Will a Google manual action affect all new links, too?
-
I have had a Google manual action (Unnatural links to your site; affects: all) that was spurred on by a PRWeb press release where publishers took it upon themselves to remove the embedded "nofollow" tags on links. I have been spending the past few weeks cleaning things up and have submitted a second pass at a reconsideration request. In the meantime, I have been creating new content, boosting social activity, guest blogging and working with other publishers to generate more natural inbound links.
My question is this: knowing that this manual action affects "all," are the new links that I am building being negatively tainted as well? When the penalty is lifted, will they regain their strength? Is there any hope of my rankings improving while the penalty is in effect?
-
Hi Maria
What do you mean by "Low quality directory made just for the purpose of gaining a link" -- Is there an issue with linking back from directories to your site?
Does this apply to submitting my website to social bookmark websites using a specific anchor text that am optimizing for?
Thanks
James
-
Hi Michael,
"You are correct that it wasn't a single press release but 3-4 that all had the same circumstances."
It's quite unlikely that a few press releases are the sole cause of your penalty, although it is possible. But I think you may have more links to clean up. Here are two examples:
http://healthmad.com/health/when-las-vegas-gets-the-best-of-you-6-ways-to-get-back-on-your-feet-in-sin-city/ - self made article
http://www.cannylink.com/healthhospitaldirectories.htm - Low quality directory made just for the purpose of gaining a link
-
Interesting. I hadn't seen these links before and have never purchased links. I'll download the list from open site explorer and review and disavow these and similar. Thanks for pointing these out!
-
Agreed. Ordinarily it wouldn't matter, but once subject to manual review they would be.
-
Looking in Open Site Explorer, I'm seeing several suspicious links in the report. These are links from sites that have nothing to do with medicine whatsoever, all with targeted keywords in the anchor text. When I click to view the page and look for the actual links, I'm not seeing anything. So, it seems the links are no longer there.
If the report from Open Site Explorer is correct, it looks to me like someone was purchasing links and has now removed them. Did you purchase links?
Some of the suspicious links are:
- afghan-network.net/Bookshop/persian-books.html
- learnscratch.org/resources/why-learn-scratch
- www.tiltshift.com/
If these links are also in Google's link profile, I could see why the site is penalized.
-
I suspect you missed some and Google are being well... Google.
Ahrefs do a 7 day money back guarantee. You can even find a 50% off coupon around for the first month. Some people will even need to check majestic as well.
No one site will get all the links unfortunately.
-
Agreed. But given that I had those removed in quick order and it has been several weeks since they have considerably dropped, any reason why they wouldn't have removed the manual action. I am essentially back to a pre-PRWeb profile.
-
Just looking a bit more, but you could have been flagged for manual checking because from around the beginning of August you had a huge spike of links. Based on Matt Cutts previous statements about Prweb, they would have seen it as possibly spammy.
From August you went up to nearly 125 referring domains, before dropping back down to 36 now. Prior to PRweb, you were at around 30 referring domains. I suspect this spike is what caused a manual review.
-
I don't know if that makes me feel better or not, but you basically confirmed my thoughts. I may do what you indicate and disavow everything, but I am going try one more time and cut a lot more deeply in actual link removal first.
Meanwhile, of course, I am top 5 for all my major terms in Bing and Yahoo. Joy!
Thanks
-
I have to say on my first quick look I cannot determine why you would have got a manual penalty. Your link profile does not look spammy, and I wonder if google are specifically targeting sites that use PRweb.
With Ahref's I only see 77 dofollow backlinks, and to be honest you could probably be very brutal when it comes to dissavowing these links and starting again.
It is strange that the two methods of link building (prweb, and infographics) are two methods that Matt Cutts has recently (in the last few months) said that should be nofollow links.
But I cannot give anything definitive based on what I am seeing.
-
I disavowed in the same day I submitted a reconsideration request, but I did also include it in my documentation. I also included multiple emails to publishers and contact form submissions, as recommended to me.
