What is really a bad link in 2017?
-
Hi,
Routine answer is: A link which doesn't provides any value. Tired of listening to this statement where we can see number of back-links been generated with different scenarios. There are still many low DA websites which speaks exactly about a brand and link a brand naturally. So, is this a bad link or good link? Let's be honest here. No one gonna visit such pages and browse through our website; it's all about what it's been doing in-terms of SEO.
Do these websites to be in disavow list?
Beside the context how a brand been mentioned, what are the other metrics to disavow a domain?
Expecting some real answers for this straight question.
If it's a low DA site and speaking about exactly our website- Good or bad? Vice-versa...high DA website mentioned website with less matching content. What is the proportion of website authority and content context?
Can we keep a medium DA backlinks with some Moz spam score?
-
All this ^ and that ^^
-
All of this ^^
-Andy
-
When sites get in trouble for having spammy links it's never because of one or two links. It's always because of a widespread pattern of self-made links that were made with intention to manipulate Google.
When I'm looking at link quality I really don't care what the DA is. I've seen good links from low DA sites and I've seen super spammy links from high DA sites.
I hear what you're saying though...We keep saying that a link is a good link if it's one that has a purpose outside of SEO. And sure, in many cases that is true. For example, when I did the Whiteboard Friday that Andy linked to above (thanks Andy!), that post linked back to my website. That link brings me traffic and has made me some money. It's a great link for reasons that go beyond SEO. But, there are also times where I get links that probably don't have a lot of value outside of SEO and still help me.
For example, for some of my clients we do a lot of HARO responses. If a dentist client of mine takes part in an interview about teeth whitening and he gets quoted along with a link, I suppose there is some value outside of SEO such as branding and good PR, but really...that interview wouldn't have happened if there was no link involved. I'm ok with that though.
So now that Penguin is simply devaluing spammy links rather than penalizing sites, when do I disavow?
-
If a site has a crazy pattern of ultra spammy links I'll disavow.
-
If there is negative SEO, I'm usually not worried but it doesn't hurt to disavow.
-
If a site has a manual penalty (as seen in Google Search Console --> Search Traffic -> Manual Actions) I'll try to remove unnatural links and then I'll disavow.
I'm not going to disavow the odd potentially unnatural link though.
-
-
I don't think there is as much of a need to worry about disavowing as there was before the update from Google, but it is still something that you need to look at on a case by case basis. I don't think you could classify a particular set of criteria to disavow against or ones to ignore.
-Andy
-
Hi Andy,
Thanks for the reply. So you meant you say that Google will take care of all spammy links and we really must not be using Disavow? Then what is the tool about? We can see many cases where SEO experts removing penalty of websites by using disavow tool by devaluing some bad links. (I am not speaking about paid links). How much Google can be accurate in devaluing all spammy links and not hurting any websites? Many SEO experts insists that Disavow must be used. I am really confused about newly generating backlinks and what to do with them?
-
How can you say if a link is a spammy? Any recent example? So as per your opinion we must use disavow.
So what happens when you keep on receiving backlinks from low DA websites? Does such activity improve ranking?
-
I would only disavow genuinely spammy links or links from spammy websites. If it's a genuine website and the link was placed natural and it is on topic to my product I would not disavow purely because it is a small website with a low DA.
-
HI,
First of all, have a watch / read of this Whiteboard Friday where Marie talks all about links and what can work for you.
https://moz.com/blog/what-links-comply-googles-guidelines-whiteboard-friday
In my view, if someone has linked to your site without you asking, then there is never usually a problem, but it depends on the the type of links / quantity of links.
There is too much at play to give a generic answer that will fit everything you ask here. You should look at each site on its own merits, but with the introduction of Penguin into the main algorithm and this now running in real time, there is less of a need to be worried about these kinds of things. There is less of a need to disavow links because Google has improved how it scores these and if it spots a spammy link, is more likely to just devalue it.
