Links from music/celebrity based fansites - sitewide images with no alt text
-
We're currently in the middle of a link audit on our website OneDirection.net and a large part of our incoming links come from fansites such as the following:
- ladygaganow.net
- nickjonline.com
- justinbieberhood.com
- joejonashq.com
- harrystylesfan.org
- brunodaily.org
- onedirectiondaily.com
- onedirectionfans.net
Now, our previous way of thinking was that these are very relevant websites in the same niche as us, and therefore should be passing some value? However all of the links on these sites come from sitewide images with no alt-text. Some of the sites are passing 1000+ links to us.
We've been wary to disavow or request removal of these links as we've usually gone with the thinking that Google applies "common-sense" based logic in its algorithms, and therefore these backlinks should be ok - in our opinion.
However we think we are suffering from some kind of algorithmic penalty with our current rankings, and are now thinking these could be the cause.
What are people's opinions on these links? Should we stay clear of sitewide links altogether? Should we contact the site owners and try to get them to mix up the alt-text? Or should we get rid of them altogether?
Thanks,
Chris.
-
Further to my previous update, it now seems that Penguin 2.1 positively affected our site. So there's still the chance that the disavowed links have not been taken into account yet.
Either way, rankings have remained strong, but we still think there is further to go. We're continuing to contact sites directly, asking them to remove or nofollow our links.
-
Update...
Our rankings suddenly improved on Saturday October 5th, and we've seen an uplift in google traffic by a factor of 20/30% so far, but manually checking some of our rankings puts us on page 1 for a lot of medium/long tail keywords. We've not seen rankings this strong for ages.
It's still a little too early to tell fully so I'll update again in another week or so, but from an initial couple of days of data & analysis we're seeing better rankings right across the Google network
As well as simply disavowing the links, we also contacted 10 of the sites asking them to remove our links directly. Two of them responded saying they had done this on Wednesday, but this seems a little too soon to see an effect from so we're putting more belief that the the disavow links have been reflected.
This is the first time I've felt like we're finally seeing daylight, and it was the last source of links we've thought were damaging us!
-
Quick update on this - we've disavowed 22 entire domain links from these fansites and will monitor rankings to see if anything improves.
As mysterious as the disavow tool is, we're expecting to have to wait anything from 3 weeks to 3 months before anything happens. Will report back here with our findings.
Cheers.
-
The problem with sitewide links and sidebar links is that they have been abused by the spamming world so stick out as if a paid link despite in a lot of cases actually being genuine.
You have got to remember that at the end of the day it is a computer analysing these links and they are not quite there yet. Although they are legitimate there are hundreds of thousands that are not and this im guessing is what Google is basing it on.
-
Thanks for your quick responses guys.
Since the original penguin update back in April 2012, we've cleaned up our link profile immensely, improved the load speed of our site by over 150% and totally reworked & simplified our UI. Throughout all this we've provided unique, daily content.
As such it's been annoyance that we've only seen our rankings drop, but frankly we've never touched our core of fansite links. I'll be quite surprised if these are indeed the source of our problems - but at the same time delighted to have finally found the culprit.
Still, ignoring whatever decisions Google has made in its algorithms, are these fansites (and ourselves) actually doing anything wrong with their sitewide links? What is it that Google doesn't like about them? Usually the individuals who run the sites provide a lot of up-to-date content that other fans like to see, and quite often users will be interested in similar artists/bands, hence the links to "friends" or "affiliate" sites in the sidebar.
Is this a niche way of doing things that probably should have an exception from Google's calculations?
Or are they just bad, bad, bad?
-
I agree with Mark. Sitewide links are an extremely quick way to get a penalty these days.
Another option is to ask those links to be no-followed if they do give traffic (and try to get an editorial link on the front page, or some other page), but at the end of the day if they refuse, your only option will be to dissavow.
-
I don't think sitewide links are a good idea any more. Im sure they have been legitimately placed but in the eyes of a computer could look like paid links which as we all know is a bad thing.
My advice would be contact each website in turn and ask for an editorial link rather than a sidebar/sitewide link. This way you keep a genuine link.
If they refuse then I would ask for it to be removed as in my opinion these links are more than likely the cause of your penalty despite them being relevant as if they link to your fan site they are probably linking to lots of fan sites so could also look like a link ring of some sort.