-
Sure. http://www.urgentcarelocations.com
I just added the footer links to each state profile this week and see how those could be considered "spammy." They weren't supposed to be implemented with "urgent care" after every one of them. I doubt that is an issue here, however, given that they keep referring to unnatural links.
-
Sometimes it takes a little while for the disavow tool to remove links. So, you may need to give it some time if you just did that. You can always include the disavow request in the documents for your reconsideration request. Beyond that, I'd take a closer look at your other links to see if there are other links causing an issue.
-
Thinking about it Kurt, I have to agree that it is odd that a manual penalty has arisen from this. Michael, if you would like to share a link to your site, perhaps we can have a look and see if there is something obvious happening.
-
I have disavowed the URLs now. The major offender was streetinsider.com. I was able to remove URLs on two other offending publisher sites. Even with the disavow, however, Google didn't remove the manual action. Going to try out removeem.com to see if their tools/service can assist.
-
Bummer about the rejection. You said that you were having trouble getting the press releases removed (and I assume the links), have you disavowed those links?
-
Thanks Kurt. You are correct that it wasn't a single press release but 3-4 that all had the same circumstances. In fact, it was the same 2-3 publishers that removed the nofollow tags. The real crummy thing is that those publishers refuse to remove the links so I am having to resort to disavowing them.
While I have been working through a couple of reconsideration requests, I have built some pretty strong links, but Google seems to have capped me at page 5.
I actually got a negative response back from Google this morning following my latest reconsideration request. It provided no specifics as it did in the past only that my "Site violates Google's quality guidelines" and references the manual action of "Unnatural links to your site." I'm on round three now. I only have about 300 total inbound links nearly all of which are purely natural or nofollow. What a mess...
-
That stinks that those publishers did that. I'm a little suspicious that this would happen from a single press release. Usually, it takes Google a bit more than that to trip a manual action. Are you sure there aren't other links, maybe other press releases, that are suspicious? I only ask because Google usually responds to a pattern of manipulation, not a single action.
In regards to your actual question, natural links typically aren't "tainted" by a previous penalty. In fact it would probably work in the exact opposite way. With manual actions Google thinks that you are trying to manipulate them. In order to get the manual action removed, Google is looking for you to clean up the old links, apologize, and demonstrate that you have changed your ways. So, getting new links that are completely natural demonstrates that you have changed your ways.
Kurt Steinbrueck
OurChurch.Com -
Yes. The publisher (streetinsider.com, amongst others) are technically violating PRWeb's copyright terms as they are altering the content prior to publishing. PRWeb isn't very happy, but has been unsuccessful at getting the articles removed (which isn't helping my reconsideration request).
-
Ditto. I saw a competitor use PRweb, and was tempted. However, I felt the potential for spammy links not the direction I wanted my SEO to go in.
This just reinforces the issue.
-
manual action ... that was spurred on by a PRWeb press release where publishers took it upon themselves to remove the embedded "nofollow" tags on links.
Seriously? I've been thinking about trying PRWeb for product announcements but this makes me rethink that strategy.
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
-
Google is alternating what link it likes to rank on wordpress site and
Hi there, I'm experiencing a problem where google is pick and choosing different links structures to rank my Wordpress site for my main keywords. The site had pretty good #1 rankings for a long time but recently I noticed Google is choosing to rank the page in one of two ways. Let me just say that the original way where it held good rankings looked like this for example: flowers.com/the-most-beautiful-wedding-bouquets/ this is just an example it' is not my site. And when google decides to switch it up it uses this link structure:flowers.com > weddings (this still points to this link flowers.com/the-most-beautiful-wedding-bouquets when I hover my mouse over it) however this link structure that never appeared before and now does, usually has much lower rankings. Please note it's not both link structures being ranked at the same time for the keywords. It's one or the other that google is currently alternating in ranking and I believe it's hurting the sites position.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | z8YX9F80
I'm not sure if this is a wordpress settings thats gone wrong or what the problem is but I do know when shows the expanded and descriptive link structure flowers.com/the-most-beautiful-wedding-bouquets the rankings are higher and in 2nd place. I'm hoping by rectifying this I can regain back my position. I'm very grateful for any insight you could offer on why this is happening and how I could fix it. Thank you. PS Wordpress site has several SEO plugins0 -
New Site (redesign) Launched Without 301 Redirects to New Pages - Too Late to Add Redirects?
