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/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>
| | -
Thanks to you all for taking the time to answer my very long question, it is very much appreciated!
I will post updates regarding my my progress!
Andy
-
Hi Andy,
Welcome to the challenging world of penalty removal! Here are my thoughts on your questions.
First of all, don't worry about dmoz and 23searchengines and the like. The 23searchengines sites are scraper sites and Google knows that they are not self made links. 99.9% of the time a dmoz link is ok. The exception would be the case where a site managed to get an anchor texted link on there (usually by accessing a corrupt editor). If your link from dmoz is anchored by your brand/url then just ignore them.
Regarding the foody's link, whether or not it's unnatural depends on the patterns your client has. If you've got the occasional blogroll link it may be ok. But, when you're auditing the links you'll soon see if this is a pattern. If your site has a whack of blogroll links, especially if they are keyword anchored, then they are probably on Google's radar. What I would do in my audit is mark this as "blogroll" and then, once I'm finished my audit I would decide whether blogroll links should be removed or not. The exception to this would be if I know that my client has paid for blogroll links. If that's the case then I would flag them for removal right away.
If you've got a pile of spammy links from your .co.uk site then removing the redirect is probably a good idea.
There is always middle ground when assessing links.
Good luck!
Marie
-
I saw with your link example http://foodys.eu/ that they have alot of sitewide sidebar links. This is a big red flag. Sitewide sidebar links are one of the easiest ways to get a penalty, as the links are unnatural, even if it is a good site (i.e. one link is great, but sitewide links bad).
Any decent sites that have these sort of links and which are giving decent traffic you should get the rel="nofollow" tag added. Of course this is dependent on the webmaster dealing with your request.
-
Hi Andy,
I'd be totally ruthless with your link audit, even if 1% of you thinks it is spammy, disavow it. In fact, if it isn't driving traffic then disavow it, what are you going to lose. The question to ask yourself is would you be happy to show the link to Matt Cutts? If not, then get rid.
We heard from Google recently that they are not allowed to open any files that are sent to them for security reasons so, for me, going through the effort of contacting webmasters and sending Google files with emails etc is pointless. I know they say you should be we have stopped asking because it gets you nowhere and you haven't got the time to wait for replies. I'd just get some numbers and info together about what you have disavowed, why there was these links in the first place and what you have done to remedy it. Obviously, if you can get them taken down easily then do so.
Stop building links until you have the penalty lifted! Don't look at the anchor text used to justify whether it is a good or bad link, look at the relevance to your website. I even disavow 404 and no-followed links if I think they are spammy.
Good luck in the recovery!
-
Hello,
Ihave recovered more than 3 websites affected by unnatural link penalty (which is a manual penalty) and used the disavow tool for several clients of mine. Here is what i do recommend for u:
1. Be more determined/accurate with links analysis. You may classify links into 3 groups:
a/definetly spammy: links in footers, sitewides, links from low quality directories, linsk from blog/directory networks, etc...
b/maybe spammy: these are links that appear to be good, but you may have to digg mire to be sure if it's really good (these could be links exhanges, links from websites that have been spotted of seeling links, etc...)
c/good links: this are links using branded anchors, parital matches or low number of exact macth anchors. These links should be placed in relevant websites and high editorial level (not linking to every rubbish oin the web)
About the redirected links, if i were to take this project, i would analyze the redirected links and check if most of them are spammy or have little to no value, i will remove the redirect and take the time and effort to build new links to the .com domain. Creating new links is better than deleting the old ones, here is why:
1. creatinng links is easier and funnier (you feel success when u earn a new good link)
2. it takes less time to see results (disavowing and deleting links may take upt to 3-6 mnths to reflect resullts as google takes time to process these data)
If you have further questions, don't hesitate to get back to me.
Regards
Amine Rihane
SEO Consultant
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
-
Are These Links Junk?
