You can get a quick list of (currently 917) domains in the globe network at the url below which I found by googling the following:

inurl:the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages

http://www.theglobe.bet/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages-txt.txt

Thanks Karl.

Thanks Francis, that example is useful.

Hi Carson,

Thanks for your considered reply.

I was very interested to hear your opinion about unnatural links warnings via GWT and whether they can be necessarily interpreted as manual penalties.

As usual there are conflicting opinions and the particular wording in the warning I saw is different from the wording I have seen quoted in other examples on the web. It has a feel of being slightly more tailored ... although algorithms can do tailoring!

It seems logical that Google would use an algorithmic approach wherever possible in the interests of economy and consistency but there have to be sanity checks by real people so maybe GWT emails can be triggered by algorithm or human override.

The first sentence in both your "manual penalties" and also your "refreshing adjustments" suggest to me that it might not be possible to outmanoeuvre penalties by side-stepping (domain switching).

Maybe there's also an argument here that what's best for the user should be what's best for SEO?

What's best for the user must surely be not to confuse them or change domains so maybe that's the best approach also from an SEO POV.

Oh boy. I love SEO but I think I'll do some gardening tomorrow.

Hi Karl,

Thanks. The situation is I reckon > 90% low quality or spammy links. I estimate I might be able to get between 10% and 30% deleted with several days work but which still produces no certainty of a successful re-consideration request. There are only a handful of good links which I know I could get re-coded to a new domain. This is a small business so flogging a dead horse is precious money down the drain .

The domain is businessnamemainkeyword.com and I could host on businessname-mainkeyword.com i.e. only difference is the dash.

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your answer.

Undoubtedly the safest decision is to take no risk at all i.e. use no redirects. That might not be the decision with the most profitable expected outcome. What if you knew, with hindsight, that you could have used redirects with only a 2% probability of a minor adverse impact on the new domain? That could have been a big opportunity lost by taking the safest option..

Again, I'm trying to get away from hunches and better understand the size and nature of the risks (probably by reference to empirical data i.e. specific cases) to give the best chance of making the best decision.

Hi Francis,

Thanks for your answer. From what you say, you have seen cases where redirects have been fine but you're skeptical which is a slightly mixed message.

I am aware that there might be a risk of 'infecting' the new domain. I'm just trying to get some kind of handle on the level of that risk (if that is possible).

Would you say:

1. Don't touch a 301 with a barge pole under any circumstances or

2. You should be OK under 'these circumstances' or

3. It's pot luck or

4. No need to worry about the consequences of 301s because Google will give you a fresh start. They know your motive for ditching the old domain and will filter the bad links from impacting the new domain, recognising you're a business that's been established for 1,000 years (from your business name, address, telephone number, company number etc.). Yeah, I know that last bit is probably my idealism getting the better of me.

How to quantify the risk to make the best decision?

I have recently taken on a client that has been manually penalised for spammy link building by two previous SEOs.

Having just read this excellent discussion,

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/lifting-a-manual-penalty-given-by-google-personal-experience

I am weighing up the odds of whether it's better to cut losses and recommend moving domains.

I had thought under these circumstances it was important not to 301 the old domain to the new domain but the author (Lewis Sellers) comments on 3/4/13 that he is aware of forwards having been implemented without transferring the penalty to the new domain.

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/lifting-a-manual-penalty-given-by-google-personal-experience#jtc216689

Is it safe to 301?

What's the latest thinking?

You can get a quick list of (currently 917) domains in the globe network at the url below which I found by googling the following:

inurl:the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages

http://www.theglobe.bet/the_worlds_most_visited_web_pages-txt.txt

Hi Carson,

Thanks for your considered reply.

I was very interested to hear your opinion about unnatural links warnings via GWT and whether they can be necessarily interpreted as manual penalties.

As usual there are conflicting opinions and the particular wording in the warning I saw is different from the wording I have seen quoted in other examples on the web. It has a feel of being slightly more tailored ... although algorithms can do tailoring!

It seems logical that Google would use an algorithmic approach wherever possible in the interests of economy and consistency but there have to be sanity checks by real people so maybe GWT emails can be triggered by algorithm or human override.

The first sentence in both your "manual penalties" and also your "refreshing adjustments" suggest to me that it might not be possible to outmanoeuvre penalties by side-stepping (domain switching).

Maybe there's also an argument here that what's best for the user should be what's best for SEO?

What's best for the user must surely be not to confuse them or change domains so maybe that's the best approach also from an SEO POV.

Oh boy. I love SEO but I think I'll do some gardening tomorrow.