Backlink quality vs quantity: Should I keep spammy backlinks?
-
Regarding backlinks, I'm wondering which is more advantageous for domain authority and Google reputation:
- Option 1: More backlinks including a lot of spammy links
- Option 2: Fewer backlinks but only reliable, non-spam links
I've researched this topic around the web a bit and understand that the answer is somewhere in the middle, but given my site's specific backlink volume, the answer might lean one way or the other.
For context, my site has a spam score of 2%, and when I did a quick backlink audit, roughly 20% are ones I want to disavow. However, I don't want to eliminate so many backlinks that my DA goes down. As always, we are working to build quality backlinks, but I'm interested in whether eliminating 20% of backlinks will hurt my DA.
Thank you!
-
Backlinks are always about quality not quantity. Google does not like too many backlinks and especially spammy backlinks. I would suggest you to go with quality backlinks if you want long term and sustainable results otherwise there will always be a threat of getting penalized by google if you focus on spammy backlinks.
-
It's a myth that your DA drops because you put links in disavow. Disavow is a google only (or bing) tool, where lets say you get spammy links from a rogue domain and there's no way you can get 'm removed.
MOZ cant read your disavow file either you file into google. So i'm not sure on how the link is being put here. With MOZ, or any other tool, they just calculate the amount of incoming, FOLLOW links and presume your DA on some magical number. Thats all there is to it. Again, PA/DA has nothing in common at all with Google as Google maintains their own algorithm.
-
Hello again,
Thanks for the clarification and the link. I've read through that and a few other sources across the web, but none of them seemed to answer my question the way you did, so thanks! Our backlink profile is pretty balanced with spammy and definitely not spammy, so I'm not super concerned about it, but I appreciate the reminder.
-
I should also clarify, these may hurt you if they are your only links. If you have very little equitable links, this may cause Google and other search engines to falsely recognize you as spam. So just be careful and be on the look out for extra suspicious spam links. The balanced approach is the best approach: don't worry but stay aware!
Here is a more technical write-up from Moz that I reccomend: https://moz.com/help/link-explorer/link-building/spam-score
-
No problem Liana.
- That is correct. Google understands that you don't have control of 3rd party sites, so instead of penalizing you, they minimize/ delete the effect the spam site links have.
- Yes, but only kind of. It may or may not increase PA/ DA, but according to Google it shouldn't hurt you.
But yeah that's the gist of it! Instead taking the time investigating and disavowing links, you could spend that time cultivating relationships with other websites and businesses that could give you nice quality linkage.
Hope this answer works for you.
-
Hello Advanced Air Ambulance SEO!
Thanks for the quick and thorough response. Please confirm if I understand you correctly:
- I can leave spammy backlinks alone (not spend time disavowing them) _unless _I see a manual action in Search Console, which would indicate that Google sees an issue and is penalizing my site until I disavow the links. Without this manual action, there's no indication that the spam links are hurting my rankings or DA.
- Leaving spammy backlinks that don't incur a manual action may actually increase DA since leaving them maintains a higher volume of backlinks (albeit some spammy), and backlink quantity is a contributor to DA.
Thank you!
-
Hi Liana,
As far as spammy links, Google has done well detecting whether or not they are intentional, aka black hat. If they aren't, Google does not penalize you for these links, so it's best to leave them.
As far as a strategy for generating links to your website, you should always focus on high quality over quantity. High quality links give you exponentially more return than high quantity of bad links.
I recommend this article Google wrote for us to understand when and how to disavow links.
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487?hl=en
In short, rarely do you ever need to disavow links, even if they have a high spam score. You are only hurt when they sense you are gaming the system and in the case that they detect or suspect unethical backlinking, you will be penalized with a "manual action". You can check if you were penalized, as well as disavow flagged backlinks, in the Google Search Console.
