Unnatural Inbound Links Warning in GWT
-
Hi all,
A bit of a long questions so apologies in advance but please bear with me...
My client has received an 'Unnatural Inbound Links' warning and it is now my task to try and resolve through a process of;
- Highlighting the unnatural links
- Requesting that the links be removed (via webmaster requests)
- Possibly using the Disavow Tool
- Submitting a Reconsideration Request
So I downloaded my clients link profile from both OSE and GWT in CSV format and compared - the amount of links returned was considerably more in GWT than it was in OSE...?
So I set about going through the links, first filtering into order so that I could see blocks of links from the same URL - I highlighted in colours;
Red - Definitely need to be removed
Orange - Suspect, need to investigate further
Yellow - Seem to be ok but may revisit
Green - Happy with the link, no further action
So to my question which relates to, is it 'black & white' - is it a case of 'good link v 'bad link' or could there be some middle ground? (am I making this process even more confusing than it actually is?)
As an example, here are some 'