Linking C blocks strategy - Which hat is this tactic?
-
This related to a previous question I had about satellite sites. I questioned the white-hativity of their strategy. Basically to increase the number of linking C blocks they created 100+ websites on different C blocks that link back to our main domain. The issue I see is that-
- the sites are 98% exactly the same in appearance and content. Only small paragraph is different on the homepage.
- the sites only have outbound links to our main domain, no in-bound links
Is this a legit? I am not an SEO expert, but have receive awesome advice here. So thank you in advance!
-
Thank you Robert! Let me take try your suggestions and then I will report back.
-
C3,
One of the things I would suggest is to start by having success defined utilizing KPI's, analytics, etc. Did you have an engagement with what they were to accomplish and so forth. Have a baseline of where the site was prior to the newcom coming on board. When did the changes take place (were they put into GA on the dates they occurred?)? What is the result since then? What else was done during that period? Now you have a starting point.
Next, I would suggest you get the lower cost ahrefs membership (even if only for a month) and run your site through ahrefs. You will have a near complete list of links to the site. Where are the 100 within this? How do they compare to the other links coming to the site? Also, look at the microsites and see if your site is the only one being linked to. Remember if you have your link and another, they gave half the value of the link away.
If this was the key strategy, when was it implemented and what has changed since then. Remember that data is your friend. With our clients we are careful to get a baseline, talk about the issues they are facing, delineate potential risks, etc. With these sites, run them in copyscape and see if even the unique content is unique. Did you pay for unique?
Next, I would run the site through a moz campaign and see what I see. I would look at GWMT and see if the linking sites are showing in GWMT and I would look to see how many new pages are being indexed subsequently. If someone is saying that this linking strategy is key and you have duplicate meta descriptions, Title Tags, no H1, etc. (run the site through Xenu and you will have all of that and more), I think you can find a dozen places where someone in SEO says, if you do not do the on page, etc. there is no reason to do the other.
So, the data will be your friend if you want to show whether or not this is working. Hey, if it is let us know and how and maybe we will all say, they are right, I was wrong.
Best,
Robert
-
Don't worry about any "major damage to our domain authority". Those sites/links as you described aren't helping any and in light of a potential penalty, you're better off removing them.
-
Hi Robert,
I appreciate you getting involved! According to our SEO provider this tactic is a major part of their strategy and reason for the success of the site. I asked them to disable them and then they said for sure we would see "major damage to our domain authority".
The other issue is that they actually don't spend any time on these sites. They haven't been updated or touched in 7 months. The blog posts and single "unique" paragraph per site has remained the same. In fact, blog posts are exactly the same on all sites, basically scraped. However, they bill us for these sites because they are supposedly required for our SEO success.
My challenge has been trying to question their strategy when I am not an expert and they are supposed to be. Yes, they speak as if this tactic is unicorn dust.
-
If you haven't done any link building to those sites, they are pretty much worthless. G knows about this strategy and best case scenario, ignores them. DA is irrelevant to rankings. I can show you many sites with amazing DA but shit rankings because they are penalized/crappy links.
Opportunity cost: 100 domains @ $10/yr + 100 ips @ $20/yr = $3k in yearly savings. You can easily put that money to better use.
-
Heh, heh. Does ring a bell doesn't it Robert?
I'd de-link stat before Google banishes my site and ignores my reconsideration requests.
-
C3
You have some good responses but this is another of those where it is hard to sit on the sidelines. I have to ask a few different questions with a situation like this; first, forget what they did re the C blocks. What was the desired result they were seeking? What was the plan (with rationale) to achieve that result? And, no matter the answer to any of that, what percentage of optimization/ranking do they or their client believe is related to linking?
So, do they really spend this much effort on a 20 to 30% factor? And remember, this is not effort around bringing in quality links, it is effort around linking as if that is the Holy Grail of SEO. Given the time spend, the opportunity spend, the actual cost to the client, etc. Is this 80% plus of the SEO effort? I would be surprised if it wasn't. Usually when I come across this kind of thing, the "SEO" firm doing it is doing it as some sort of silver bullet SEO. They have discovered a secret way to sprinkle unicorn dust on the algorithm, etc.
