New Website - Un-natural link warning with 2 weeks of going live
-
I have a customer who has a website, 8 years old. The business has changed, and he has launched a new website (and sub-business_ to handle a particular service. As such the main website will no longer be handling the new service. For purpose of example;
The service in question had it's own are set aside on his website, so what we have done is to 301 that part of the site (a single URL) to the homepage of his new website.
Old Business Site
Service 1
Services 2 (301 to new site)
Service 3New Business Site
This worked well, and within a week his new site was gaining traffic for the service keyword.
However, we have now had a un-natural link wartning in webmaster tools.
The old page on the old site had minimal links to it (around 400). It had a page authority of 42, and 142 linking domains.
The new website has been live a few weeks now, and has had 3 links to it, all genuine.
He was on page one for the new business name, and is now page 6.
Has anyone else ever seen this happen, and how should we deal with it. We could of course remove the 301 redirect and put in a recon-request, but the 301 seems like thje right thing to have done, and is genuine.
Any advice greatly appreciated.
-
John,
That wouldn't quite work in this situation.
The OLD website is still very much an active functioning site.... its is just one service which has been split into another company. So for example... we only want to redirect;
www.oldwebsite.com/servicename
to the NEW website.
I could of course just edit the old page and say ...."click here to go to the new site"..... but it does wind me up somewhat that the ideal solution, and proper way to do it is a 301.... but if we do it they get put under penalty.
The official Google line about doing what we want to do is a 301 redirect..
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/how-to-move-your-content-to-new.html
To quote them "It’s important to redirect all users and bots that visit your old content location to the new content location using 301 redirects."
I wonder if a cross-domain canonical would be worth doing?
-
Awesome to hear, David! The power of our collective minds
What I'd recommend is this:
- Redirect all the pages on your site to the homepage;
- Put up a splash page saying that the site has moved with a nofollowed link to the new site;
- Do something to make the customers smile - discount code, video of a puppy, something like that.
-
A special thanks to John for his advice on this issue.
To update you.... I submitted a site-map of the OLD website to Google via WMT. Hoping this would encourage a re-crawl and that Google would see the 301 was no longer in place. I then put in another recon request.
Thankfully the penalty has now been removed and I just had email confirmation this morning.
My quandary now is how we redirect from the old site to the new one.
To my mind a 301 redirect is the right way to do it.... but obviously we can't do this again. A 302 would serve the purpose of redirecting users to the new site (which is what we want to do), but obviously a 302 is not the right way to do it.
Any advice or ideas on how we should take people from the old site to the new one?
-
Thanks John, I have just emailed.
-
Gotcha. Would you mind DMing me the URL so I can have a look? Also, a list of any URLs that might be redirected into the site.
-
Yes their traffic dropped by around 90%. Its a brand new website and it ranked very quickly after launch when we put the 301 in place.
After peanty they went from position 4/5 for the main keyword to currently position 99. It is site-wide so affecting everything. The brand name they rank outside the top 50.
-
David -
I'm assuming you saw a traffic drop when you received the unnatural links warning? And is it a partial match or a sitewide penalty?
I'm not convinced that you always need to worry about a warning. If you see a traffic drop, then definitely. Otherwise, why not go do good SEO and create useful stuff that will rank instead of spending all this time worrying about a message that didn't affect you adversely?
-
To update this thread again;
After removing the 301 redirect, we put in a reconsideration request. To my amazement it was declined as they felt the site still had too many un-natural links.
Within webmaster tools the site is showing just 57 links.
The domain is only a few months old, and I'm not sure what else I can do as we haven't actually built any links and the 301 redirect is gone.
-
Just to update this thread. I have removed the 301, and I am going to leave it a week before putting a recon in.
-
Hi David
Without looking at the backlink profile of either domain I can't be certain, but it very much looks like that 301 redirect has brought about the penalty.
It doesn't matter if there are 30 bad links or 30000, if a Google quality reviewer believes the backlinks are poor quality, you run the risk of being penalised. I wonder whether you are seeing all of the links at the moment - it might be worth using the Link Detox tool for a more comprehensive backlink audit than Open Site Explorer can offer. This may reveal more poor quality links.
But it sounds like you're pretty confident that the 301 redirect has caused the penalty. Rightly or wrongly, I'm afraid it's not up to us to judge what links are "bad", it's Googles. So while you and I may think the old backlinks are OK, Google may take a different view. I would also rule out any chance the penalty may have become because of an influx of new links (via the 301) - having set up a number of new websites and redirected old domains (with hundreds of thousands of links) I've never seen this trigger a penalty by itself.
I'd put your theory to the test and remove the 301 and send a reconsideration request detailing you have done so. From what I can tell, that would remove the penalty. Run a deeper audit of your backlinks to see if yet-to-be-revealed bad links are present. And if you really want some authority links from other websites to pass through to the new domain, contact them manually and ask them to update their URLs.
Hope this 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
-
Should I apply Canonical Links from my Landing Pages to Core Website Pages?
I am working on an SEO project for the website: https://wave.com.au/ There are some core website pages, which we want to target for organic traffic, like this one: https://wave.com.au/doctors/medical-specialties/anaesthetist-jobs/ Then we have basically have another version that is set up as a landing page and used for CPC campaigns. https://wave.com.au/anaesthetists/ Essentially, my question is should I apply canonical links from the landing page versions to the core website pages (especially if I know they are only utilising them for CPC campaigns) so as to push link equity/juice across? Here is the GA data from January 1 - April 30, 2019 (Behavior > Site Content > All Pages😞
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Wavelength_International0 -
Two Different IP address pointing to my website, does it will effect my website from SEO point of view
Due to some reason my website https://xyz.com is not redirecting to my main website domain - https://www.xyz.com so our tech team suggested - we will have the non-www name on a different IP and we'll 301 redirect that to the https://www.xyz.com. if it works does it will effect our website from SEO point of view? please let me know.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BPLLC0 -
Would you redirect Website A to Website B, when Website B is in the middle of a HTTP=>HTTPS migration?
