27 of 127 Domains Agreed to Remove Bad Links, Is this an Unusually Low Ratio?
-
Hi MOZ Community:
I hired an SEO firm to run a link audit, identify bad links, request that those links be removed and upload a disavow file to Google Webmaster tools for the domains that would not agree to remove their links.
My SEO company after emailing the owners of the bad domains linking to us obtained the following results:
NYCOfficeSpaceLeader
- Total for Removal: 125 (118)
- Found: 87 (84)
- Removed: 27 (27)
Only a total of 27 domains out of 87 found domains have been removed so far. Seven additional domains have asked for a link removal ransom which we are refusing.
Only getting 27 removed seems really low. Is this normal? Is there any way to increase this number?
Will the disavow file have any effect and if so when? If Google does not actually remove the links, how can I determine when the disavow file has been processed.
I feel a little silly having paid a lot of money and the only tangible effect to date is that links from 27 domains have been removed. Has it been a worthwhile investment for only having links from 27 domains removed? My company does not have an unlimited marketing budget so obviously there is some concern. At the same time the SEO firm seems professional.
Thanks,
Alan -
Hi Alan,
It was the Panda algorithm that updated this week, not Penguin. Panda is about on page quality and not about links. (We don't know for sure if links play any part in Panda, but my guess is that they don't.)
"So are you saying that despite the new Penguin update, Google will not review our disavow file and that the only action to take is to ping the links from the low quality domains in order to expedite Google's review of our site?"
The disavow file starts working as soon as you file it. It's complicated though. If the Penguin algorithm has decided that your site is untrustworthy in regards to links, then Google will still continue to suppress your rankings until Penguin refreshes again.
Regarding pinging links to make them get disavowed, that's still up for debate. The idea is that you get Google to visit the link so that it can recrawl it and apply your disavow. Jim Boykin of Internet Marketing Ninjas asked John Mueller about whether it was possible to use the Google submit url to ping urls to get them recrawled (see video here at about 1hr 4min: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0FC1K25Z3w&feature=c4-overview&list=UUthrUiuJUtFSXBUp48D8bAA). John said it wouldn't work. But who knows, perhaps building links to those pages might work.
EDIT: That type of thing - building links to bad urls to get them to be recrawled is not something I would recommend that you do. It's something I might experiment with myself at some point but it's not something I'd recommend the average Penguin hit site does.
-
Thanks for the recommendation Gary. I really appreciate it.
I was confused by this:
"If you have a manual penalty then you will have to wait for a refresh of penguin. HOWEVER, if you are affected simply by the algorithm then it will simple be a case of Google looking at your disavow file max 48hrs, then visiting each and every link one by one and applying the nofollow to it, when the hourly/daily/weekly algorithms update you will see changes happen, not have to wait for 6 months etc.."
Did you mean to say, "If you have Penguin?" as opposed to a manual penalty? In some cases, sites with manual penalties ALSO have Penguin issues and even if their penalty is lifted they won't see ranking improvements until Penguin refreshes. But, sometimes the links that are marked as unnatural on a manual review are actually different than the ones that Penguin can get. An example, I think, would be a site that has done extensive trading of free product in exchange for a review with a link. Penguin may not hit that site, but a manual review would. In that case, if you cleaned up those issues and got your manual penalty lifted you might see an improvement right away. But, it depends of course on the strength of the rest of your link profile and on what type of penalty you had.
-
Hi there,
Just adding to what has already been said here: for the longterm health of the website, I'm in favour of removing all bad links where possible rather than relying solely on disavowal, even though disavowal can and does work in the short term. My reason for this is that relying on disavowal puts the power in Google's hands to at some point say: "Well we don't really care about the content of your disavow file anymore; those links still exist so here's your penalty back again."
Likely, no. But if the links are completely gone, they can never hurt the site again.
Regarding losing the links worsening your rankings, it's possible if those links (as bad as they may have been) were not actually contributing to your penalty (yet) and were passing PageRank / helping you rank. Hopefully the SEO company were correct in marking them as bad... and even if they weren't hurting yet but were otherwise spammy, you're best rid of them in the long term.
The success rate of link removal can vary a lot. At my old agency, we had a set process of "outreach" for link removal that carefully left a certain number of days between emails to webmasters if we received no response from out initial email. We also used carefully-worded templates that we had tested enough to be confident that they worked well. We made at least three attempts to contact a webmaster for link removal.
