Manual Removal Request Versus Automated Request to Remove Bad Links
-
Our site has several hundred toxic links. We would prefer that the webmaster remove them rather than submitting a disavow file to Google.
Are we better off writing web masters over and over again to get the links removed? If someone is monitoring the removal and keeps writing the web masters will this ultimately get better results than using some automated program like LinkDetox to process the requests? Or is this the type of request that will be ignored no matter what we do and how we ask?
I am willing to invest in the manual labor, but only if there is some chance of a favorable outcome.
Does anyone have experience with this? Basically how to get the highest compliance rate for link removal requests?
Thanks, Alan
-
I agree with Moosa here. When we went through this we used Link Detox to help identify the links we wanted to remove/disavow and RMOOV to send an automated email campaign. The response rate was less than 5%as I recall and usually took multiple emails if there was to be a response.
This is the nice thing about the tools as they track success for you. It's also a really good idea to use a "throw away"email address,as many of these may be reported by the recipients as spam and get your email account added to spam filters.I think the personal touch thing is more for outreach. Not worth the effort here.
Best!
-
Alan, if I would be at your place, I would have moved to a program like link detox instead of the manual labor and here are some reasons why!
- You are emailing to the real people so no matter what trick you use, there are chances that you may fail, especially if they have decided not to remove the links.
- The removal ratio can dramatically increase if you offer a small amount to remove a link but again disavow is a better and easy option that will help you save your time and money.
- Manual Labor to do a work that might or might not work is a bad investment in my opinion, on the other hand manual labor will be much more expensive as compare to a tool like Link Detox.
Link Detox will find bad links, email them and give you the list of bad links that contain your website link. You can get that data and create a disavow file and submit it to Google.
All in all, I understand your point but in my opinion it is not a very good investment.
Hope this helps!
-
Hi Alan
When I pull links, I do so from WMT, Majestic, OSE, and Ahrefs.
Reason being, you're going to see different links from different tools. No one source covers them all, so it's best to get as much data as you can from different places.
I will read into LinkDetox and tell you if anything is a red flag to me, but again, your statement from the other question thread seems like a lot money for automation and "too good to be true".
Please let me know if you have any more questions or comments - would love to help where I can and see you through! Best of luck!
-
Hi Patrick:
Thanks for your in depth response!! The expedite tools in Link Detox is described here: http://www.linkdetox.com/boost.
But if Google will now process disavow files in a few months as the MOZ blogpost your refer to states, I guess there is no point in using boast.
Our site never received a manual penalty from Googlebut did drop in ranking after the first Penguin in April 2012. Recover since then has been sporadic and uneven despite a major investment in SEO.
I have pretty much followed the procedure you describe. Only deviation is that I compiled the links from Google Webmaster Tools plus the Link Detox database. I wonder if we are missing a significant number of links by not sourcing AHREFs, MOZ. If I can identify 80-90% of the bad links I think it is sufficient. I don't expect 100% in removing them.
Thanks again for your assistance!!
Alan
-
Hi there
Based on some previous work I have done, webmasters are substantially more responsive to manual outreach and can definitely tell the difference.
Always include:
-
Their name
-
Both in the subject line and greeting
-
I like "Attn: (name) / Link Removal Request"
-
Their site domain name
-
Links to pages with examples of your link
-
Thank them for their time
-
Signature with proper contact information
Always respond to emails - good, bad, or indifferent - people respond to a real human being. Thank them for removal, kindly respond to apprehension or irritability, and answer (within reason) questions they may have. Do not be hostile back. I would usually send three emails:
1. Stating my reason for reaching out and where my link is located.
2. If I didn't hear back, about four days later, I would follow up. Again letting them know where my link is located.
3. If I didn't hear back, about 3-5 days later, I would let them know that this would be my last email before disavowing their link.Usually, I didn't make it to three. Remember to document and keep records of your outreach in case you somehow get a manual action - you'll need it.
Here is a great link removal resource:
Link Audit Guide for Effective Link Removals & Risk Mitigation (Moz)Always consider disavow files a tool and friend - they do work. If you can't get links removed and you fear a manual action, these will be your next line of defense - especially if you are dealing with hundreds of bad links.
Take the time to manually reach out to webmasters if you can - it will pay off. I also want to suggest LinkRisk as another tool to look into for your link audits and outreach. It has been a big help for me.
Hope this helps! Good luck!
-
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
-
Bad Domain Links - Penguin? - Moz vs. Search Console Stats?
