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
-
What is the best strategy to SEO Discontinued Products on Ecommerce Sites?
RebelsMarket.com is a marketplace for alternative fashion. We have hundreds of sellers who have listed thousands of products. Over 90% of the items do not generate any sales; and about 40% of the products have been on the website for over 3+ years. We want to cleanup the catalog and remove all the old listings that older than 2years that do not generate any sales. What is the best practice for removing thousands of listings an Ecommerce site? do we 404 these products and show similar items? Your help and thoughts is much appreciated.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | JimJ3 -
SEO Tactics - All in the Game?
Hey Mozzers Hoping to get some opinions on SEO at a small business level. We're engaged in SEO for a number of clients which are small businesses (small budgets). We stick to strictly white hat techniques - producing decent content (and promoting it) and link building (as much as is possible without dodgy techniques/paying huge sums). For some clients we seem to have hit a ceiling about with rankings anywhere between roughly position #5 - #15 in Google. In the majority of cases - the higher ranking clients don't appear to be engaged in any kind of content marketing - often have much worse designed websites - and not particularly spectacular link profiles (In other words they're not hugely competitive - apart from sometimes on the AdWords front - but that's another story) The only difference seems to be links on agency link farms - you know the kind? Agency buys expired domains with an existing PR - then just builds simple site with multiple blog posts that link back to their clients sites. (Also links that are simply paid for) Obviously these sites serve no purpose other than links - but I guess it's harder for Google to recognize that than with obvious SEO directories etc?... It seems to me that at this level of SEO for small businesses (limited budgets, limited time) the standard approach for SEO is the "expired domains agency link sites" described above - and simply paying bloggers for links. Are the above techniques considered black hat? Or are they more grey-hat? - Are they risky? - Or is this kind of thing all in the game for SEO at the small business level (by that I mean businesses that don't have the budget to employ a full time SEO and have to rely on engaging agencies for low level - low resource SEO campaigns) Look forward to your always wise council...
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | wearehappymedia0 -
Does this type of link pass juice?
I have a backlink that looks like this: https://theirsite.com/go/?t=https%3A//www.mysite.com Will that pass link juice?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | vcj0 -
Do dead/inactive links matter?
In cleaning up the backlink profile for my parent's website, I've come across quite a few dead links. For instance, the links in the comments here: http://www.islanddefjam.com/artist/news_single.aspx?nid=4726&artistID=7290 Do I need to worry about these links? I assume if the links are no longer active, and hence not showing up in webmaster or moz reports, I can probably ignore them, but I'm wondering if I should try and get them removed regardless? I've read that google is increasingly taking into account references (i.e. website mentions that are not links) and I don't know if inactive spam links might leave a bad impression of a website. Am I being overly paranoid? I imagine disavowing them would be pointless as you can't attach a nofollow tag to an inactive link.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | mgane0 -
When to NOT USE the disavow link tool
Im not here to say this is concrete and should never do this, and please if you disagree with me then lets discuss. One of the biggest things out there today especially after the second wave of Penguin (2.0) is the fear striken web masters who run straight to the disavow tool after they have been hit with Penguin or noticed a drop shortly after. I had a friend who's site who never felt the effects of Penguin 1.0 and thought everything was peachy. Then P2.0 hit and his rankings dropped of the map. I got a call from him that night and he was desperately asking me for help to review his site and guess what might have happened. He then tells me the first thing he did was compile a list of websites back linking to him that might be the issue and create his disavow list and submitted it. I asked him "How long did you research these sites before you came the conclusion they were the problem?" He Said "About an hour" Then I asked him "Did you receive a message in your Google Webmaster Tools about unnatural linking?" He Said "No" I said "Then why are you disavowing anything?" He Said "Um.......I don't understand what you are saying?" In reading articles, forums and even here in the Moz Q/A I tend to think there is some misconceptions about the disavow tool from Google that do not seem to be clearly explained. Some of my findings with the tool and when to use it is purely based on logic IMO. Let me explain When to NOT use the tool If you spent an hour reviewing your back link profile and you are to eager to wait any longer to upload your list. Unless you have less than 20 root domains linking to you, you should spend a lot more than an hour reviewing your back link profile You DID NOT receive a message from GWT informing you that you had some "unnatural" links Ill explain later If you spend a very short amount of time reviewing your back link profile. Did not look at each individual site linking to you and every link that exists, then you might be using it WAY TO SOON. The last thing you want to do is disavow a link that actually might be helping you. Take the time to really look at each link and ask your self this question (Straight from the Google Guidelines) "A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you, or to a Google employee" Studying your back link profile We all know when we have cheated. Im sure 99.9% of all of us can admit to it at one point. Most of the time I can find back links from sites and look right at the owner and ask him or her "You placed this back link didn't you?" I can see the guilt immediately in their eyes 🙂 Remember not ALL back links you generate are bad or wrong because you own the site. You need to ask yourself "Was this link necessary and does it apply to the topic at hand?", "Was it relevant?" and most important "Is this going to help other users?". These are some questions you can ask yourself before each link you place. You DID NOT receive a message about unnatural linking This is were I think the most confusing takes place (and please explain to me if I am wrong on this). If you did not receive a message in GWT about unnatural linking, then we can safely say that Google does not think you contain any "fishy" spammy links in which they have determined to be of a spammy nature. So if you did not receive any message yet your rankings dropped, then what could it be? Well it's still your back links that most likely did it, but its more likely the "value" of previous links that hold less or no value at all anymore. So obviously when this value drops, so does your rank. So what do I do? Build more quality links....and watch you rankings come back 🙂
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | cbielich1 -
Fix Bad Links in Google
I have a client who had some grey hat SEO done in the past. Some of their back links aren't from the best neighborhoods. Google didn't seem to mind until 9/28, when they literally disappeared for all searches except for their domain name. Google still has their site indexed, but it's just not showing up. There are no messages in Webmaster Tools. I know Bing has the tool where you can disavow bad links and ask them to discount them. Google doesn't have such a tool, but what is the strategy when you don't have control over the link sources, such as in blog comments? Could this update have been a delayed Penguin ranking change from the latest Penguin Update on the 18th? http://www.seomoz.org/google-algorithm-change Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Tom
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TomBristol0 -
I think I've been hit by Penguing - Strategy Discusson
Hi, I have a network of 50 to 60 domain names which have duplicated content and whose domains are basically a geographical location + the industry I am in. All of these websites have links to my main site. Over the weekend I saw my traffic fall. I attribute our drop in rankings to what people are calling Penguing 1.1. I want to keep my other domains as we are slowly creating unique content for each of those sites. However, in the mean time, clearly I need to deal with the inbound linking and anchor text problem. Would adding a nofollow tag to all links that point to my main site resolve my issue with Google's penguin update? Thanks for the help.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MangoMan160 -
Partners and Customers logo listing and links
We have just created a program where we list the customers that use our software and a link to their websites on a new "Customers" page. We expect to have upwards of 100 logos with links back to their sites. I want to be sure this isn't bordering on gray or black hat link building. I think it is okay since they are actual users of our software. But there is still that slight doubt. Along these same lines, would you recommend adding a nofollow or noindex tag? Thanks for your help.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | PerriCline0