Disavow File and SSL Conversion Question
-
Moz Community,
So we have a website that we are moving to SSL. It has been 4 years since we submitted our disavow file to google via GWT. We decided to go through our backlinks and realized that many domains we are disavowing currently (under
Since we are moving to SSL I understand Google looks at this as a new site. Therefore, we decided to go through our backlinks and realized that many domains we are disavowing currently are no longer active (after 4 years this is expected).
Therefore, is it ok to create a new disavow file with the new profile on GW (ssl version of our site)? Also, is it ok the new GW disavow file doesn't include urls we previously disavowed with the non https version?
Some links from the old disavow we found were disavowed but they shouldn't have been. Moreover, we found new links we wanted to disavow as well.
Thanks
QL
-
Hi. I think mememax gave a very good answer.
The only thing I would submit for consideration is making too many changes at one time can be hard to track later. When we did the switch to https, I was super paranoid we would screw something up and lose rankings. So I chose to leave the disavow file exactly the same. It turned out the switch was not as bad as I thought and we didn't have any noticeable effect on rankings. So later when I was convinced that the https switch was not a factor, I could modify the disavow file. I also left the old domains from years ago in there for the reasons mememax points out.
Good Luck!
-
Hi QuickLearner,
You are actually raising a very interesting point. So, as for disavow you have to disavow links pointing to the current site and the ones pointing to any other property you own which is 301ing to it to be extra safe.
Remember that the disavow file should include all URLs/Domains that are pointing to your site that you are not able to remove by yourself or after trying to ping the webmaster. Based on this:
- you should disavow in your http site all the links that are pointing to the HTTP site only that you marked as spammy
- since you're going to make many changes on the disavow file, it may be a good moment to further reanalyze links you want to include vs you want to remove. Just ensure you're doing it right.
- the HTTPS site disavow file should contain all the links of the HTTP site + the ones pointing to it. Again only the links you want to remove obviously
- Even if sites that have expired can be safely removed as they're not linking to your site anymore, in the past I always kept them. Two reasons:
- sometimes google index is not very much up to date especially with tiny, low quality sites, which these ones may be. The site may have disappeared but if google doesn't drop it, it still counts as a link to your site
- you never know what's the real reason behind that site 4XX,5XX. So in case they may reappear I would just keep it there. It's like an IP blacklist. I don't know if that IP is still used but just in case I keep it there.
I hope this helps you!
e
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
-
Taxonomy question - best approach for site structure
Hi all, I'm working on a dentist's website and want some advice on the best way to lay out the navigation. I would like to know which structure will help the site work naturally. I feel the second example would be better as it would focus the 'power' around the type of treatment and get that to rank better. .com/assessment/whitening
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bee159
.com/assessment/straightening
.com/treatment/whitening
.com/treatment/straightening or .com/whitening/assessment
.com/straightening/assessment
.com/whitening/treatment
.com/straightening/treatment Please advise, thanks.0 -
Disavow links established in 2009??
Sorry for the length, but I believe this is an interesting situation, so hopefully you'll enjoy thinking this one over a little. Thanks for taking the time! Historical Information We’ve owned and operated printglobe.com since 2002. In late 2009, we acquired absorbentprinting.com and operated both sites until Mar, 2015, when absorbentprinting.com was redirected to printglobe.com. The reason we chose to redirect absorbentprinting.com to printglobe.com is that they were same industry, same pricing, and had a lot of product overlap, although they did have unique product and category descriptions. We saw a long and steady decline in organic traffic to absorbentprinting.com in the last couple of years leading up to the decision to redirect. By the way, while I understand the basics of SEO, neither I nor anyone else at our company could be considered an SEO practitioner. Recent Information An SEO firm we used to be engaged with us reached back out to us and noted: “I started looking through your backlink and it looks like there has been a sharp increase of referring domains.” They included a graph that does show a dramatic increase, starting around November, 2015. It’s quite dramatic and appears anything but natural. The contact from the SEO firm went on to say: “After doing a cursory review, it looks like a handful of these new links are the type we would recommend disavowing or removing.” We do little in the way of “link building” and we’re in a relatively boring industry, so we don’t naturally garner a lot of links. Our first thought was that we were the victim of a negative SEO attack. However, upon spot checking a lot of the recent domains linking to us, I discovered that a large % of the links that had first shown up in AHREFS since November are links that were left as comments on forums, mostly in 2009/2010. Since absorbentprinting.com was redirected to printglobe.com in Mar, 2015, I have no idea why they are just now beginning to show up as links to printglobe.com. By the numbers, according to a recent download from AHREFS: Total # of backlinks to printglobe.com through mid-Feb, 2016: 8,679 of backlinks “first seen” November, 