I've been trying to figure out why my site www.stephita.com has lost it's google ranking the past few years. I had originally thought it was due to the Panda updates, but now I'm concerned it might be because of the Penguin update. Hard for me to pinpoint, as I haven't been actively looking at my traffic stats the past years. So here's what I just noticed. On my Google Search Console - Links to your Site, I discovered there are 301 domains, where over 75% seem to be spammy. I didn't actively create those links. I'm using the MOZ - Open site Explorer tool to audit my site, and I noticed there is a smaller set of LINKING DOMAINS, at about 70 right now. Is there a reason, why MOZ wouldn't necessarily find all 300 domains? What's the BEST way to clean this up??? I saw there's a DISAVOW option in the Google Search Console, but it states it's not the best way, as I should be contacting the webmasters of all the domains, which is I assume impossible to get a real person on the other end to REMOVE these link references. HELP! 🙂 What should I do?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TysonWong0 -
Manual Penalty Reconsideration Request Help
Hi All, I'm currently in the process of creating a reconsideration request for an 'Impact Links' manual penalty. So far I have downloaded all LIVE backlinks from multiple sources and audited them into groups; Domains that I'm keeping (good quality, natural links). Domains that I'm changing to No Follow (relevant good quality links that are good for the user but may be affiliated with my company, therefore changing the links to no follow rather than removing). Domains that I'm getting rid of. (poor quality sites with optimised anchor text, directories, articles sites etc.). One of my next steps is to review every historical back link to my website that is NO LONGER LIVE. To be thorough, I have planned to go through every domain (even if its no longer linking to my site) that has previously linked and straight up disavow the domain (if its poor quality).But I want to first check whether this is completely necessary for a successful reconsideration request? My concerns are that its extremely time consuming (as I'm going through the domains to avoid disavowing a good quality domain that might link back to me in future and also because the historical list is the largest list of them all!) and there is also some risk involved as some good domains might get caught in the disavowing crossfire, therefore I only really want to carry this out if its completely necessary for the success of the reconsideration request. Obviously I understand that reconsideration requests are meant to be time consuming as I'm repenting against previous SEO sin (and believe me I've already spent weeks getting to the stage I'm at right now)... But as an in house Digital Marketer with many other digital avenues to look after for my company too, I can't justify spending such a long time on something if its not 100% necessary. So overall - with a manual penalty request, would you bother sifting through domains that either don't exist anymore or no longer link to your site and disavow them for a thorough reconsideration request? Is this a necessary requirement to revoke the penalty or is Google only interested in links that are currently or recently live? All responses, thoughts and ideas are appreciated 🙂 Kind Regards Sam
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Sandicliffe0 -
Wikipedia links - any value?
Hello everyone. We recently posted some of our research to Wikipedia as references in the "External Links" section. Our research is rigorous and has been referenced by a number of universities and libraries (an example: https://www.harborcompliance.com/information/company-suffixes.php). Anyway, I'm wondering if these Wikipedia links have any value beyond of course adding to the Wiki page's information. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Harbor_Compliance0 -
What is value in a back-link from article with multiple links pointing to various other sites?
In a standard article with 400-500 words my site got a back-link. However, within the article there are 4 other links pointing to other external content as well (so total 5 links within articles all pointing to external sites, and 1 of the links is to my site). All links are to relevant external content that is. Question: wouldn't it be much more valuable for my site if only my site got a back-link from the article, as less link juice is now passed to my site, since there are 4 other links pointing to various sites from this same article? Or, is the case that given the other links are pointing to quality material it actually makes the link to my site look more credible and at the end of the day have more value. Conclusion: is it that on one hand less links in same article is better from a link juice perspective, however, from a credibility perspective it looks more convincing there are other links pointing to quality content?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | knielsen0 -
Link from archived article.
A strong news site has an "archived.domainname" folder, where they have older articles listed. I can get a link on a page where there is a 4 year old article, which will be in this archived sub-domain. My questions: Will Google view a link from a 4 year old article as less valuable. Will Google notice the article is 4 years old and find it odd why the page all of a sudden has a link to my site, and thus devalue such link the sub-domain "archived" does that tell Google it is old and a link will be less valuable thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | knielsen0 -
Internal linking using exact keywords Bad – Post Panda
Internal linking using exact keywords Bad – Post Panda Any tips for internal linking ,how can we target landing pages to rank well using internal linking. Use of Keywords in within site links, is it bad? Are footer links bad? Use of Siloing artichture bad or good? What a best linking model for Ecommerce Site.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | conversiontactics0 -
Suppliers linking to website - good or bad practice?
Hi, was just wondering about suppliers linking to website - copywriters, web developers, etc. - could these be seen as purchased links by Google. Is it best to specify that suppliers shouldn't link through?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Footer sitewide links
Here's a question - does having a "website designed by" reference in the footer of every page of one of your clients help or hurt? I have a major university .edu that I designed a site for one of their departments and it is just about to launch and they've allowed me to put a reference in the footer. I've had pretty good luck with this on my other clients' sites, but didn't know if this practice is seen as spammy. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Chas-2957210