Should I remove all vendor links (link farm concerns)?
-
I have a web site that has been around for a long time. The industry we serve includes many, many small vendors and - back in the day - we decided to allow those vendors to submit their details, including a link to their own web site, for inclusion on our pages. These vendor listings were presented in location (state) pages as well as more granular pages within our industry (we called them "topics). I don't think it's important any more but 100% of the vendors listed were submitted by the vendors themselves, rather than us "hunting down" links for inclusion or automating this in any way.
Some of the vendors (I'd guess maybe 10-15%) link back to us but many of these sites are mom-and-pop sites and would have extremely low authority.
Today the list of vendors is in the thousands (US only). But the database is old and not maintained in any meaningful way. We have many broken links and I believe, rightly or wrongly, we are considered a link farm by the search engines.
The pages on which these vendors are listed use dynamic URLs of the form: \vendors<state>-<topic>. The combination of states and topics means we have hundreds of these pages and they thus form a significant percentage of our pages. And they are garbage So, not good.</topic></state>
We understand that this model is broken. Our plan is to simply remove these pages (with the list of vendors) from our site. That's a simple fix but I want to be sure we're not doing anything wring here, from an SEO perspective.
- Is this as simple as that - just removing these page?
- How much effort should I put into redirecting (301) these removed URLs? For example, I could spend effort making sure that \vendors\California- <topic>(and for all states) goes to a general "topic" page (which still has relevance, but won't have any vendors listed)</topic>
- I know there is no distinct answer to this, but what expectation should I have about the impact of removing these pages? Would the removal of a large percentage of garbage pages (leaving much better content) be expected to be a major factor in SEO?
Anyway, before I go down this path I thought I'd check here in case I miss something.
Thoughts?
-
"a significant rankings boost"
Here is how I see it.....
If a page of mine moved from #5 to #4, I would call that a significant rankings boost. If it moved from #50 to #40, I would call that trivial. If I am on the first page and get any movement up I would call it awesome.
About domain authority... I almost never look at it and can't tell you the DA of my websites. It has just slightly more than "entertainment value" to me. But, plenty of people worship those numbers.
-
Thank you - this is very helpful. I did some basic investigation around this.
The number of these vendor pages that have had at least one hit in the last year is 590. Across these pages I have had a total of 2249 hits. One of the pages (for some reason) accounts for 410 hits, but the vast majority (> 570 of these pages) have less than 20 hits for the entire year. Collectively, these pages have resulted in < 0.5% of our total page hits for the year.
So, they are meaningless in terms of volume of traffic but form a large percentage of our page count.
I am not really sure about the impact of a panda hit (or how to verify) but it does seem that the data above just points to deleting them. Since I think I can 301 redirect with a regular expression to the appropriate "topic page" that seems like the most appropriate approach at this stage.
By the way, I not sure how easy this is to answer, but how would I best assess "a significant rankings boost". Would that manifest itself in remaining pages being ranked better or is this as simple as looking at the domain authority after these pages are removed?
Thanks again.
-
we have hundreds of these pages and they thus form a significant percentage of our pages. And they are garbage
First, I would look at analytics to see if these pages pull in any meaningful traffic. If they do then you have learned something -- that the keywords that these "types of pages" are optimized for might be valuable. If they are bringing in good traffic, I might make massive improvements to them. If you keep them or make new ones on the same URLs be sure that they are useful for the visitor. If no traffic is coming in through these pages I would redirect them to a relevant page or simply to a related category page or my homepage.
How much effort should I put into redirecting (301) these removed URLs?
This depends on how much traffic enters the site through these pages and also the overall value of this website. If no traffic enters you can simply delete them and allow them to 404. If there is a little traffic or if other sites link to them then I would redirect.
What expectation should I have about the impact of removing these pages? Would the removal of a large percentage of garbage pages (leaving much better content) be expected to be a major factor in SEO?
If your site has taken a panda hit then removing these pages could result in a significant rankings boost when (if) recovery occurs. If the site has not taken a panda hit then removing the pages should make your site "lighter" and any authority and power that it has will be increased in these pages.
I would be optimistic - especially if this site has a lot of value on the pages that will remain.
-
Thank you for the prompt response. These pages are there specifically to show lists of vendors (links to their web sites). We do identify the relevant topic from the URL and, from the vendor list page, link to relevant content elsewhere on our site, in a sidebar. A typical page like this would link to 5-10 articles elsewhere on our site.
But the primary content is the list of vendors.
Thanks again.
-
My gut reaction to your question of whether to get rid of links which google may see as a link farm - is "Delete, Delete, Delete...."
In terms of whether it's worth putting in the time to do anything with these pages such as to 301 - the question would be, what is on the pages other than links to low authority websites?
If they contain very little content other than the link, I can't see any potential negative coming from cleaning up your website like this.
In terms of potential benefits, if you're right in your belief that this is considered a link farm by Google, then yes I would expect good things to come from removing this. In reality though, you just never know, but if you have thousands of pages of garbage with links, then there surely can't be any harm done by removing these pages - in my humble opinion.
