What can you do about negative SEO?
-
We have a list of 240 domains (look exactly the same) linking to our site for a certain keyword. over 3000 links in total. It means that 50% of our keywords are this keyword and it's not a branded keyword which can affect us in the long term.
I have done a WHOIS search and found a name, email and number. Vikas Kumar. I linkedin searched him and found his "legit" SEO site which has EXACTLY the same registration details as the spam sites.
I emailed him and he said it would cost 5$ a link removal. I phoned him and he DENIED these emails. He then denied owning these sites etc.
We have disavowed them but the anchor text % is still affecting us. Is there anything we can do? I know negative SEO isn't illegal but it's really frustrating.
Anyone else had any problems with this type of thing?
-
If you pay them, then they put you on their second network of sites.
-
Ah, I understand. Unfortunately there's really nothing you can do to fix that problem other than paying for link removal...which I really would not recommend.
-
Hi Marie,
Thanks for the reply. Sorry, let me re-phrase. Its affecting our reports in terms of anchor text %.
At the moment we have not been hit due to it but it would be far easier for us to have accurate reports on our anchor text %. These spammy links have distorted the analytics a lot if that makes sense.
We have disavowed them and hoping we can carry on as if they are not there.
-
Personally I wouldn't waste your time. Disavow and move on. I have had no issues with this approach.
-
I see these directory links all the time when doing link audits. While I always disavow them, my gut instinct is that Google is able to recognize that these are not self made links and as such, ignore them.
I would never recommend paying the money to remove them but I know several people who have.
**We have disavowed them but the anchor text % is still affecting us. **
How do you know that these links are affecting you? If you're seeing a drop in rankings I'd be looking for other possible reasons for the drop.
-
I obviously can't say for sure regarding the anchor text - however:
My understanding is that the anchor text ratio is more a signal rather than a trigger - as in it must be one of (X) amount of signals to then fire a penalty trigger (algorithmic/manual review).
So even if it was still sending a bad 'signal' as it were, it wouldn't be the final nail in the coffin.
Of course, this is my opinion, but it's based on my experience and a bit of testing with some spam sites.
-
Thanks for the detailed response, appreciate it!
We have disavowed them so hoping they won't do us any harm in the future. It's reassuring to know you've done a study like that. Very interesting.
I will still proceed to send him a legal document out of principle, he needs to be shaken up a bit.
thanks again
-
If your site has enough authority and trust (site age is also a factor here), those 3k links won't hurt a bit, no matter how many links you have. I have done experiments and a domain with 50DA/50PA and less than 100 links did not move at all after getting hit with 250k spammy links (from spammy websites - using a spammy link profile). In fact the site increased in the serps for a few keywords after about 1 month and stayed there (currently in the top 3). We did the same experiment on a high DA domain with only 8 links - nothing bad happened, rankings increased in 2-3 months.
Just think about it this way, if negative seo would be that easy to pull off, all the shady Kumars out there would start doing this. Fortunately, it's not about the links, their number or quality. Unfortunately, neg seo exists and google can't do much about it (but average Kumars don't have access to neg seo that truly works).
So if you didn't see any drop in rankings, or message in GWT saying that you have a partial penalty, there's nothing to worry about.
-
It was the same in our case. Could do nothing more, then just disavow him.
Unfortunately there are people who fall in his trap, and pay for the removal.
His websites are not indexed in Google. Therefore I hope Google doesn't count any links/anchor from his sites.
-
He's an absolute idiot.
Demanded 5$ a link removal, I phoned him then he said he never sent such an email. I sent him a screenshot of the email then he starts denying the links are his etc.
I hate people who build a business on such negativity. He claims it's not him after I make it clear I won't be spending a penny on link removals from him.
-
It totally depends on how many links you have to start with though? His 3000 links is treble what our official links are. Makes our anchor text 50% of the keyword he has targeted and just messes up our reports.
-
Ye I think I will draft up a legal document to send to him. He has really rattled my cage with his responses.
The issue I have isn't so much the links because I know Google (should) will know it's negative SEO. It's just that our anchor text is now 50% "table tennis tables" which comes from all his sites. Correct me if I'm wrong but disavowing will simply tell Google not to count those links but will my anchor text still be negative in Googles eyes because technically the links are still there?