Not much anyone - you or the SEO company - can do about being held to random for link removal. Sadly that's a popular part of the link take-down process now, as people are aware they prey on site owners' desperation to clean up their profiles.
If there are good reasons why the rest of the 100 of the domains can't be reached, this is certainly where we're lucky disavowal now exists. You are not under a manual penalty so won't be submitted reconsideration requests, but if you ever do, it's there that you'd cite your attempts to contact the X sites you've not managed to remove links from.
-
My site was only effected by Google's algorithm (Penguin),there is no manual penalty.
Well I though I was in luck as I understand Penguin 2.0 was rolled out today!
So are you saying that despite the new Penguin update, Google will not review our disavow file and that the only action to take is to ping the links from the low quality domains in order to expedite Google's review of our site?
Thanks,
Alan -
My site does not have a manual penalty. The penalty is the Penguin. We were first hit in April 2012, with a drop in traffic from 6700/month to as low as 3,000 about a year ago. Since then after a site relaunch, some new content, social media traffic has climbed back up to about 4,500/month. Since November I am working with a MOZ recommended SEO firm. Link audit and disavow remove has been done and now content marketing is commencing.
Do you think my domain should be changed? Being that there has been an improvement I would think not, but am not sure.
Also, while my domain www.nyc-officespace-leader.com my brand is Metro Manhattan. I have owned the domain www.metro-manhattan.com since 2010. In fact that domain has redirected back to ww.nyc-officespace-leader.com for 4 years.
Would it make sense make www.metro-manhattan.com the primary domain? Would it help get around any penalties? From a branding point of view it would might be beneficial. But then I would lose all the links.
-
Marie is bang on here.
The only thing discussed earlier that was not addressed by Marie and answer incorrectly by a few people in my view and various discussions with John Mueller is:
"Regarding the disavow, are you saying that if Google does not refresh Penguin for another 6 months I will not receive the benefit of the disavow until then?"
If you have a manual penalty then you will have to wait for a refresh of penguin. HOWEVER, if you are affected simply by the algorithm then it will simple be a case of Google looking at your disavow file max 48hrs, then visiting each and every link one by one and applying the nofollow to it, when the hourly/daily/weekly algorithms update you will see changes happen, not have to wait for 6 months etc..
Many people are pinging those old links to get googlbot to visit the pages quicker as it can take a long time. Also you do not need to wait for those pages to be cached just crawled, sometimes google may never update the cache on old crappy pages.
If you need help then you need someone with experience and contact with people that have most of the answers. Marie Haynes above is probably the best you will find with a proven track record. Dont waste your money on SEO companies that have only gone through this a few times and charge through the nose for it, every day wasted is a day of revenue lost. Think of that lost revenue as an addion to what you are paying the SEO
-
Do you have a manual penalty or is it Penguin that you are trying to escape?
If it's Penguin it's debatable whether you even need to remove links or whether disavowing is just as good. My current advice is to remove what you can easily remove and then disavow the rest. Of course, if you have a manual penalty then you've got to make efforts to remove every bad link.
Regarding the percentage of links that got removed that really varies depending on the type of links you have. For the link removals that I have done for manual penalties, I rarely succeed in getting more than 30% of the bad links removed. I'd say we're usually in the 10-15% range and we've even had penalties revoked after only removing 5% of the bad links. For manual penalties what Google wants to see is that you've put good effort into trying.
In this webmaster central hangout at 41:20 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWYooFjmx5c&list=UUthrUiuJUtFSXBUp48D8bAA&index=2) John Mueller was asked if disavowing was just as good as removing in regards to Penguin. He said, "From a theoretical point of view, using the disavow tool is enough...from a practical point of view it almost always makes sense to still delete those links as much as possible."
And in this hangout at 13:48 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaT0aie9Wqk when asked about disavowing vs removing, John says, "That's pretty much the same with regards to an algorithm...Essentially if you can't have a link removed then putting it in a disavow file is pretty much equivalent."
-
_Are you saying that removing a lot of these bad links will actually result in poorer ranking? _
Potentially. However, it is necessary in order to get unflagged by penguin. I'm thinking that you have a lot of links with highly keyword targeted anchor text. In order to get out of penguin, you need to 1) remove bad keyword anchor links and 2) create new good brand anchor links. Once your ratio of brand:keyword anchor text falls below a certain threshold, you should start to rank much better (at least based on my experience with cleaning up backlinks).