To me and in my opinion, it is not white hat, grey hat, or black hat with sequins. It is just a waste of time and energy. It is just highly inefficient. Are they saying they can do more with this strategy than say the people on this forum with an actual strategy? If you are worrying about can linking via multiple C blocks from EMD's I own for some sort of benefit to some site, I think you are looking at SEO from a very odd perspective (not you, I am using the global you as if for anyone who). Interesting approach.
Best
-
C3,
Let's see... if those sites have no inbound links, what value are they to the main domain? If they have no inbound links, how is Google going to find them? If you submit the urls to google, google will see 100 new new sites that were all registered at the same time (and maybe to the same owner), all with the same content, and all with links only to your site.
This attempt at manipulation is very easy for google to recognize and you're putting your main site in jeopardy by following this tactic.
-
Sorry, I just re-read my response. I wasn't trying to be condescending with the first line. I was actually trying to clarify who initiated the tactic. Thanks!
-
SEJunkie,
To clarify, the SEO provider did this.
But, yes, 100+ direct match urls, all on different C block ip's, but mostly the same content. Navigational links from these site link to sections of our main site. Ex. "Electronics" on satellite site links to "Electronics" on our main site.
There is a paragraph on each homepage below the fold that describes that is unique for each page, but that is the only differing piece of content. The rest of the content is exactly the same including the blog posts.
-
Hi Eric,
Just to clarify, you have purchased 100+ domain names, created 100+ near duplicate websites, using hosting on 100+ different cblock ip's? I would lean more towards the thinking that it's a little bit on the black-hat side of the fence. With no backlinks these sites are offering no Domain Authority to your site. They still however, maybe passing some rank juice. You need to be able to test the effectiveness of the links in order to decide to keep it or remove it. If you find the links are passing some value, i wouldn't remove them. I suggest developing them into something more over time. You don't need to regularly update these sites, just develop somethng decent for a content centerpiece and move on to the next, before you know it you'll have your own network.
-
Oleg,
So what's best course of action? Building strong content for each of these sites (100+) would be an enormous task, but disabling would kill the number of linking domains, which I assume would lower our DA in a hurry.
We actually didn't ask or want the sites developed because we don't have the resources to develop content for so many sites. The SEO insisted and put the sites up for "free" as part of their strategy. Yet, they haven't developed any new content for these sites in over 7 months.
Seems like it was a mistake from the beginning to do this.
Thanks,
Eric -
This used to work, now its a waste of time that will most likely get you penalized.
You are better off using those time and resources to develop a strong piece of content and link building to it from authoritative sites.
Cheers,
Oleg
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 I lose link juice if I have a https site and someone links to me using http instead?
We have recently launched a https site which is getting some organic links some of which are using https and some are using http. Am I losing link juice on the ones linked using http even though I am redirecting or does Google view them the same way? As most people still use http naturally will it look strange to google if I contact anyone who has given us a link and ask them to change to https?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Lisa-Devins0 -
Companies creating spammy links to charge money to delete them?
Hi all, Yesterday I was checking out ahrefs.com and realizing that one of our main competitors was getting new spammy links to its website from junk directories, rusian forums, porn sites etc. I found it to be weird but I thought that maybe they hired a black hat company without knowing it. Today I began finding the same type of spammy links pointing to our site. I'm completely sure we did not create them.I was checking out some of the new directory links and their listings consist of new pages including only our company's website and absolutely no descriptions. I did a little more research and find out that many of those new directories/listings belong to the same company ( seems to be located in Argentina, but I'm not sure). I also remembered paying that company long time ago to delete two links to our website that were included in their directories. I have to tell you, I'm completely out of my mind and I really don't know what to do. The two possibilities I can think about are: 1- A competitor has hired somebody to point spam to our site, to our other competitor, and may be some other competitors in the industry.(because as I tell you before our main competitor in the area is getting new spammy links too) 2- These black hat companies that own directories and other junk websites are pointing spam to us to get paid to remove links. Whether is #1 or #2 is getting out of control and I really don't know how to manage it (except from disvowing links as soon as I find them). I would appreciate suggestions/advise. Thanks. Ana
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | anagentile0 -
Will Google perceive these as paid links? Thoughts?