2015 or later: 5,433 Note that there were hundreds of links “first seen” in the months from Mar, 2015 to Oct, 2015, but the # “first seen” from November, 2015 to now has been 1,500 or greater each full month. Total # of linking domains through mid-Feb, 2016: 1,182 of linking domains first seen November, 2015 or later: 850 Also note that the links contain good anchor text distribution Finally, there was a backlink analysis done on absorbentprinting.com in April, 2013 by the same firm who pointed out the sharp increase in links. At that time, it was determined that the backlink profile of absorbentprinting.com was normal, and did not require any actions to disavow links or otherwise clean up the backlinks. My Questions: If you’ve gotten through all that, how important does it seem to disavow links now? How urgent? I’ve heard that disavowing links should be a rare undertaking. If this is so, what would you think of the idea of us disavowing everything or almost everything “first seen” Nov, 2015 and later? Is there a way to disavow at the linking domain level, rather than link-by-link to reduce the number of entries, or does it have to be done for each individual link? If we disavow around 5.5k links since Nov, 2015, what is the potential for doing more harm than good? If we’re seeing declining organic traffic in the past year on printglobe.com pretty much for the first time in the site’s history, can we attribute that to the links? Anything else you’d advise a guy who’s never disavowed a link before on this situation? Thanks for any insights! Rob
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PrintGlobeSEO0 -
Can some one help me find this Matt Cutts article on disavows?
Hey everyone. A while ago, I remember reading that Matt Cutts said that you can just disavow domains, and that the Google Webmaster Tools team doesn't read for comments (like if webmasters had been reached out to). Is this ringing any bells? I'm trying to find this tidbit again. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Charles_Murdock
Charles0 -
Metatags on drupal question
Hi Im quite inexperienced on drupal (normally an umbraco user!) and im having some difficulty with the Metatags on the CMS. I have been applying Meta Title and descriptions to the individual pages however they only appear when i preview the page and not when the page is saved. When i go into the metatag section located at /admin/config/search/metatags i am given a list of settings including Global: Front Page and Node. Im sure the reason it keeps defaulting the metatags back is to do with this but im not sure what to change to apply my own Thanks in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheZenAgency1 -
Client Question
Client Question - How much time this keyword takes to rank? Is there any tool or any calculation to find out the estimate time for a particular keyword?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | marknorman1 -
Disavowing Links for Subcategory of Site
Has anyone tried using Google's Disavow tool with only a specific subcategory of their site? We're an ecommerce company and our site took a small hit with this recent Penguin update. We're certain previous linkbuilding efforts are the cause. But we'd like to try the Disavow tool with 1 subcategory to start, see if our rankings for that category improve (we used to be top 3, now ~12 or 13), and if so then roll it out through the rest of the site. Looking for input from others on if they have any experience with this or if it'd be better to just go for the whole thing at once. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingof50 -
Canonical or 301 redirect, that is the question?
So my site has duplicate content issues because of the index.html and the www and non www version of the site. What's the best way to deal with this without htaccess? Is it a 301 redirect or is it the canonical, or is it both?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bronxpad0 -
Crawl questions
My first website crawl indicating many issues. I corrected the issues, requested another crawl and received the results. After viewing the excel file I have some questions. 1. There are many pages with missing Titles and Meta Descriptions in the Excel file. An example is http://www.terapvp.com/threads/help-us-decide-on-terapvp-com-logo.25/page-2 That page clearly has a meta description and title. It is a forum thread. My forum software does a solid job of always providing those tags. Why would my crawl report not show this information? This occurs on numerous pages. 2. I believe all my canonical URLs are properly set. My crawl report has 3k+ records, largely due to there being 10 records for many pages. These extra records are various sort orders and style differences for the same page i.e. ?direction=asc. My need for a crawl report is to provide actionable data so I can easily make SEO improvements to my site where necessary. These extra records don't provide any benefit. IF the crawl report determined there was not a clear canonical URL, then I could understand. But that is not the case. An example is http://www.terapvp.com/forums/news/ If you look at the source you will clearly see Where is the benefit to including the 10 other records in the Crawl report which show this same page in various sort orders? Am I missing anything? 3. My robots.txt appropriately blocks many pages that I do not wish to be crawled. What is the benefit to including these many pages in the crawl report? Perhaps I am over analyzing this report. I have read many articles on SEO, but now that I have found SEOmoz, I can see I will need to "unlearn what I have learned". Many things such as setting meta keyword tags are clearly not helpful. I wish to focus my energy and I was looking to the crawl report as my starting point. Either I am missing something, or the report design needs improvement.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RyanKent0