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
-
Images are not indexing as they are in temporary ads and when the ads expired we redirect the ad image to the parent category
As we are a classified ads site, our ads expire after some time,and we redirect 301 the ad post page to the parent category And images urls in the ad page is redirected to, so they are not getting index in google image..what is the best solution for getting image index in this situation: 301 redirect images Keep images And so more?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | divar0 -
HELP!!! Steep Drop in Organic Traffic Starting 11/1/16
Starting November 1st, organic web traffic from Google dropped from an average of about 60 visits a day to about 5 per day. So we are more than 90% off!!!! At the end of September, we modified the header of the site to simplify it. We also added a snippet of code to each page to enable Zoho "Sales IQ" to work. Sales IQ enables us to track visitors and engage in chat sessions with them. Apart from that no changes have been made from the site. Any ideas as to what could have caused this drop in traffic? Was there a Google update at that time that could have caused the drop? Or could the recent site changes have caused this? I have attached a Google Webmasters Tool report showing the drop in traffic. I would very much appreciate some insight into this, as all organic traffic to our site has ceased. Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan1
Alan 9VNB1O50 -
Images not appearing in Google Images SERPS
Hi there We pushed a new version of our website live more than 6 months ago. So far, none of the images that are in the product gallery on this page http://www.ingleandrhode.co.uk/bespoke-rings/inspiration/ are appearing in the Google Images SERPS (I tested this by searching Google Images for "site:www.ingleandrhode.co.uk"). I understand that the gallery uses Javascript, so Googlebot doesn't see the image files in the HTML, but in Webmaster Tools, if I "fetch as Google" with rendering, this suggests that Googlebot does see the gallery images. My website developer tried adding an image sitemap about two weeks ago, which is being indexed, but so far this hasn't made any difference. Any suggestions on what needs to be done for these gallery images to start appearing in Google Images SERPS? Many thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TimIngle0 -
Link Audit - Sponsor/Partners Images Links
Hi everyone, 1. I'm conducting a link audit and read that if you are a sponsor or partner of a company, links should be nofollowed. I always no follow them if they are money keywords, but branded I leave alone. is that a good strategy? Or do i nofollow my brand name as well? 2. What if I'm a sponsor and have my company logo on their website that links to my website? How would i know if that link should be nofollowed? a. Does it depend on the "alt" of the image? b. Does it depend on the landing page of the link of the image? c. Do i just no follow image links from sponsor pages and partner pages as a whole? Please keep in mind that I'm sponsoring websites that are relevant to my niche. PLEASE HELP!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Shawn1240 -
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 -
Automotive part / OEM / Manufacturer numbers
Hi All, What's the best way to optimise pages for OE / Manufacturer Part numbers? Disclaimer: All part numbers in this post are fictional. I dont want this post out ranking my client for real part numbers 🙂 Take this for Throttle Body for example: WOODYS S-AB-Q.123.53G This is the main part number from WOODYS (the manufacturer). However, these are all variations of exactly the same product: Woodys 2.78972.11.0 Woodys 2.78972.16.0 Woodys 2.78972.20.0 Woodys 2.78972.26.0 Oh, and car brands use OE numbers for these parts, such as: VWA 9808e40923G VWA 9808e40923L VWA 9808e40923M VWA 9808e40923P VWA 9808e40923Q These internal part numbers are vitally important as most of my clients customers are garages/mechanics so they're very likely to search on OE numbers. So, would you suggest: Optimising 10 different pages for the same product (using the part numbers in the URL, Title and H1). The problem is there's no unique content for these pages, only the part number varies, so this would likely get penalised for dupe content, or not enough unique content. Optimising one page for all terms. If so, how do you suggest doing this to ensure all part/OE numbers rank well and part numbers are prominent in the SERPS?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seowoody
Could Schema.org help here by marking up these EO numbers with the isSimilarTo property of the Product type? I'm trying to ensure these part number get equal presence in the SERP snippet when searched for, even though I can't physically include all these numbers in the Title tag, URL and H1 of one page. 3. Something else? Thanks, Woody 🙂1 -
Top 5 link building articles/videos
Hello, What are the top 5 resources for learning how to do a fantastic ecommerce link building campaign? I'm starting by adding 100-200 articles to our site. I'm wanting the 5 most up-to-date resources. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobGW0 -
Sitelinks in 7-pack / blended / local results
I have a client who has been ranking well in the 7-pack for local searches, for 1.5+ years. I recently noticed a competitor's Google Places link has little sitelinks attached, but my client's link doesn't have them. This makes me sad. To provide a concise question: what can I do to help my client get sitelinks along with his Google Places listing in the 7-pack / blended / local results? Some example data: My client's business is called Ambiance Dental and his website is www.mycalgarydentist.com. An example search to see what I'm talking about is "calgary family dentist". The competitor that's showing sitelinks is www.aestheticdentalstudio.ca which has a title of "Dentist in Calgary | Cosmetic Treatment in Calgary". The sitelinks you'll see are "Dr. Gordon Chee", "Links", "Dr. Alexa Geminiano". Notice that my client doesn't have the same sitelinks. Some further data: If you do a a search for "calgary aesthetic dentist" you'll see the competitor's 1-box local result (is that what it's called?) with his Google Places data and sitelinks. If you search for "calgary ambiance dentist" you'll get a similar layout SERP for my client, again with no sitelinks. My client's sitelinks: If you search for "ambiance dental calgary" you'll see that Google does offer sitelinks for his site, just not in Google Places it seems. My client's website: My client's website has the navigation coded as a list (UL) without any javascript or complicated code messing things up. The competitor's navigation is built similarly, though he has about 40 more pages in his main navigation. My client's page names are concise, which I've read helps with sitelinks, the website is coded very cleanly, the URLs of his site are clear and concise without a complicated folder structure, so it seems like we're doing everything right. I appreciate any input other mozzers can provide, and discussion on the topic. I'm sure there are others who would benefit from local sitelinks as well!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kenoshi0