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
-
Removing Toxic Back Links Targeting Obscure URL or Image
There are 2 or 3 URLs and one image file that dozens of toxic domains are linking to on our website. Some of these pages have hundreds of links from 4-5 domains. Rather than disavowing these links, would it make sense to simply break these links, change the URL that the link to and not create a redirect? It seems like this would be a sure fire way to get rid of these links. Any downside to this approach? Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan1
Alan1 -
Internal nofollow links
Hello, We have a blog and at the end each blog post (and from the sidebar) we link to one main product page (tagged with a particular query string). Now Google will see from every blog post all of these internal links pointing back to this page. Do you think this would cause a problem and that these links should be nofollowed? I think Google will kind of detect that these is kind of a "navigation" as the code will be the same across all webpages. Most of all, doing them nofollow I think it is worse because it may trigger some sort of pagerank sculpting algo filter, if it still exists. Thanks, Conrad
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | conalt0 -
Lower quality new domain link vs higher quality repeat domain link
First time poster here with a dilemma that head scratching and spreadsheets can't solve! I'm trying to work out whether to focus on getting links from new domains or to nurture relationships with the bigger sites in our business and get more links. Of the two links below which does the community here think would be more valuable a signal to Google? Both would be links from within relevant text/post copy. Link 1. Site DA 30. No links currently from this domain. Link 2. Site DA 60. Many links over last 12 months already from this domain. I suspect link 1 but given the enormous disparity in ranking power am I correct?! Thanks for any considered opinions out there! Matthew
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mat20150 -
Problem with internal links
Hello! Our domain, http://www.unionroom.com/, is having a strange issue with OSE in that it is telling us our internal pages aren't linking to one another. An example of this is that it is showing our About page ( http://www.unionroom.com/about/ ) only having three links, but this link appears twice on every single page on the website (~200 pages) in the header and footer. We've hung around for a little while to see if OSE would correct itself, but it hasn't and this now suggests that it may be an issue with our in-linking structure. Can anyone spot any issues with our build? The rest of the websites that we produce, that are all built in the same way, all have healthy internal linking structures according to OSE. Very confusing! Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | unionroom0 -
Link Building with a Scholarship
One of my clients is using a scholarship to build links. We have a nofollow PR campaign getting ready to start and are doing some social marketing for the scholarship page on the site. We are also trying to get backlinks from highschools and colleges that link to scholarship opportunities. So far this has been a slow process. Does anybody have any advice for speeding any of this up? Has somebody ever done a campaign like this before? Is there some kind of database with financial aid contact info for a lot of schools? I contact a lot of schools and always tend to get put on the backburner.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Atomicx0 -
Technical Question on Image Links - Part of Addressing High Number of Outbound Links
Hi - I've read through the forum, and have been reading online for hours, and can't quite find an answer to what I'm searching for. Hopefully someone can chime in with some information. 🙂 For some background - I am looking closely at four websites, trying to bring them up to speed with current guidelines, and recoup some lost traffic and revenue. One of the things we are zeroing in on is the high amount of outbound links in general, as well as inter-site linking, and a nearly total lack of rel=nofollow on any links. Our current CMS doesn't allow an editor to add them, and it will require programming changes to modify any past links, which means I'm trying to ask for the right things, once, in order to streamline the process. One thing that is nagging at me is that the way we link to our images could be getting misconstrued by a more sensitive Penguin algorithm. Our article images are all hosted on one separate domain. This was done for website performance reasons. My concern is that we don't just embed the image via , which would make this concern moot. We also have an href tag on each to a 'larger view' of the image that precedes the img src in the code, for example - We are still running the numbers, but as some articles have several images, and we currently have about 85,000 articles on those four sites... well, that's a lot of href links to another domain. I'm suggesting that one of the steps we take is to rel=nofollow the image hrefs. Our image traffic from Google search, or any image search for that matter, is negligible. On one site it represented just .008% of our visits in July. I'm getting a little pushback on that idea as having a separate image server is standard for many websites, so I thought I'd seek additional information and opinions. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MediaCF0 -
Link Reclimation & Redirects
Hello, I'm in the middle of a link reclamation project wherein we're identifying broken links, links pointing to dupe content etc. I found a forgotten co-brand which is effectively dupe content across 8 sub-domains, some of which have a significant number of links (200+ linking domains | 2k+ in-bound links). Question for the group is what's the optimal redirect option? Option 1: set 301 and maintain 1:1 URL mapping will pass all equity to applicable PLPs and theoretically improve rank for related keyword(s). requires a bit more configuration time and will likely have small effect on rank given links are widely distributed across URLs. Option 2: set 301 to redirect all requests to the associated sub-domain e.g. foo.mybrand.cobrand.com/page1.html and foo.mybrand.cobrand.com/page2 both redirect to foo.mybrand.com/ will accumulate all equity at the sub-domain level which theoretically will be roughly distributed throughout underlying pages and will limit risk of penalty to that sub-domain. Option 3: set 301 to redirect all requests to our homepage. easiest to configure & maintain, will accumulate the maximum equity on a priority page which should positively affect domain authority. run risk of being penalized for accumulating links en mass, risk penalty for spammy links on our primary sub-domain www, won't pass keyword specific equity to applicable pages. To be clear, I've done an initial scrub of anchor text and there were no signs of spam. I'm leaning towards #3, but interested in others perspectives. Cheers,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PCampolo
Stefan0