Welcome to the Q&A Forum

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?

Hi Robert,

Thanks and sorry for my slow reply.

Loads of good points you've raised here.

You're quite right to challenge my presumption that the new domain is ranking poorly due to the 301 since there could be many other reasons.

It's difficult to describe all the circumstances in a short question, so I guess I was going on my gut feel to some extent. Not ranking in the top 100 for a non-competitive term. I don't think the question of correlation arises here since there are no data sets to relate but I understand the point you make about cause and effect.

For me a 302 doesn't really feel like that's what it's intended for so is not ideal.

I think when Matt Cutts said 'start again', he meant really start again' i.e. no 301 so removing the 301 and having no other kind of redirect seems intuitively like the best option to me.

Cheers.

Hi Marcus,

Thanks and sorry for my slow reply.

I guess removing the 301 has the short term disadvantage of losing any traffic that might have come via the good links to the old domain but that's probably the lesser of two evils so a worthwhile trade-off longer term.

Cheers.

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.

I believe the answer to almost every question about SEO should begin with "it depends" and therefore I think neither of the two views you have quoted can be right in all circumstances.

The best solution for a particular case might depend on the structure of the page and that should be driven first and foremost by providing the best solution for visitors which may not be the same as prescribed by an SEO rule book.

Re. bonus question:

My home page (www.adjuice.co.uk) has its logo as its H1 so is an example of what you describe in your bonus question. The home page currently ('touch wood') ranks very well for lots of competitive terms so I find it difficult to imagine that this arrangement could be disadvantageous in any way.

A business traded on a domain let's say example.COM which was heavily penalised due to non-removable spammy back links. Their previous SEO advised them to set up on example.CO.UK but redirected example.COM to example.CO.UK.

Example.CO.UK ranks very poorly, presumably due to being 'tarred with the same brush' i.e. attributed with the ills of example.COM.

Will it do any good to remove the redirect or is example.CO.UK now doomed as well?