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
-
Somos vecinos, por favor contactame a editor (at) freesharewaredepot (dot) com y
skype fsd.network (at) live (dot) com asi podremos intercambiar conocimientos o nuevos tips (todos los dias algo nuevo)
Un abrazo
Claudio
-
Asi es
Uruguayo en US Feel free to contact me (linkedin/twitter/etc.), I had similar experience and can offer some help (free, of course
) -
Dear Federico,
I agree 100% the procedure recommended by you, and also I want to share with you:
1. Sources where we get links: Webmaster tools, SEOMoz, and link magestic, so you will get a hughe list of links, so we are working on this list, also google know that the problematic links are usually abandoned blogs (which register the domain only for one year) and in general doesn't provides any contact info, even if you contact the hosting people, in general they say "No response from the owner of this account" ....
So we try to remove the possible, and fill the disavow and comment to Google Team the job done.
At this time you was responding to my question with a 10++
Thank you
PD.: Do you speak spanish ? I'm from Argentina
-
Claudio,
Alright then you have it right (the www/non-www thing).
First go over all your shady links and try to have them removed or no-followed. There are online tools that can research contact forms, emails, etc from those links, like Link Detox from LinkResearchTools (I think it is).
Run a full report and include all the links that are downloadable from Webmaster Tools, and those from OpenSiteExplorer. By doing that, it will analyze every possible link you have. Then filter all the shady ones, and send an email (a template of course) to each webmaster (if there's no email, try searching for a contact form). Point them where's the link that should be removed in their sites, make their job easy so they actually do it.
Once all have been contacted, wait a couple of weeks for the results, run the report again and create a disavow file with all those links that were not removed.
Wait a couple of weeks.
Get on the reconsideration request (same for both www/non-www); again send them proof of your work, share the spreadsheet you created while removing the links, the emails, some responses, show some removed links, etc.
It could take a while to get your rankings back if the reconsideration is approved, but unfortunately I've read cases where their rankings were never returned.
-
Dear Federico,
You're right in all, our site is freesharewaredepot (dot) com it has the non-www redirected (301= to the www and also we use canonical, and google webmaster tools continue for years showing us both versions and even sending us both manual actions notes.
My question is "I have to send different reconsideration request treating both sites as different?"
In my opinion, I should to send the same (identical) reconsideration note for both.
Only to share our knowledge, we are in the hard task of link removal with a success of only 5%
Let me know your ideas
Claudio
-
Prior to send the reconsideration request, have you fixed the issue? Have you contacted Webmasters asking to remove those links? If yes, did you submit the non-removed links using the disavow tool?
If all that is done, then one more question before sending that request, why are you serving both www and non-www? If you are, then it will create a duplicate content issue, and if you are not, then one reconsideration request from the site actually needs to rank should be fine (but it won't hurt sending the same to both if the content is actually the same and the backlinks were the same).
Keep in mind that a reconsideration request isn't just a letter, it must show your efforts in correcting the issues, copies of emails, spreadsheets of bad backlinks and their status (contacted/removed/disavowed), etc.
Hope that helps!
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
-
When domain a buys domain b (whose links direct to c), does domain a has links redirecting to domain c ?
Hi, I really need to know what happens when a company or domain (a) acquires another company with domain (b) with its links pointing to yet another location (c). Does company a then have redirects to c?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Yeshourun0 -
25% of expired domains came with a Google manual penalty
25% of expired domains purchased came with a Google manual penalty, even when Moz spam score was 0 . Read the whole case study here: http://www.authoritywriters.com/2017/10/google-manual-penalty-on-expired-domains.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bluishclouds0 -
Inbound Affiliate Links: can this solution help?
Hello everyone, I have a pretty large e-commerce website and a bunch (about 1,000) affiliates using our in-house affiliate system we built several years ago (about 12 years ago?). All our affiliates link to us as follows: http://mywebsite.com/page/?aff=[aff_nickname] Then our site parses the request, stores a cookie to track the user, then 301 redirects to the clean page URL below: http://mywebsite.com/page/ Since 2013 we require all affiliates to link to us by using the rel="nofollow" tag to avoid any penalties, but I still see a lot of affiliate links not using the nofollow or old affiliates that have not updated their pages. So... I was reading on this page from Google, that any possible "scheme" penalization can be fixed by using either the nofollow tag or by using an intermediate page listed on the robots.txt file: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en Do you think that could really be a reliable solution to avoid any possible penalization coming from affiliate links not using the "nofollow" tag? I have searched and read around the web but I couldn't find any real answer to my question. Thanks in advance to anyone. Best, Fab.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau0 -
Does google credit links from iFrames or created by Javascript, if so, is one more powerful than the other?