We recently launched a redesign/redevelopment of a site but failed to put 301 redirects in place for the old URL's. It's been about 2 months. Is it too late to even bother worrying about it at this point? The site has seen a notable decrease in site traffic/visits, perhaps due to this issue. I assume that once the search engines get an error on a URL, it will remove it from displaying in search results after a period of time. I'm just not sure if they will try to re-crawl those old URLs at some point and if so, it may be worth it to have those 301 redirects in place. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BrandBuilder0 -
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 -
Link from Google.com
Hi guys I've just seen a website get a link from Google's Webmaster Snippet testing tool. Basically, they've linked to a results page for their own website test. Here's an example of what this would look like for a result on my website. http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.impression.co.uk There's a meta nofollow, but I just wondered what everyone's take is on Trust, etc, passing down? (Don't worry, I'm not encouraging people to go out spamming links to results pages!) Looking forward to some interesting responses!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tomcraig860 -
Weird Google SERPs after New Domain Transfer 301
Hi, I have some very weird results in the SERPS - We did not do a complete 301 of the entire domain, but rather individual pages. We did the transfer back on 10th of June, and I was checking to see if there were any results on old domain of pages that were transferred to new domain via 301. There were, but... Now I have the following occurring in the search results: Title of Page (Links to old domain!! )
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjs2010
www.oldomain.com › ... › Figures & Sculptures › Tall Sculptures (these last 2 breadcrumbs link to NEW domain??!!)
Bla bla bla (meta description from new domain meta description I know it's Monday, but this one has got me quite concerned! - Any insight appreciated! Am I going nuts?0 -
Doing a re-design but worried about my new navigation affecting rankings
Hi, I'm a little worried/interested in the affects of my new navigation on ranking. So here is the current site - followuk.co.uk/mothers-day I have chosen an internal page because 99% of my traffic goes to these and generally external links and social shares happen on these pages (naturally because of the nature of the content). As you can see I have a nav bar on the left which links to all other pages. In my new design I will get rid of this nav bar altogether and have a breadcrumb which will give the user the option to root back to a category page which will contain these links instead. Kind of like this: Home > Important Dates > Mothers Day (if your on the mothers day page) I'm in two minds because maybe pages are passing PageRank helping each other to rank, but on the other side maybe the strong pages which do rank well and gain links/social shares are not ranking as well because they are passing link juice through the navigation to other pages. Any thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | followuk0 -
Am I buying links according to Google?
I have the opportunity to sponsor a variety of sections in a variety of .edu sites. Really appealing since they will both provide high quality traffic as well as to help our rankings... (maybe 🙂 )... Anyway this opportunity involves a monetary exchange, no different than advertising in Adwords and/or buying a display ad with the NYT. The links will be both text and banner... With follow links. My questions to you guys are: Is this practice penalize? And will display ads pass link juice also? Thanks for the help...
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dhidalgo10 -
Should I change site link structure? Will that make things worse?
I've got an Exact Match Domain that has just started to do well in Google for say the past year. I've always received good rankings from Bing and Yahoo but I love the traffic levels that Google sends. Long story short on the 25th according to webmaster tools, my impressions on their search engine have been destroyed. No problems, not de-indexed, just not showing my site anymore. I like this site and have been careful, built some links and the anchor text is suspect but also not suspect because its the same as the domain. What I feel the problem may be is the site structure. I set it up a long time ago like this: Exact-Match-keyword. com/ Exact-match-keyword.php/state I thought it looked kinda spammy at the time but also thought it may help. Now I'm wondering if I shorten all the page titles to the state name and 301 the old links if I will regain rankings, or if I may lose some from other search engines. I used to think Penguins were cute......
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TEGS1