Regarding the disavow, are you saying that if Google does not refresh Penguin for another 6 months I will not receive the benefit of the disavow until then?
Unfortunately that is most likely the case. I have experienced it happening faster but there is still a lot of mystery about the disavow tool and penguin. The most drastic changes in SERPs occurs during a refresh.
EDIT: Sean makes some great points and a new domain could be a potential solution.
-
Hi Alan,
All of your inferences from Oleg are correct. They are also especially hard to hear. We do not know when the next Penguin refresh will take place and that means you will not receive the benefits of this work till then.
This can be difficult to hear but unless it is a vanity domain I would suggest getting a new domain and just focusing a new marketing effort there. I have worked with clients that were affected by Penguin 1 and they have not recovered to this day. It is a long process of recovery and in many cases starting new with an untainted domain is the best possible answer.
The rankings you had previously were due to the links. Once they are removed you will need to get fresh links to replace them to get rankings back.
I apologise for having to say this but a new domain if it is penguin is your best option at this time.
Sean
-
Hi Oleg:
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
The 87 links looked very spammy to me, consisting of low quality directories for the most part. So your response regarding the 31% removal is very encouraging.
My SEO is convinced my site was hit with a Penguin penalty in April of 2012. There has been a partial but incomplete recovery in search traffic. There never was a manual penalty.
Are you saying that removing a lot of these bad links will actually result in poorer ranking? My SEO firm has told me to get a significant recovery I need to start a program of content marketing to have new high quality links created.
Regarding the disavow, are you saying that if Google does not refresh Penguin for another 6 months I will not receive the benefit of the disavow until then?
Thanks,
Alan -
There is a lot to consider here. For some websites that I've cleaned up, 27 of 87 (31%) links removed by webmasters is fantastic. Most of the time, a link from a bad site is just ignored since the webmaster just doesn't care about the website. In your case, it seems like a lot of the links that were removed came from engaged website owners which makes me question whether the link was bad in the first place.
RE effect of disavow... did your website receive a manual penalty? Or did your SEO determine that you were hit by Penguin? Those are the only two scenarios where you should be removing/disavowing links.
If manual penalty, then you will see results after you submit a reconsideration request and have the penalty revoked
If penguin, you may see results after the next penguin refresh.
Keep in mind that if the majority of your links are bad and are removed, you will probably not rank as well as you used to prior to the removal process.
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
-
Does redirecting from a "bad" domain "infect" the new domain?
Hi all, So a complicated question that requires a little background. I bought unseenjapan.com to serve as a legitimate news site about a year ago. Social media and content growth has been good. Unfortunately, one thing I didn't realize when I bought this domain was that it used to be a porn site. I've managed to muck out some of the damage already - primarily, I got major vendors like Macafee and OpenDNS to remove the "porn" categorization, which has unblocked the site at most schools & locations w/ public wifi. The sticky bit, however, is Google. Google has the domain filtered under SafeSearch, which means we're losing - and will continue to lose - a ton of organic traffic. I'm trying to figure out how to deal with this, and appeal the decision. Unfortunately, Google's Reconsideration Request form currently doesn't work unless your site has an existing manual action against it (mine does not). I've also heard such requests, even if I did figure out how to make them, often just get ignored for months on end. Now, I have a back up plan. I've registered unseen-japan.com, and I could just move my domain over to the new domain if I can't get this issue resolved. It would allow me to be on a domain with a clean history while not having to change my brand. But if I do that, and I set up 301 redirects from the former domain, will it simply cause the new domain to be perceived as an "adult" domain by Google? I.e., will the former URL's bad reputation carry over to the new one? I haven't made a decision one way or the other yet, so any insights are appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gaiaslastlaugh0 -
I'm a newb, built a website with Wix want to redirect it to a domain I own, but am reading that Wix is bad for this
Hi, I am building this site for my boss http://charlesfridmanpr.wix.com/real-estate and am still working on it. I'm getting close to the stage where I want to redirect it to the URL we want to use, but in reading these forums, it says that because all of subpages (?) have a # in them, they will not be read or indexed by google. I am very new to this, and while it may not look like it, the website has taken me quite a while to design. Is there a way to fix this? We want to appear high up for a non competitive keyword. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Charlesfridmanpr0 -
OSE link report showing links to 404 pages on my site
I did a link analysis on this site mormonwiki.com. And many of the pages shown to be linked to were pages like these http://www.mormonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Planning_a_trip_to_Rome_By_using_Movie_theatre_-_Your_five_Fun_Shows2052752 There happens to be thousands of them and these pages actually no longer exist but the links to them obviously still do. I am planning to proceed by disavowing these links to the pages that don't exist. Does anyone see any reason to not do this, or that doing this would be unnecessary? Another issue is that Google is not really crawling this site, in WMT they are reporting to have not crawled a single URL on the site. Does anyone think the above issue would have something to do with this? And/or would you have any insight on how to remedy it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThridHour0 -
Is having all your media hosted on a sub-domain bad?