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
-
Question on Pagination - /blog/ vs /blog/?page=1
Question on Pagination Because we could have /blog/ or /blog/?page=1 as page one would this be the correct way to markup the difference between these two URL? The first page of a sequence could start with either one of these URLs. Clarity around what to do on this first page would be helpful. Example… Would this be the correct way to do this as these two URLs would have the exact content? Internal links would likely link to /blog/ so signal could be muddy. URL: https://www.somedomain.com/blog/
Technical SEO | | jorgensoncompanies
<link rel="canonical" href="https://www.somedomain.com/blog/?page=1"> URL: https://www.somedomain.com/blog/?page=1
<link rel="canonical" href="https://www.somedomain.com/blog/?page=1"> Google is now saying to just use the canonical to the correct paginated URL with page number. You can read that here:
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/ecommerce/pagination-and-incremental-page-loading But they do not clarify what to do on /blog/?page=1 vs /blog/ as they are the exact same thing. Thanks for your help.0 -
My company bought another company. How long do I keep the purchased company's site live?
How long do I wait before redirecting the purchased company's webpages to the equivalent pages on our site? Do I need to keep some sort of announcement about the merger live on their website for a while first?
Technical SEO | | movingbusinessestothecloud0 -
Spammy 404s: Should I Worry?
One of my sites is getting a ton of spammy 404s with porno-like URLs. All of these 404s are linked from other sites that I assume also got hacked, and when I click on them, they are also 404s. So I'm assuming some spam site is tricking the Googlebot into thinking these URLs exist. But is this going to affect my site & SEO directly? Is it worth disavowing all of the sites linking to me? Is Google even considering these real links? Did these pages ever actually exist anywhere? Don't have a hacker-brain whatsoever so I need some enlightening. I've been told I shouldn't worry but it seems like something I should worry about...Any help is greatly appreciated 🙂 (I've updated to the newest Wordpress and Sucuri).
Technical SEO | | FSCInteractiveLLC0 -
No crawl code for pages of helpful links vs. no follow code on each link?
Our college website has many "owners" who want pages of "helpful links" resulting in a large number of outbound links. If we add code to the pages to prevent them from being crawled, will that be just as effective as making every individual link no follow?
Technical SEO | | LAJN0 -
Is there a benefit to Microdata vs. RDFa Lite?
Is there any community consensus about whether Microdata or RDFa Lite is the superior rich-snippet format? I work as a design/front-end-developer and in terms of pure coding, RDFa Lite seems the superior method. It looks to be more flexible and more extensible. The W3C spec is also more mature—it's a W3C Recommendation where Microdata is only a W3C Working Draft—so it's more likely to reach full standardization sooner. Also, because it's a Recommendation it's less likely to change. However, I hear Google "strongly recommends" the use of Microdata. Do they not support RDFa/RDFa Lite? There doesn't seem to be a great deal of discussion on this anywhere so I'm tempted to think it's sort of irrelevant. I am aware that Schema.org is, supposedly, now supporting RDFa Lite.
Technical SEO | | kongregate0 -
Quality analytics without Google?
I'm trying to find a program or a site that will give me quality traffic data. If I'm going into a presentation or simply a round one meeting I like to prepare a 1 pager with info I've found. Without authentication access to their Google Analytics I feel like I'm a step behind. Any Help would be greatly appreciated. -JoeGrrrcia
Technical SEO | | JOEGRRRCIA0 -
Syndication: Link back vs. Rel Canonical
For content syndication, let's say I have the choice of (1) a link back or (2) a cross domain rel canonical to the original page, which one would you choose and why? (I'm trying to pick the best option to save dev time!) I'm also curious to know what would be the difference in SERPs between the link back & the canonical solution for the original publisher and for sydication partners? (I would prefer not having the syndication partners disappeared entirely from SERPs, I just want to make sure I'm first!) A side question: What's the difference in real life between the Google source attribution tag & the cross domain rel canonical tag? Thanks! PS: Don't know if it helps but note that we can syndicate 1 article to multiple syndication partners (It would't be impossible to see 1 article syndicated to 50 partners)
Technical SEO | | raywatson0 -
Locate your Competitors Traffic Sources -SEO related sources - vs. other sources.
Is there a tool out there that will help you locate your competitors traffic sources? I would like to see how much of their traffic is coming from SEO related sources - vs. other sources. I know compete will do this - but they are ungodly expensive. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | DavidS-2820611