I hired an SEO to create incoming links to me website insisting that only white hat techniques be used. The SEO was highly recommended by a family friend. In 3 months about 14 links to my site were obtained. The URLs for the domains where the links originate are below. I paid $8,000 for the services of the SEO provider to create the links over 4 months. When I looked at the links more carefully I noticed that the sites did not seem to have owners. That there was no phone number, physical address and scant information about ownership. I also noticed that most pages had outgoing links of a promotional nature. Also, that content created for me had grammatical and occasional spelling errors. The links did not look bad in terms of MOZ domain authority and MOZ page authority, but when I went subscribed to AHREFS a few days ago and evaluated the links, I noticed that the URL rating (somewhat equivalent to MOZ page authority) was really low. Furthermore, noticed that one of the domains solicits paid links from gambling sites. The SEO who sourced the links on my behalf says he will explain why I "have nothing to worry about". Dividing his monthly fee by the number of links and I paid $571 per link. Is it possible the the below domains could have pages that I would want links from? Would these links be potentially worth more than a few hundred dollars? O are these sites more like a cheap PBN or maybe "the hoth". If the links are in fact good I would be delighted. But if they are of poor quality could I legitimately ask for a refund? Also, are these domains so bad that it is imperative for me to get the links removed? <colgroup><col width="198"></colgroup>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan1
| https://www.equities.com |
| http://www.realestaterama.com |
| https://moneyinc.com |
| https://homebusinessmag.com |
| http://digitalconnectmag.com |
| https://suburbanfinance.com/ |
| http://www.homebunch.com |
| http://inman.com |
| https://www.propertytalk.com/ |
| http://activerain.com |
| https://www.conservativedailynews.com/ |
| http://moneyforlunch.com/ |
| http://baltimorepostexaminer.com/ |
| https://www.tgdaily.com/ |
| |0 -
Technical Question on Image Links - Part of Addressing High Number of Outbound Links
Hi - I've read through the forum, and have been reading online for hours, and can't quite find an answer to what I'm searching for. Hopefully someone can chime in with some information. 🙂 For some background - I am looking closely at four websites, trying to bring them up to speed with current guidelines, and recoup some lost traffic and revenue. One of the things we are zeroing in on is the high amount of outbound links in general, as well as inter-site linking, and a nearly total lack of rel=nofollow on any links. Our current CMS doesn't allow an editor to add them, and it will require programming changes to modify any past links, which means I'm trying to ask for the right things, once, in order to streamline the process. One thing that is nagging at me is that the way we link to our images could be getting misconstrued by a more sensitive Penguin algorithm. Our article images are all hosted on one separate domain. This was done for website performance reasons. My concern is that we don't just embed the image via , which would make this concern moot. We also have an href tag on each to a 'larger view' of the image that precedes the img src in the code, for example - We are still running the numbers, but as some articles have several images, and we currently have about 85,000 articles on those four sites... well, that's a lot of href links to another domain. I'm suggesting that one of the steps we take is to rel=nofollow the image hrefs. Our image traffic from Google search, or any image search for that matter, is negligible. On one site it represented just .008% of our visits in July. I'm getting a little pushback on that idea as having a separate image server is standard for many websites, so I thought I'd seek additional information and opinions. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MediaCF0 -
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
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | makeusawebsite
Service 1
Services 2 (301 to new site)
Service 3 New 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.0 -
For those of you that used LINK DETOX.
Did you go ahead and remove all the TOXIC and HIGH RISK links? Just the toxic? Were you successful with the tool?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | netviper0 -
Webmaster Tools Internal Links
Hi all, I have around 400 links in the navigation menu (site-wide) and when I use webmaster tools to check for internal links to each page; some have as many as 250K and some as little as 200. Shouldn't the number of internal links for pages found in the navigation menu be relatively the same? Or is Google registering more internal links for pages linked closer to the top of the code Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Carlos-R0 -
What is value in a back-link from article with multiple links pointing to various other sites?
In a standard article with 400-500 words my site got a back-link. However, within the article there are 4 other links pointing to other external content as well (so total 5 links within articles all pointing to external sites, and 1 of the links is to my site). All links are to relevant external content that is. Question: wouldn't it be much more valuable for my site if only my site got a back-link from the article, as less link juice is now passed to my site, since there are 4 other links pointing to various sites from this same article? Or, is the case that given the other links are pointing to quality material it actually makes the link to my site look more credible and at the end of the day have more value. Conclusion: is it that on one hand less links in same article is better from a link juice perspective, however, from a credibility perspective it looks more convincing there are other links pointing to quality content?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | knielsen0 -
Big Site Wide Link
Hi Guys, I've noticed that Google is starting to de-value site-wide links... Our previous SEO agency sourced us a site wide link on a big website and at the moment within Google Webmaster Tools its showing 749,726 links from this 1 source. Do you think this is too many? Could this be being flagged by Google? Here is the site: http://tinyurl.com/7bttw3b Cheers, Scott
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ScottBaxterWW0 -
Link Juice - Lots of Pages
I have a site, PricesPrices.com where I'm steadily building inbound links and pagerank. I have about 4600 pages on the site, most of which are baby products in the baby gear sector. There are many outdated items that aren't really my focus, but do pop up in long-tail search queries from time to time. My question is a pretty basic one. Theoretically if a site has say 28/100 link juice, then as you go deeper and deeper into the site, the link juice is divided more and more. My question: Is this really true or just a concept? My thoughts are to hide many of the products that i don't really need to focus on therefor passing more link juice to the products that remain, but I also don't want to that if it won't necessarily make the remaining pages rank higher or have more link juice. I also have to keep in mind the merchandising aspect of the site and providing a good user experience. If i only have 300 products on the site, there will be a ton of unhappy people who can't find the products they are looking for. Any thoughts and/or pointers in the direction of funneling that pagerank down into my site would be much appreciated. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | modparent0