What are Spammy Back Links
-
My site was hit by Penguin 2, where I lost 40% of traffic. People keep talking about spammy links but I've made none of those for my site. So how can I analyse my site and find out which links are hurting me. Can it be done with SEOMOZ software? What do I look for?
I used Site Explorer and most of my links are to relevant websites. Is there a penalty for being in somebody else's blogroll even if I was added naturally and their site is a high ranking (PR4) and relevant site? All the links to my site coming from forums are no-follow. Could it be my own website? How do I check that? I have no clue what to look for.
Thanks
-
Thank you all. Those articles helped. Time to do some research on my links.
-
Uesat,
I like Michael's response, looks like he put some effort into what he provided. I just wanted to add a point that might help you, and perhaps others concerned about the same thing.
We have used a company called Link Research Tools. They charge for their service, but I have found it invaluable. They may be found online here http://www.linkresearchtools.com Their spider will index your site for all of the inbound links, then report back on the possible impact of the link. The report provides all sorts of data about the inbound link, if it is indexed by Google, webmaster contact information, number of links that the inbound links receives, inbound link subject matter. You get the idea. They also suggest if the link is possibly impacting negatively on your ranking.
Hate to admit it, but this report can also be run on your competitors website, which may help you discover new quality links to go after or avoid for you own website. They even provide an automated Disavow tool.
Check them out
-
Great question, and I would suggest you check out the following Moz posted article by Ron Medin "How to Create and Excel Spreadsheet to Remove Link Spam Post Penguin".
Hope this helps, and good luck with your recovery!
-
This is a good question. I think "spammy" needs to be defined since sites like ours, up for many years, have links in numerous places that cannot be "fixed" because at the time there was no such thing s "nofollow" and the like. To punish for old links would seem harsh although it might be done. Our problem is that we're listed on long pages of "link resources" that many are saying is spam and penalty but this is what was done in the 90s and 2000s by people wanting to put up useful websites. Here are a few I saw on possibly relevant articles that appear knowledgeable:
- http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2271305/Google-Penguin-2.0-Casualties-Why-Sites-Got-Hit
- http://www.searchenginejournal.com/googles-penguin-beginning-to-flex-its-muscles/63416/
I find Barry's articles very helpful and ostensibly honest: http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-on-upcoming-penguin-panda-link-networks-updates-151273
To begin, it's difficult for anyone to tell you what the problem is with your site without providing your site. It's a horrible feeling (I know) but that will give you the best answers, unless you prefer to pay for that privacy by hiring an SEO consultant to manage the issue. You may want to post some of the links here if you don't want to post your site and see what the group says. Regarding blogrolls - another issue that affects the 2000s and it's crazy for Google to think we can "clean" that which never really needed cleaning and only the large companies with staff will survive. Hopefully there will be clarity. Best of luck.
PS - If it makes you feel any better, your traffic drops are small in comparison to some others.
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
-
Discrepancy between followed links. How do you explain this?
My external followed links over time have gone from 346 in late November to 402. Total external links have gone from 400 to 457. Followed linking root domains dropped from 125 to 102 (How do I find out why?). Total Linking Root Domains Over Time dropped from 152 to 126. Linking C-Blocks dropped from 124 to 42. How did I increase my links but drop the other stuff?
Moz Pro | | EcommerceSite0 -
'Too many on-page links': doesn't add up...
Hi All, I'm fairly new to the site, have had a full site crawl and am somewhat confused by a large number of pages (82) reported as showing 'too many on page links'. Mine is a new e-commerce site selling a project management methodology. I have about 80 pages which describe individual templates and contain internal links to additional, related content on the site. The crawl warnings define too many on page links as roughly 100 "on any given page" yet almost none of the pages flagged contain more than 20-30 on links. Any thoughts and ideas about (a) the degree to which this will aeffect my ranking in practice and (b) how to resolve it gratefully received! Thanks in advance, Felix
Moz Pro | | RomanCat0 -
How to creat link building,why seomoz has no such tool? also why it not crawl on daily basis?
how to creat link building? why seomoz has no such tool? also why it not crawl on daily basis?
Moz Pro | | mrgunii0 -
Duplicate pages with canonical links still show as errors
On our CMS, there are duplicate pages such as /news, /news/, /news?page=1, /news/?page=1. From an SEO perspective, I'm not too worried, because I guess Google is pretty capable of sorting this out, but to be on the safe side, I've added canonical links. /news itself has no link, but all the other variants have links to "/news". (And if you go wild and add a bunch of random meaningless parameters, creating /news/?page=1&jim=jam&foo=bar&this=that, we will laugh at you and generate a canonical link back to "/news". We're clever like that.) So far so good. And everything appears to work fine. But SEOMoz is still flagging up errors about duplicate titles and duplicate content. If you click in, you'll see a "Note" on each error, showing that SEOMoz has found the canonical link. So SEOMoz knows the duplication isn't a problem, as we're using canonical links exactly the way they're supposed to be used, and yet is still flagging it as an error. Is this something I should be concerned about, or is it just a bug in SEOMoz?
Moz Pro | | LockyDotser0 -
Why would opensite explorer show a link from baidu result page with baidu as a linking root domain?
I found an old domain that has very high domain authority and one of its top linking root domains is baidu I clicked the link in ose and it took me to a baidu serp????? please explain...im happy to clarify if need be or give you the site in question just let me know what you think. I checked ose for the page authority of the serp page it was 50. would that page be helping the site in question to rank? or am I just dumb for asking this question One more thing I couldnt actually find a link to the page I was looking at in ose on the baidu result page.. thanks
Moz Pro | | duncan2740 -
Broken Links and Duplicate Content Errors?
Hello everybody, I’m new to SEOmoz and I have a few quick questions regarding my error reports: In the past, I have used IIS as a tool to uncover broken links and it has revealed a large amount of varying types of "broken links" on our sites. For example, some of them were links on my site that went to external sites that were no longer available, others were missing images in my CSS and JS files. According to my campaign in SEOmoz, however, my site has zero broken links (4XX). Can anyone tell me why the IIS errors don’t show up in my SEOmoz report, and which of these two reports I should really be concerned about (for SEO purposes)? 2. Also in the "errors" section, I have many duplicate page titles and duplicate page content errors. Many of these "duplicate" content reports are actually showing the same page more than once. For example, the report says that "http://www.cylc.org/" has the same content as "http://www.cylc.org/index.cfm" and that, of course, is because they are the same page. What is the best practice for handling these duplicate errors--can anyone recommend an easy fix for this?
Moz Pro | | EnvisionEMI0 -
Why doesn't the BBB / Trustlink.org links show up in the Link Analysis?
I am curious why one of my client's main competitors (www.allbayhardwood.com) shows links from the Better Business Bureau and Trustlink.org (associated with BBB) but links from those sources do not show up for his domain (www.sanjosehardwoodfloors.com). He has been a BBB Acredited Business since 12/2010 and on file with them for probably as long as they have had the online version, which seems like plenty of time for the link to have been picked up. BBB has a very nice domain authority and it would be great to see these links show up. (they don't show up in webmaster tools either) Is there something I am missing? Thanks in advance guys and gals! (I know the site has other SEO issues - just getting started on pounding everything out.)
Moz Pro | | SnoBaer0