I will be drafting a legal letter today and sending it to him. He is an absolute joke, people like him really annoy me.
His "official" site and all the spammy ones have the same IP, email, number, location how can he possibly deny it... rant over. Thanks for the reply!
-
Yes, at the top of my disavow file, I also mentioned about the negative SEO attack. In my case it was obvious from the anchor text used on all the backlinks. I don't think they even look at the disavow file unless it is with a manual penalty, but I did add the comments anyway.
-
Did your rankings drop? How old is your domain and what DA/PA do you have? How many links do you have (checked with all available tools)?
3000 links won't do much, that's not really negative seo, 300k links would be something to worry about. So unless your rankings dropped or your site is brand new, all should be ok.
Also, disavowing is not instant, not even fast, might take up to 2 (or more) months to see some effect.
-
Negative SEO may not be technically illegal - but extortion is.
What you have described there looks like extortion to me. 240 sites built to link to you, verifiable whois information, contacted the culprit, he has requested money from you to remove the links he built. That's extortion - and you have it in writing.
It might not be the most solid legal case, but it can be enough to scare off any disgruntled webmaster who is doing this. If you have anyone who can draft a legal letter to serve, I'd get on this. It should put a stop to it.
However, as Jonathan says, it is unlikely that this kind of negative SEO will have any sort of impact, particularly if you have disavowed the links. When uploading a disavow file, I'd also put a "# comment" in there saying that this is because of a negative SEO attack. 240 identical sites and links from the same whois (and probably IP) - Google is going to know this is a negative SEO attack on you and will discount those links.
But I'd scare that bastard into submission if I were you.
-
That Kumar guy is funny. We also had to deal with him in the past. He asks for a certain amount of money /links removed.
We have tried talking to him first, in order to remove the urls. But in the end his websites ended up in our disavow file. (and his response was: I do not care)
Keszi
-
I wouldn't worry. I got hit by negative seo. It had no effect on my rankings, and I just disavowed all the links anyway to avoid it hurting during a penguin refresh. That has since come and gone, and again no problems.
Those spammy links may just dissappear over time, but not something I would worry about as long as they are disavowed.
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
-
Faceted Navigation & SEO
Hi Is my faceted navigation bad for SEO?! example: http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/metal-cabinets-cupboards Thanks 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Can cross domain canonicals help with international SEO when using ccTLDs?
Hello. My question is:** Can cross domain canonicals help with international SEO when using ccTLDs and a gTLD - and the gTLD is much more authoritative to begin with? ** I appreciate this is a very nuanced subject so below is a detailed explanation of my current approach, problem, and proposed solutions I am considering testing. Thanks for the taking the time to read this far! The Current setup Multiple ccTLD such as mysite.com (US), mysite.fr (FR), mysite.de (DE). Each TLD can have multiple languages - indeed each site has content in English as well as the native language. So mysite.fr (defaults to french) and mysite.fr/en-fr is the same page but in English. Mysite.com is an older and more established domain with existing organic traffic. Each language variant of each domain has a sitemap that is individually submitted to Google Search Console and is linked from the of each page. So: mysite.fr/a-propos (about us) links to mysite.com/sitemap.xml that contains URL blocks for every page of the ccTLD that exists in French. Each of these URL blocks contains hreflang info for that content on every ccTLD in every language (en-us, en-fr, de-de, en-de etc) mysite.fr/en-fr/about-us links to mysite.com/en-fr/sitemap.xml that contains URL blocks for every page of the ccTLD that exists in English. Each of these URL blocks contains hreflang info for that content on every ccTLD in every language (en-us, en-fr, de-de, en-de etc). There is more English content on the site as a whole so the English version of the sitemap is always bigger at the moment. Every page on every site has two lists of links in the footer. The first list is of links to every other ccTLD available so a user can easily switch between the French site and the German site if they should want to. Where possible this links directly to the corresponding piece of content on the alternative ccTLD, where it isn’t possible it just links to the homepage. The second list of links is essentially just links to the same piece of content in the other languages available on that domain. Mysite.com has its international targeting in Google Search console set to the US. The problems The biggest problem is that we didn’t consider properly how we would need to start from scratch with each new ccTLD so although each domain has a reasonable amount of content they only receive a tiny proportion of the traffic that mysite.com achieves. Presumably this is because of a