Consider this example, because I want to be clear about what I mean. You have two websites. Lets all them www.a.com and www.b.com. On www.a.com/some/page, there is an iframe something like this:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | adriandg
<iframe src="www.b.com/some/special/path"></iframe>
Then content of this iframe is a bunch of pictures, text and numbers, as well as a group of links, linking each picture to www.b.com for example the links might be:
www.b.com/content/1
www.b.com/content/2
www.b.com/content/3 Questions: When google crawls **www.a.com/some/page, **does it pass link juice to www.b.com/content/*? Does google instead consider these to be internal links within b.com itself. because links to www.b.com/content/ ** are actually from b.com itself, since the domain of the iframe is actually: www.b.com/some/special/path 3) Is there any amount of link juice passed from www.a.com/some/page to* www.b.com/some/special/path **because this is the src= element of an iframe that a.com is hosting? Consider an alternative setup. Where instead of using an iframe the contents of the above described iFrame is actually added the the page dynamically using javascript, and a call to an API endpoint at b.com. Resulting in these links being added directly to the body of a.com without being wrapped in an iframe element. Questions:
4) Do these links that were created after page load still get crawled and credited by google? (i have heard in the past that google was going to start crawling javascript, i just don't know if this is known for a fact yet).
5) Do links created on the client side hold the same weight as a link that was served directly via the backend html generation? If both the links within the iframe and the links within the javascript embed method pass link juice. Is one preferred over the other? is one known to be more effective than the other? Thanks!0 -
How to do Spam Link Analysis before posting a link?
OSE provides Spam analysis for website link profile, Do Moz have a tool to check the link quality before placing a link? How to do Spam Link Analysis before posting a link?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bondhoward1 -
Using rel="nofollow" when link has an exact match anchor but the link does add value for the user
Hi all, I am wondering what peoples thoughts are on using rel="nofollow" for a link on a page like this http://askgramps.org/9203/a-bushel-of-wheat-great-value-than-bushel-of-goldThe anchor text is "Brigham Young" and the page it's pointing to's title is Brigham Young and it goes into more detail on who he is. So it is exact match. And as we know if this page has too much exact match anchor text it is likely to be considered "over-optimized". I guess one of my questions is how much is too much exact match or partial match anchor text? I have heard ratios tossed around like for every 10 links; 7 of them should not be targeted at all while 3 out of the 10 would be okay. I know it's all about being natural and creating value but using exact match or partial match anchors can definitely create value as they are almost always highly relevant. One reason that prompted my question is I have heard that this is something Penguin 3.0 is really going look at.On the example URL I gave I want to keep that particular link as is because I think it does add value to the user experience but then I used rel="nofollow" so it doesn't pass PageRank. Anyone see a problem with doing this and/or have a different idea? An important detail is that both sites are owned by the same organization. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThridHour0 -
Google Webmaster Now Shows YourMost Recent Links
I just saw this story today about a new Google Webmaster feature which lets you download a file of the most recent links. http://searchengineland.com/google-now-shows-you-your-most-recent-links-127903 I downloaded the file today and I already discovered a major site issue. Our site blog was completely duplicated on a secondary domain we own and Google was showing that site as recent links. I already emailed the dev team to fix this pronto. Anybody else using this new feature and perhaps can share if it helps you in any way.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | irvingw1 -
Canonical links apparently not used by google
hi, I do have an ecommerce website (www.soundcreation.ro) which in the last 3 months had a drop in the SERP. Started to look around in GWT what is happening. Google is reporting a lot of duplicate meta-tags (and meta-titles problem). But 99% of them had already canonical links setted. I tried to optimize my product listings with the new "prev", "next" tags and introduced also the "view-all" canonical link to help Google identify the appropiate product listing pages. SeoMoz is not reporting thos duplicate meta issues. Here is an example of the same page with different links, but with the same common canonical and reported by GWT "duplicate title tag": http://www.soundcreation.ro/chitare-chitari-electroacustice-cid10-pageall/http://www.soundcreation.ro/chitare-chitari-electroacustice-cid10/http://www.soundcreation.ro/chitare-chitari-electroacustice-cid10_999/http://www.soundcreation.ro/chitare-electro-acustice-cid10_1510/What could be the issue?- only that gwt is not refreshing as should be, keeping old errors?- if so, then there is an other serious issue because of why our PR is dropping on several pages?- do we have other problem with the site, which ends up with google penalizing us? Thank you for your ideas!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjutas0