I just realized yesterday while doing some audit work on our site (which is still relatively new) that all of our audio assets are stored on a separate sub-domain. We are an eCommerce site that sells audio books, and every product page has a sample audio file to listen to. But all those files are stored on a sub-domain of the main site. "cdn-media.oursite.com". First, I understand that media(our audio files) has some inherent SEO value if hosted correctly. Is that true? And if so, how important would you think it is? Secondly, assuming that it does have value, are we losing that value by having them hosted on a sub-domain? I have read things that say sub-domains are bad, and I have read things that say that Google at least has been treating sub-domains as sub-folders, but I can't find anything definitive one way or the other. On another note, another thing I saw is that people are linking to the sound files directly in various places, and those links are going to the sub-domain, not the main domain. There aren't even pages on the sub-domain, just the files, so those links deliver a "visitor" to a page that is completely blank except for a tiny little audio player. Not sure what to do about that, but that can't be good one way or the other right? How big of a problem is this really? Is it worth me going to our IT dept. and trying to change it? It sounds like it would be a pretty big deal to change, so I'll need a few voices to back me up if that's the case.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DownPour0 -
Links with Parameters
The links from the home page to some internal pages on my site have been coded in the following format by my tech guys: www.abc.com/tools/page.html?hpint_id=xyz If I specify within my Google Webmaster tools that the parameter ?hpint_id should be ignored and content for the user does not change, Will Google credit me for a link from the home page or am I losing something here. Many thanks in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | harmit360 -
How to get around Google Removal tool not removing redirected and 404 pages? Or if you don't know the anchor text?
Hello! I can’t get squat for an answer in GWT forums. Should have brought this problem here first… The Google Removal Tool doesn't work when the original page you're trying to get recached redirects to another site. Google still reads the site as being okay, so there is no way for me to get the cache reset since I don't what text was previously on the page. For example: This: | http://0creditbalancetransfer.com/article375451_influencial_search_results_for_.htm | Redirects to this: http://abacusmortgageloans.com/GuaranteedPersonaLoanCKBK.htm?hop=duc01996 I don't even know what was on the first page. And when it redirects, I have no way of telling Google to recache the page. It's almost as if the site got deindexed, and they put in a redirect. Then there is crap like this: http://aniga.x90x.net/index.php?q=Recuperacion+Discos+Fujitsu+www.articulo.org/articulo/182/recuperacion_de_disco_duro_recuperar_datos_discos_duros_ii.html No links to my site are on there, yet Google's indexed links say that the page is linking to me. It isn't, but because I don't know HOW the page changed text-wise, I can't get the page recached. The tool also doesn't work when a page 404s. Google still reads the page as being active, but it isn't. What are my options? I literally have hundreds of such URLs. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SeanGodier0 -
Too many links!
Hi, I'm running a wordpress blog (modhop.com) and am getting the "too many links" on almost all of my pages. It appears that in addition to basic site navigation I have plug-ins that create invisible links that are counted in the crawl...at least that's my guess. Is there a good way to control this in wordpress? A nofollow in the .htaccess? A plug-in that does this? (I'm sort of at novice-plus level here so the simplest solution is ideal.) Thanks! Jake modhop.com
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | modhop0 -
Aside from creative link bait, what's a solid link building strategy involve?
All things considered, directories, blogs, articles, press releases, forums, social profiles, student discount pages, etc, what do you consider to be a strong, phased, link building strategy? I'm talking beyond natural/organic link bait, since many larger accounts will not allow you to add content to their website or take 6 months to approve a content strategy. I've got my own list, but would love to hear what the community considers to be a strong, structured, timeline-based strategy for link building.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stevewiideman1