has been deindexed, the new .co.uk site will go live with the exact same content.
So my question is whether Google will then completely forget that this content has ever existed, allowing me to use exactly the same content on the new .co.uk domain without the threat of a duplicate content issue?
Also, any insights or experience in the removal of a 301 redirect, detaching legacy and its success would also be very helpful!
Thank you,
Denver
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
-
How much content is duplicate content? Differentiate between website pages, help-guides and blog-posts.
Hi all, I wonder that duplicate content is the strong reason beside our ranking drop. We have multiple pages of same "topic" (not exactly same content; not even 30% similar) spread across different pages like website pages (product info), blog-posts and helpguides. This happens with many websites and I wonder is there any specific way we need to differentiate the content? Does Google find the difference across website pages and blog-pots of same topic? Any good reference about this? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Can 'Jump link'/'Anchor tag' urls rank in Google for keywords?
E.g. www.website.com/page/#keyword-anchor-text Where the part after the # is a section of the page you can jump to, and the title of that section is a secondary keyword you want the page to rank for?
Algorithm Updates | | rwat0 -
Best way to handle outdated & years old Blog-posts?
Hi all, We have almost 1000 pages or posts from our blog which are indexed in Google. Few of them are years old, but they have some relevant and credible content which appears in search results. I am just worried about other hundreds of non-relevant posts which are years old. Being hosting hundreds of them, our website is holding lots of these useless indexing pages which might be giving us little negative impact of keeping non-ranking pages. What's the best way to handle them? Are these pages Okay? Or must be non-indexed or deleted? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
I'm Pulling Hairs! - Duplicate Content Issue on 3 Sites
Hi, I'm an SEO intern trying to solve a duplicate content issue on three wine retailer sites. I have read up on the Moz Blog Posts and other helpful articles that were flooded with information on how to fix duplicate content. However, I have tried using canonical tags for duplicates and redirects for expiring pages on these sites and it hasn't fixed the duplicate content problem. My Moz report indicated that we have 1000s of duplicates content pages. I understand that it's a common problem among other e-commerce sites and the way we create landing pages and apply dynamic search results pages kind of conflicts with our SEO progress. Sometimes we'll create landing pages with the same URLs as an older landing page that expired. Unfortunately, I can't go around this problem since this is how customer marketing and recruitment manage their offers and landing pages. Would it be best to nofollow these expired pages or redirect them? Also I tried to use self-referencing canonical tags and canonical tags that point to the higher authority on search results pages and even though it worked for some pages on the site, it didn't work for a lot of the other search result pages. Is there something that we can do to these search result pages that will let google understand that these search results pages on our site are original pages? There are a lot of factors that I can't change and I'm kind of concerned that the three sites won't rank as well and also drive traffic that won't convert on the site. I understand that Google won't penalize your sites with duplicate content unless it's spammy. So If I can't fix these errors -- since the company I work conducts business where we won't ever run out of duplicate content -- Is it worth going on to other priorities in SEO like Keyword research, On/Off page optimization? Or should we really concentrate on fixing these technical issues before doing anything else? I'm curious to know what you think. Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | drewstorys0 -
Duplicate Content on Product Pages with Canonical Tags
Hi, I'm an SEO Intern for a third party wine delivery company and I'm trying to fix the following issue with the site regarding duplicate content on our product pages: Just to give you a picture of what I'm dealing with, the duplicate product pages that are being flagged have URLs that have different Geo-variations and Product-Key Variations. This is what Moz's Site Crawler is seeing as Duplicate content for the URL www.example.com/wines/dry-red/: www.example.com/wines/dry-red/_/N-g123456 www.example.com/wines/dry-red/_/N-g456789 www.example.com/wines/California/_/N-0 We have loads of product pages with dozens of duplicate content and I'm coming to the conclusion that its the product keys that are confusing google. So we had the web development team put the canonical tag on the pages but still they were being flagged by google. I checked the of the pages and found that all the pages that had 2 canonical tags I understand we should only have one canonical tag in the so I wanted to know if I could just easily remove the second canonical tag and will it solve the duplicate content issue we're currently having? Any suggestions? Thanks -Drew
Algorithm Updates | | drewstorys0 -
Google not crawling click to expand content - suggestions?
It seems like Google confirmed this week in a G+ hangout that content in click to expand content e.g. 'read more' dropdown and tabbed content scenarios will be discounted. The suggestion was if you have content it needs to be visible on page load. Here's more on it https://www.seroundtable.com/google-index-click-to-expand-19449.html and the actual hangout, circa 11 mins in https://plus.google.com/events/cjcubhctfdmckph433d00cro9as. From a UX and usability point of view having a lot of content that was otherwise tabbed or in click to expand divs can be terrible, especially on mobile. Does anyone have workable solutions or can think of examples of really great landing pages (i'm mostly thinking ecommerce) that also has a lot of visible content? Thanks Andy
Algorithm Updates | | AndyMacLean0 -
Removing an old Google places listing for a newer version?
Hey there, I was wondering whether you could help me out on the following; One of our clients has a Google places listing that we created for their business but it appears to be being blocked - or at least conflicting - with an old listing. As such, Google appears to be showing the old listing with an outdated URL and company name - rather than the new one. Does anyone know how I can go about removing this listing or showing that the newer one is now more relevant? Unfortunately, I don't have the logins for the old places listing. Old listing; https://plus.google.com/105224923085379238289 New listing; https://plus.google.com/b/114641937407677713536/114641937407677713536
Algorithm Updates | | Webrevolve0 -
Moving content in to tabs
Hi, I'm kind of an SEO noobie, so please bare with me 🙂 On one of the sites I'm working on I got a request to move large blocks of content, just placed on the page currently, in to tabs. This makes sense. We tried it and it makes navigating through the information much easier for visitors. My question is: Will Google consider this as hiding information? It's not loaded dynamically. It's all their when the page is loaded, in the source, but not displayed until the visitor clicks the tab. Will this cause SEO issues? Thank you!
Algorithm Updates | | eladlachmi0