Victim of negative SEO, but will this be believed if the client has not always been whiter than white?
-
A new client has come to me because they have found themselves in hot water with Google having received a manual spam action for unnatural inbound links.
The sad case in this story is that I completely believe that the client has been a victim of an attack by a competitor. They finally made it onto page 1 in their competitive niche, and within a few days random links started appearing on spammy sites (often foreign language sites.) By the time the message came from Google about 2 weeks later several thousand of these links had been built.
The first stage was to get the client to be very honest with me about anything he personally had done that might be considered manipulative. Unfortunately following some bad advice several months ago the client purchased one site-wide link (already in the process of removing it.) The same company that gave him this advice also built just under 100 links to his website (over the course of a couple of days) in early December.
So - we know the client hasn't been whiter than white, and we are going to undo anything that he had responsibility for asap. We are also working to ensure that he is earning really high quality links in the right way (already have some great press coverage in the pipeline and are working on unique content.)
My question is - given some past mistakes made by the client - is there any way that we credibly get across the fact that this recent huge volume of spam is absolutely nothing to do with him in a reconsideration request? Of course we can start work on removing these links and can disavow anything we can't remove - but my expectation is that should this be successful the same competitor is going to continue throwing spam links at my client.
I appreciate that previous actions by the client would in themselves have been worthy of a manual spam action - but it seems far too much of a coincidence given the timing if this penalty was unrelated to the recent attack.
I'd really appreciate any insights from the Moz community and will look forward to sharing our eventual success story as a YouMoz post!
Tom
-
In light of the fact that the client admitted that he recently paid for building spam links, it is more likely that the links being attributed to a negative SEO campaign were actually purchased by the client himself (knowingly or unknowingly) and that they are just recently taking effect.
Nonetheless, in your reconsideration request, be clear about differentiating what links the client attributes to that SEO firm's efforts and the links are attributed to the negative SEO effort, which are continuing to show up. Treat them as separate issues in the same reconsideration request. Start out with something like "We have two issues going on--the client hired an SEO firm that built links from these specific domains [domain 1, domain 2, domain 3,....] but we also have these other links that are accruing from what is believed to be negative SEO and which we are disavowing as they show up...." and then explain your outreach process for the links attributable to the client. If that doesn't work, there's always the option to drop another reconsideration request with a different tactic.
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
-
Unsolved Are links from staff profile pages no longer good for SEO?
Hey there, We run a small site that lists lawyers and we have an opportunity to ask the lawyers to display a 'badge' on their own website's staff page, linked back to the page on our site that they are listed on. Initially I thought this would be good link building (i.e. the lawyer's own staff/profile pages on their website linking to our site where they are listed = a highly relevant link). I was less concerned about the authority of the law firm's sites, though these will range from sometimes low-ish to medium. I just assumed that Google would see the value in the lawyer wanting to link to our site where they are listed. However, our SEO has said that these days Google doesn't give much/any value to these types of links from individual staff pages. His advice was to try and get the badge added to one of their service pages (or their About page) which will be unlikely as the badge is person-specific. I thought I'd ask if this was everyone else's experience regarding Google not valuing links from individual staff pages? Thanks for you help 🙂
Link Building | | Andy-H0 -
SEO question about lots of outbound links
I'm considering adding a directory page to one of my websites that lists local groups from all around the world. I haven't kept up with SEO in a long time, but I recall (many) years ago that having a lot of outgoing links and very few (if any) inbound connections was a terrible thing. Is this still the case, or have search engine algorithms figured out that this can be beneficial to site visitors? What effect will adding a page like this have on my SEO?
Link Building | | jordanchris0 -
Negative SEO & How long does it take for Google to disavow
Following on from a previous problem of this sweetandsavorymeals completely dropping from index, we have discovered that 150+ spam, porn domains have been directed at our pages (sometime in the last 3-4 months, don't have an exact date). Does anyone have exerpeince on how long it may take Google to take noticed of a new disavow list? Any estimates would be very helpful in determining our next course of action.
Link Building | | sathoiue80 -
How much it will take to get high Authority domain
Heya my domain Spothd Has DA 5 as per moz how much time it will take to get high athority so that my keywords get ranked in google 1st page
Link Building | | Spothd1 -
Paid Press Releases: Good for SEO or bad?
Press release services like prweb.com and emailwire.com seem to work, but are they a good idea?
Link Building | | aj6130 -
SEO Package: Good Value?
I'm having a real hard time trying to dig through all the BS and find a reputable SEO company that delivers quality and value. Anyway, here's a package that I'm considering from a company called eBrandz. It seems a bit overpriced to me, but I don't have a lot of experience with reputable SEO companies, so I'm hoping someone can weigh in - on both the package itself for the price, and the company (if you have any information about them). $1500/month 8 Guest Posts (With 80 Bookmarks) 8 Articles with Syndication (With 80 Bookmarks) 1 Press Release (With Bookmarking) 75 "Curated Business Directory Submissions" Social Bookmarking for 5 Urls (Each Url to 20 Sites) 1 (every other month) Video Creation (45 to 90 seconds) With Submission and Bookmarking.
Link Building | | JABacchetta0 -
Should I outsource any SEO work or can I do it all?
My website needs a lot of improvement and we are working on it but I also don't want to fall behind on the SEO work. I am guessing that I can do much of it myself through SEOmoz.org but is there a part that busy folks should get others to do? Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Utah Tiger
Link Building | | Boodreaux0 -
Parameter In URL passing SEO Value
Helllo I need help understanding the following scenario. We do campaign tracking for number of our sites using urt parameters. These are normally PR links with utm parameters. I am not sure if we should remove the utm parameter and forget about tracking the links completely if it offers an added SEO value with direct links OR we just keep using utm parameters for PR tracking and use canonical tag instead on respective pages. For me SEO value is most important. But i am trying to understand what i am losing or gaining. Kindly sugggest Thanks
Link Building | | CUnet0