standing start with regards to domain authority. The second problem is that, despite hreflang, mysite.com still outranks the other ccTLDs for brand name keywords. I guess this is understandable given the mismatch of DA. This is based on looking at search results via the Google AdWords Ad Preview tool and changing language, location, and domain. Solutions So the first solution is probably the most obvious and that is to move all the ccTLDs into a subfolder structure on the mysite.com site structure and 301 all the old ccTLD links. This isn’t really an ideal solution for a number of reasons, so I’m trying to explore some alternative possible routes to explore that might help the situation. The first thing that came to mind was to use cross-domain canonicals: Essentially this would be creating locale specific subfolders on mysite.com and duplicating the ccTLD sites in there, but using a cross-domain canonical to tell Google to index the ccTLD url instead of the locale-subfolder url. For example: mysite.com/fr-fr has a canonical of mysite.fr
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | danatello
mysite.com/fr-fr/a-propos has a canonical of mysite.fr/a-propos Then I would change the links in the mysite.com footer so that they wouldn’t point at the ccTLD URL but at the sub-folder URL so that Google would crawl the content on the stronger domain before indexing the ccTLD domain version of the URL. Is this worth exploring with a test, or am I mad for even considering it? The alternative that came to my mind was to do essentially the same thing but use a 301 to redirect from mysite.com/fr-fr to mysite.fr. My question is around whether either of these suggestions might be worth testing, or am I completely barking up the wrong tree and liable to do more harm than good?0 -
SEO Site Analysis
I am looking for a company doing a SEO analysis on our website www.interelectronix.com and write a optimization proposal incl. a budgetary quote for performing those optimizations.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | interelectronix0 -
Are backlinks the most important factor in SEO?
I have had an agency state that "Backlinks are the most important factor in SEO". That is how they are justifying their strategy of approaching bloggers. I believe there are a lot more factors than that including Target Market definition, Keyword identification an build content based on these factors. What's everyone's thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndySalmons0 -
Yoast Seo + Home Page
Hi All, I'm using Studiopress Genesis Enterprise child theme in Wordpress + InstantWP + Yoast SEO. I have created a standard home page (see image) along with bespoke pages My question is this: When I select Pages | All Pages ... I cannot see the home page and therefore cannot optimise the home page with Yoast SEO. What am I doing wrong? Thanks Mark XQvbFl2taJEgFXJ
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mark_Ch0 -
Am I Doing This Wrong? Ecommerce SEO
I ran my site through the SEOMoz On-Page Optimization tool and one of the problems noted was "Keyword Self-Cannibalization" in this case, it was stating I was using the keyword "Board Games" too much. Site in question: http://theboardgamers.co.uk/ The problem being is that every product link contains the word "Board Game" - Which makes sense, but I guess it may look spammy to the SEO world. Would it be best to remove the "board game" part from each internal link and only leave it in the URL structure?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | REMOVE560 -
Could Sub domains damage our SEO?
Hi there, We're currently looking into integrating a new internal search function to our site which will involve housing the search results on a sub domain of our site. We have no intention of these search result pages becoming landing pages for organic traffic but would the inclusion of a sub domain affect the optimization of the main domain? i.e. could it effect our authority? Nige
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NigelJ0 -
Can backlinks negatively influence your ranking, or worse, cause a penalty?
Hello everbody! I am the owner of a price compare website and have been running it succesfully for over two years now. However, since february the news and articles section of our website lost a great deal of it's traffic. We did not completely lose traffic but only for items that were posted after february 2011. We have skilled content writers who do good research on the topics covered in our news section, i can honestly say we write our content for our visitors and not just for the search engines. We have investigated every part of our source code but we did not find anything there that was violating any guidelines. So my next guess was that maybe some incoming links could harm our news section. The most backlinks we receive are directed to our news and article section. These links are generally put on sites which use our RSS feed. There is just one website that we think could be the reason. It had included our RSS feed on each page which resulted in over 2,500,000 backlinks from a single domain which hosts a very poor quality website. We never considered it to be harmfull so we never did anything about it. My question is if this case could be the reason for the drop in traffic? kind regards, Jeroen from the Netherlands
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jeroenpf0