Here's the challenge. I am doing some SEO triage work for a site which offers a legitimate business for sale listing service, which has a number of FOLLOWED link placements on news / newspaper sites - like this: http://www.spencercountyjournal.com/business-for-sale. (The "Business Broker" links & business search box are theirs.) The site has already been penalized heavily by Google, and just got pushed down again on May 8th, significantly (from what we see so far). Here's the question - is this the type of link that Google would perceive of as paid / passing page rank since it's followed vs. nofollowed? What would you advise if it were your site / client? From everything I've read, these backlinks, although perfectly legit, would likely be classified as paid / passing pagerank. But please tell me if I'm missing something. My advice has been to request that these links be nofollowed, but I am getting pretty strong resistance / lack of belief that these links in their current state (followed) could be harming them in any way. Would appreciate the input of the Moz community - if they won't believe me, and the majority here agrees about nofollowing, maybe they'll believe you. Thanks! BMT
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CliXelerate1 -
Why would links that were deleted by me 3 months ago still show up in reports?
I inadvertently created a mini link farm some time back by linking all of my parked domains (2000 plus) to some of my live websites (I was green and didn't think linking between the same owner sites / domains was an issue). These websites were doing well until Penguin and although I did not get any 'bad link' advices from Google I figure I was hit by Penguin. So about 3 or 4 months ago I painstakingly deleted ALL links from all of those domains that I still own (only 500 or so - the others were allowed to lapse). None of those domains have any links linking out at all but old links from those domains are still showing up in WMT and in SEOmoz and every other link tracking report I have run. So why would these links still be reported? How long do old links stay in the internet archives? This may sound like a strange question but do links 'remain with a domain for a given period of time regardless'? Are links archived before being 'thrown out' of the web. I know Google keeps archives of data that has expired, been deleted, website closed etc, etc for about 3 years or so (?). In an effort to correct a situation I have spent countless hours manually deleting thousands of links but they won't go away. Looking for some insight here please. cheers, Mike
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | shags380 -
Link Quality and Anchor Text
ok I was wondering how to determine the quality of a link and if there is a way to tell that the site linking to you could be passing on penalized link juice to your site. Also i would like to know some of yalls opinion on using anchor text links in articles and blogs. Now that google seems to have taken some of its "importance" away
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | daugherty0 -
Product Reviews – Link Building Strategy
I own Simply Bags and have been sending sample bags to bloggers as a link building strategy. The following four links are a sample of recent product reviews. http://bit.ly/Mk6Z1t http://bit.ly/Mk6Smq http://bit.ly/Mk7atN http://bit.ly/Mk7wR8 Product reviews were considered a good link building strategy. After Panda & Penguin is Product Reviews still a good strategy? Please comment on the quality of the four sample links. Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | b4tv
Bob Shirilla0 -
How to get rid of black hat links?
I have recently discovered that one of my clients has either been sabotaged or has done this himself. In the case that he didn't do anything, how do you go about getting rid of bad links? There is now over a 1000 bad links linked to his site, do I report them as spam or what is the best way to fix this?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | StrategicEdgePartners0 -
Do Friends Let Friends Sell Links?
I have a friend with a site that has a lot of content. Some of that content has affiliate links with no follows to affiliate urls. Those pages also have a disclosure on them about the affiliate relationship. Now, he's talking about taking some of the existing under-performing affiliate links and renting them out to another site that wants them for the link juice. He says he'd have an on-page disclosure, a display ad for the advertiser on the page and something in the text like "you might check out our advertiser..." and then some keyword targeted link. He was asking me how risky I thought this is for him and really I don't know.Do you think Google would find this and s**t a chicken over it? I really don't know, given that I see really blatant undisclosed rented links all the time.Of course, my easy answer to him is "don't do it," but it does make me wonder how risky that is. Also, is that a realistic site-wide penalty kind of thing or it just doesn't pass any link juice to the advertiser kind of thing? So, I'm posting here for others to weigh in on. Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | 945010