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
-
Do we have any risk or penalty for double canonicals?
Hi all, We have double canonicals. From page A to page B to Page C. Will this be Okay for Google? Or definitely we need to make it A to C and B to C? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
38% of SEOs Never Disavow Links: Are you one among them or the other 62%?
Hi all, Links disavowing is such a advanced tasks in SEO with decent amount of risk involved. I thought many wouldn't follow use this method as Google been saying that they try to ignore bad links and there will be no penalty for such bad links and negative SEO is really a rare case. But I wondered to see only 38% SEOs never used this method and other 62% are disavowing links monthly, quarterly or yearly. I just wonder do we need to disavow links now? It's very easy to say to disavow a link which is not good but difficult to conclude them whether they are hurting already or we will get hurt once they been disavowed. Thanks Screenshot_3.jpg
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz1 -
Too many wordpress redirects impact Rankings?
Our website cms is WordPress. We have recently changed the URL pattern of our blog pages which resulted in hundreds of crawl errors in Google search console. Even though we don't have any broken links; old pages have been reported at Google. We are trying to redirect the old URLs to new which will be handled by auto redirects or manual redirects. Will so many redirects impact on website? I don't mean about internal redirects. I mean about redirects made for the cause of reclaiming non existing pages referred from external sites
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
301 redirects
Hi, we have an old site hosted by company A. We rank for certain terms in google for certain brands and products. Now we have developed a new website on a new domain hosted by Company B. If we are 301'ing at brand/product/page level from old to new, who is it that should perform this job? Is it Company A or B, old or new? And does the physical website need to remain hosted for the 301 to work and for our SEO ranks on the old site to not fall apart? Company A think we can do an excel mapping doc for each link from old site to new. Hand file to Company A and they host this file (not the actual website) then we transfer old domain to Company A as well. Then the 301s will work fine. Yet Company B think we should continue hosting with Company A, keep the old physical site live and put the 301s in place. They say if the 301 link has content behind it then it will help or not take the chance of having the SEO affected? Who is right? Do you need the old website to remain live once 301s in place or can this 301 config file hosted on a domain be all we need to do? Any other ideas welcomed. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | YNWA0 -
Dofollow Links on Press Releases: Good or Bad?
Hello, I know that Google says that you are supposed to make anchored text links nofollow on press releases, but what about just putting the site url itself (example.com) and making it dofollow? Is that okay?
Algorithm Updates | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
Google penalty for one keyword?
Is it possible to get penalized by Google for a specific keyword and essentially disappear from the SERPs for that keyword but keep position for the brand (#1) and some other keywords (#4 and #7)? And how would you find out that this is what happened if there is no GWT message?
Algorithm Updates | | gfiedel0 -
Difference between Google's link: operator and GWT's links to your sites
I haven't used the Google operator link: for a while, and I noticed that there is a big disparity between the operator "link:" and the GWT's links to your site. I compared these results on a number of websites, my own and competitors, and the difference seem to be the same across the board. Has Google made a recent change with how they display link results via the operator? Could this be an indication that they are clean out backlinks?
Algorithm Updates | | tdawson090 -
Forum software penalties
I'm hoping to solicit some feedback on what people feel would be SEO best practices for message board/forum software. Specifically, while message boards that are healthy can generate tons of unique content, they also can generate a fair share of thin content pages. These pages include... Calendar pages that can have a page for each day of each month for 10 years! (thats like 3650 pages of just links). User Profile pages, which depending on your setup can tend to be thin. The board I work with has 20k registered members, hence 20k user profile pages. User lists which can have several hundred pages. I believe Google is pretty good at understanding what is message board content, but there is still a good chance that one could be penalized for these harmless pages. Do people feel that the above pages should be noindexed? Another issue is that of unrelated content. Many forums have their off-topic areas (the Pub or Hangout or whatever). On our forum up to 40% of the content is off-topic (when I say content I mean number of post versus raw word count). What are the advantages and disadvantages of such content? On one hand they expand the keywords you can rank for. On the other hand it might generate google organic traffic which you might now want because of a high bounce rate. Does too much indexable content that is unique dilute your good content?
Algorithm Updates | | entropytc1