Hey guys, I'm curious on your thoughts around this scenario... Website A: 35,000 monthly pageviews 1,000 pages 375 root linking domains currently HTTPS focused on one topic weak rankings for competitive keywords Website B: 3M monthly pageviews 32,500 pages 3,500 root linking domains started HTTP to HTTPS migration 1 week ago. 1/3 of pages indexed as HTTPS. focused on many topics strong rankings for competitive keywords Requirement: I want to have a reliable read on how Website A's keyword rankings change after redirecting it's pages to Website A. This post-migration analysis will be used as a basis to assess the risk of redirecting another website we own that is similar to Website A into Website B. My question: Would you wait until most of the pages on Website B are indexed as HTTPS before doing a 301 of Website A to Website B? Please back up your answer with reasons why or why not 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jeremycabral0 -
University website outbound links issue
Hi - I'm working on a university website and have found a load of (1) outbound links to companies that have commercial tie ups to the university and, beyond that, loads of (2) outbound links to companies set up by alumni and (3) outbound links to commercial clients of the university. Your opinions on whether I should nofollow these, or not, would be welcome. At the moment I'm tempted to nofollow (1) yet leave (2) and (3) - quite simply because the (1) backlinks may have been negotiated as part of a package (nobody can actually remember at the university!), yet (2) and (3) were freely given by the university. Your thoughts would be welcome!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
If linking to contextual sites is beneficial for SE rankings, what impact does the re=“nofollow” attribute have when applied to these outbound contextual links?
Communities, opinion-formers, even Google representatives, seem to offer a consensus that linking to quality, relevant sites is good practice and therefore beneficial for SEO. Does this still apply when the outbound links are "nofollow"? Is there any good research on this out there?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | danielpressley0 -
Unnatural Inbound Links Warning in GWT
Hi all, A bit of a long questions so apologies in advance but please bear with me... My client has received an 'Unnatural Inbound Links' warning and it is now my task to try and resolve through a process of; Highlighting the unnatural links Requesting that the links be removed (via webmaster requests) Possibly using the Disavow Tool Submitting a Reconsideration Request So I downloaded my clients link profile from both OSE and GWT in CSV format and compared - the amount of links returned was considerably more in GWT than it was in OSE...? So I set about going through the links, first filtering into order so that I could see blocks of links from the same URL - I highlighted in colours; Red - Definitely need to be removed Orange - Suspect, need to investigate further Yellow - Seem to be ok but may revisit Green - Happy with the link, no further action So to my question which relates to, is it 'black & white' - is it a case of 'good link v 'bad link' or could there be some middle ground? (am I making this process even more confusing than it actually is?) As an example, here are some 'Orange' URL's; http://www.24searchengines.com/ (not exact URL as it goes to the travel section which is my clients niche) - this to me looks spammy and I would normally 'paint it red' and look to remove, however, when I go to the 'contact us' page; (http://www.24searchengines.com/texis/open/allthru?area=contactus) and follow the link to remove from directory, it takes me here; http://www.dmoz.org/docs/en/help/update.html DMOZ??? My clients has a 'whole heap' of these type of links; http://www.25searchengines.com/ http://www.26searchengines.com/ http://www.27searchengines.com/ http://www.28searchengines.com/ ...and many many more!! Here is another example; http://foodys.eu/ http://foodys.eu/2007/01/04/the-smoke-ring-bbq-community/ ...plus many more... My client is in the 'cruise niche' and as there is a 'cruise' section on the site I'm not sure whether this constitutes a good, bad or indifferent link! Finally, prior to me working with this client (1 month) they moved their site from a .co.uk to a .com domain and redirected all links from the .co.uk to the .com (according to GWT, over 16k have been redirected) - a lot of these 'spammy' links were to the .co.uk and have thus been redirected, should I even consider removing the redirection or will that have severe consequences? Apologies for the long (long) post, I know I'm heading in the right direction but some assurance wouldn't go amiss! 🙂 Many thanks Andy <colgroup><col width="1317"></colgroup>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TomKing
| |0 -
Creating 20+ websites with links back to central site
Hey guys, A client of ours owns an IT company with 20+ locations across the UK. He is looking for a solution to provide each of their 20+ locations with a page or website that they can manage themselves that links directly back to the main site. His idea is to create 20+ one or two page websites that could all link back to the main central site - aiding the possibility of ranking well for locally-based terms. At the moment, we have a page for each of the 20+ locations on the main site. However, the client wants to give his franchisees complete control over their web presence. Would a setup like this work? Would it be logical to have 20+ websites (likely to follow a very similar format) all pointing to one central website? Would we have to "no-follow" links back to main site in order to show we aren't trying to manipulate page rank? Would creating sub folders on the main site be a better option for each of the 20+ locations? Any feedback appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Webrevolve0 -
Easy way to get some do-follow links for a new site
I am launching a new website and when I search for "list of do-follow websites" I find lots of people posting their list. Rather than individually sign up for hundreds of sites for one link at a time, is there a tool that can automate this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | StreetwiseReports0