Un Natural Links Removal Strategy
-
Hi All,
I want to discuss one of my strategy that i applied on my website to dilute the value of TOXIC links those are coming on my website.
Issue:
- Poor, Spam quality links were created for the home page and some inner pages.
- Google considered those links Unnatural and took manual action
- All rankings were disappeared
Strategy
- Deleted all landing pages those are over linked from spam websites.
- Created new landing pages with some modifications and new content.
- Because home page(index.html) was also penalized by Google, i made the changes in index.html and put no follow no index tag so that bad links value couldn't pass from index.html to other inner pages (Newly created pages and pages those were not over optimized).
- Created new index.php page. Give option to the user to the Enter the Website from Index.html (Default Home Page) to index.php.
- Blocked all bad URLs (Un Natural Links) through .htaccess file. When user or Google bot will come through those blocked URLs (Un Natural Links), server responses 403 (Access Denied).
The domain for which i did above experiment is http://www.thebaildepot.com/index.php
Now, i have doubts on below points:
- Blocking unnatural links (403, access denied) from .htaccess file will really work?
- No follow no index to default page and than give option to the user to navigate to newly create index.php
I did this experiment around 10 days before still rankings are not coming in Google top 100.
-
It happens A lot of links are hard to remove. If you're sure you have a penalty from links, I'd build a list of those links you've tried to remove, submit a disavow file to Google, and explain what happened in a reconsideration request. In that request include where the links came from, what you've done, and how you'll continue to clean things up and play by the rules in the future.
-
Hi Carson,
Thanks for your reply. As i earlier mentioned that link removal process it not working. I tried many times but all the times Google rejected are reconsideration request. I don't know where i am lacking.
-
Hi Ruchi,
I think your approach to removing landing/sub pages is fine, but ultimately less effective than removing links. If the page has nothing but bad links pointing to it, I'd say kill it off (you can just give a 410 response) and refresh your content as best you can. Cut the landing pages, but also try to cut the links at their source.
The root, however, is going to be tricky. noindex/nofollowing your home page is not something I'd suggest. It might not work because Google will just assume index.html is the same page and count the links towards the index anyway. I won't worry about the theory on that, because it could be worse if it does work. You'd also be blocking any good links pointing to your root page. It's also a pretty terrible user experience if you direct users away.
Definitely do not try to block links in .htaccess. This doesn't work - at best it prevents Google from crawling your site on that occasion. At worst it sends Google the message that your site isn't reliably online.
Try to remove all of the links you've built, starting with the lowest-authority and anchor-text-heavy links. If your removal fails, consider using the disavow tool on spammy links. Hope this helps
-
Thanks Federico,
I agree with you but we have already tried to remove most of the unnatural links and filed reconsideration request with proper evidences. We find out unnatural links through different tools such as Google Webmaster tools, Cognitive SEOs etc. but all the times Google rejects our reconsideration request with the reason that our website is still receiving unnatural links.In the reconsideration request response Google also shares some sample of unnatural links.
The worst part is that after lots of deep analysis, we still not able to find out the list of whole unnatural links.
-
I don't think you are taking a good approach...
Instead of noindexing the pages, or blocking those that have bad backlinks, you should fix the backlinks.
Run a complete analysis on the entire backlink profile, go over each and every link trying to remove it by contacting the Webmaster, document everything you do on the process.
Once you are left with those link that you don't want and the webmaster didn't remove, create and upload a disavow file listing all those links.
Then you can proceed to send a reconsideration request, explaining Google what happened, what you did to fix it and send the proof of your work.
If you continue with your strategy, you basically need to create several new pages to block any bad link, and wait for the penalty to expire (nobody knows how long it takes). Then if and only if you removed all those pages that have bad backlinks you won't be penalized again, so this could take months, or even years... it isn't a good strategy at all...
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
-
Breadcrumbs and internal links
Hello, I use to move up my site structure with links in content. I have now installed breadcrumbs, is it is useful to still keep the links in content or isn't there a need to duplicate those links ? and are the breadcrumbs links enough. Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics1 -
Is it a good strategy to link older content that was timely at one point to newer content that we would prefer to guide traffic and value to
Hi All, I've been working for a website/publisher that produces good content and has been around for a long time but has recently been burdened by a high level of repetitious production, and a high volume in general with pages that don't gather as much traffic as desired. One such fear of mine is that every piece published doesn't have any links pointing to when it is published outside of the homepage or syndicated referrals. They do however have a lot (perhaps too many) outbound internal links away from it. Would it be a good practice, especially for new content that has a longer shelf life, to go back to older content and place links pointing to the new one? I would hope this would boost traffic via internal recircultion and Page Authority, with the added benefits of anchor text boosts.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ajranzato91 -
Using rel="nofollow" when link has an exact match anchor but the link does add value for the user
Hi all, I am wondering what peoples thoughts are on using rel="nofollow" for a link on a page like this http://askgramps.org/9203/a-bushel-of-wheat-great-value-than-bushel-of-goldThe anchor text is "Brigham Young" and the page it's pointing to's title is Brigham Young and it goes into more detail on who he is. So it is exact match. And as we know if this page has too much exact match anchor text it is likely to be considered "over-optimized". I guess one of my questions is how much is too much exact match or partial match anchor text? I have heard ratios tossed around like for every 10 links; 7 of them should not be targeted at all while 3 out of the 10 would be okay. I know it's all about being natural and creating value but using exact match or partial match anchors can definitely create value as they are almost always highly relevant. One reason that prompted my question is I have heard that this is something Penguin 3.0 is really going look at.On the example URL I gave I want to keep that particular link as is because I think it does add value to the user experience but then I used rel="nofollow" so it doesn't pass PageRank. Anyone see a problem with doing this and/or have a different idea? An important detail is that both sites are owned by the same organization. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThridHour0 -
Links from new sites with no link juice
Hi Guys, Do backlinks from a bunch of new sites pass any value to our site? I've heard a lot from some "SEO experts" say that it is an effective link building strategy to build a bunch of new sites and link them to our main site. I highly doubt that... To me, a new site is a new site, which means it won't have any backlinks in the beginning (most likely), so a backlink from this site won't pass too much link juice. Right? In my humble opinion this is not a good strategy any more...if you build new sites for the sake of getting links. This is just wrong. But, if you do have some unique content and you want to share with others on that particular topic, then you can definitely create a blog and write content and start getting links. And over time, the domain authority will increase, then a backlink from this site will become more valuable? I am not a SEO expert myself, so I am eager to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | witmartmarketing0 -
Do links from twitter count in SEOMoz's Toolbar link count?
I am using the Chrome extension and looking at a SERP, when a page is said to have 2000 incoming links, does that include tweets with a link back to this page? What about retweets. Are those counted separately or as one? And what about independent tweets that have exactly the same content (tweet text + link)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | davhad0 -
Best strategy for "product blocks" linking to sister site? Penguin Penalty?
Here is the scenario -- we own several different tennis based websites and want to be able to maximize traffic between them. Ideally we would have them ALL in 1 site/domain but 2 of the 3 are a partnership which we own 50% of and why are they are off as a separate domain. Big question is how do we link the "products" from the 2 different websites without looking spammy? Here is the breakdown of sites: Site1: Tennis Retail website --> about 1200 tennis products Site2: Tennis team and league management site --> about 60k unique visitors/month Site3: Tennis coaching tip website --> about 10k unique visitors/month The interesting thing was right after we launched the retail store website (site1), google was cranking up and sending upwards of 25k search impressions/day within the first 45 days. Orders kept trickling in and doing well overall for first launching. Interesting thing was Google "impressions" peaked at about 60 days post launch and then started trickling down farther and farther and now at about 3k-5k impressions/day. Many keywords phrases were originally on page 1 (position 6-10) and now on page 3-8 instead. Next step was to start putting "product links" (3 products per page) on site2 and site3 -- about 10k pages in total with about 6 links per page off to the product page (1 per product and 1 per category). We actually divided up about 100 different products to be displayed so this would mean about 2k links per product depending on the page. FYI, those original 10k pages from site2 and site3 already rank very well in Google and have been indexed for the past 2+ years in there. Most popular word on the sites is Tennis so very related. Our rationale was "all the websites are tennis related" and figured that the links on the latest and greatest products would be good for our audience. Pre-Penguin, we also figured this strategy would also help us rank for these products as well for when users are searching on them. We are thinking through since traffic and gone down and down and down from the peak of 45 days ago, that Penguin doesn't like all these links -- so what to do now? How to fix it and make the Penguin happy? Here are a couple of my thoughts on fixing it: 1. Remove the "category link" in our "product grouping" which would cut down the link by 1/3rd. 2. Place a "nofollow" on all the links for the other "product links". This would allow us to get the "user clicks" from these while the user is on that page. 3. On our homepage (site2 & site3), place 3 core products that change frequently (weekly) and showcase the latest and greatest products/deals. Thought is to NOT use the "nofollow" on these links since it is the homepage and only about 5 links overall. Heck part of me debated on taking our top 1000 pages (from the 10k page) and put the links ONLY on those and distribute about 500 products on them so this would mean only 2 links per product -- it would mean though about 4k links going there. Still thinking #2 above could be better? Any other thoughts would be great! Thanks, Jeremy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jab10000 -
What are your thoughts on using Dripable, VitaRank, or similar service to build URL links too dilute link profile???
One of my sites has a very spamy link profile, top 20 anchors are money keywords. What are your thoughts on using Dripable, VitaRank, or similar service to help dilute the link profile by building links with URLs, Click Here, more Info, etc. I have been building URL links already, but due to the site age(over 12 years) the amount of exact match anchor text links is just very large and would take forever to get diluted.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 858-SEO0 -
First link importance in the content
Hi, have you guys an opinion on this point, mentioned by Matt Cutts in 2010 : Matt made a point to mention that users are more likely to click on the first link in an article as opposed to a link at the bottom of the article. He said put your most important links at the top of the article. I believe it was Matt hinting to SEOs about this. http://searchengineland.com/key-takeaways-from-googles-matt-cutts-talk-at-pubcon-55457 I've asked this in private and Michael Cottam told me he read a study a year ago that indicated that the link juice passed to other pages diminished the further down the page you go. But he can't find it anymore ! Do you remember this study and have the link ? What is your opinion on Matt's point ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | baptisteplace0