-Andy
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
-
Never ending new links and our rank continues to plumet
HI everyone, I've been having an issue with a severe drop in rankings (#2 to #36ish). All of my technicals seem to be ok, however I seem to be getting my images hotlinked (which I have killed in nginx) from these spam like pages that pull and link to an image on my site, then link again with a " . " for the anchor. Even more strange is that these pages are titled and marked up with the same titles and target key words as my site. For example, I just got a link yesterday from a site leadoptimiser - d o tt- me which is IMO a junk site. The title of the page is the same as one of my pages, the page is pulling in images relevant to my page, however the image sources are repos EXCEPT for 2 images from my site which are hotlinked to my pages image and then an additional <a>.</a> link is placed to my website. I have gotten over 1500 of these links in the past few months from all different domains but the website (layout etc) is always the same. I have been slowly disavowing some of them, but do not want to screw up anything in case these links are already being discounted by G as spam and not affecting my rank. The community seems to be really split on the necessity of disavowing links like these. Because of these links, according to Ahrefs, my backlink profile is 38% anchor text of "." . Everything else checks out in my own review as well as Moz tools and Ahrefs with very high quality scores etc. Webmasters is fine, indexing is fine, pagespeed insights is in the 90's, ssl is A+. I've never had to deal with what seems to be an attack of this size. Thanks.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | plahpoy1 -
Canonicalize vs Link Juice
I recently wrote (but have not published) a very comprehensive original article for my new website (which has pretty much no domain authority). I've been talking to the publisher of a very high Domain Authority site and they are interested in publishing it. The article will include 2-3 follow backlinks to my website. My question is should I: Repost the article in my own site and then request a "rel=canonical" from the high authority site Not re-post the article on my own site and just collect the link juice from the high authority site Which would be better for my overall SEO? Assume in case 1) that the high authority site would add a rel=canonical if I asked for it.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | wlingke20 -
Footer images links, good or bad?
Hi everybody! I have a very serius question because i have a problem with this. We run a website of voucher codes and we are looking that our rivals are putting their logos on footers of online stores with images, sometimes link to home, sometimes link to store within webpage. Should i ask for the same to online stores? I have scary to get a penalty by Google. Please help me with this and recommend me something because we are doing fair play but rivals are doing this and they get best results in SERPS. Thanks very much! Best regards!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | pompero990 -
Why should I reach out to webmasters before disavowing links?
Almost all the blogs, and Google themselves, tell us to reach out to webmasters and request the offending links be removed before using Google's Disavow tool. None of the blogs, nor Google, suggest why you "must" do this, it's time consuming and many webmasters don't care and don't act. Why is this a "required" thing to do?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RealSelf0 -
Is guest posting good for main link-building tactic for eCommerce site
Hello, Is guest posting going to be devalued? We've been offering a guest post with one link in the body pointing towards one of our articles, and one home page link in the bio. We're looking at doing this as the main link building strategy. Is this still a good idea now and in the future? Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobGW0 -
External Followed Links Over Time Nasty Drop HELP!
I had someone help me with SEO and they basically used some stupid form to get back-links I am still learning and have taken over my site to better do things right. I have had a major drop across the board since Panda and Pinguin and rightfully so from what I am seeing. My question is: Google obviously removed the backlinks and SEO MOZ shows this in its report. Do I need to disavow these links still or can I just focus on link building properly? What is the best course of action here? gGuSyJf
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | megapixall0 -
How to recognize Panda, Penguin or Unnatural Links Penalty ?
Hey guys, today I've received below message from Google, but I'm confused that there NO such message in WMT ?!??!?!?! I've login /out few times and situation is still same ?!?!? Still Nothing there ? Anybody had same issue ? Do I need to fill reconsideration request ? Pleased to hear back from you guys. NikoT Google Webmaster Tools notice of detected unnatural links to .com/ Dear site owner or webmaster of , We've detected that some of your site's pages may be using techniques that are outside Google's Webmaster Guidelines. Specifically, look for possibly artificial or unnatural links pointing to your site that could be intended to manipulate PageRank. Examples of unnatural linking could include buying links to pass PageRank or participating in link schemes. We encourage you to make changes to your site so that it meets our quality guidelines. Once you've made these changes, please submit your site for reconsideration in Google's search results. If you find unnatural links to your site that you are unable to control or remove, please provide the details in your reconsideration request. If you have any questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support. Sincerely, Google Search Quality Team
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | NikoT0 -
Is it worthwhile to remove a large quantity of lesser quality links if you are able to do so easily?
So I've recently started working at a new company where I lead up their SEO efforts. In regards to link building I've discovered that a little over 75% of the anchor text on the links to the homepage (at least of the 10k SEOmoz provides) are non branded keywords. We don't appear to have any penalties, however, in my opinion we have what is an unnatural link profile for our homepage. As I investigated further I've noticed that a lot of these links (not all) are from irrelevant blogs where the link is found in the footer. (Clearly this was the result of some less than ideal get links quick strategy that was implemented in the past.) At first I was overwhelmed thinking that I'd have to try and contact these sites individually to see if I could get the link removed, however, I soon discovered that the site these links are actually linking to is not our domain, but is instead a domain that redirects to our site. So this brings me to my question: Should I remove the redirect from this other site to rid myself of these links. The white hat side of me strongly thinks this is a good step forward, however, a small part of me wonders what the ramifications would be. These types of redirects seem to account for a fairly high number of links, however what value that actually contribute is difficult to know. Any thoughts?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Poindexter0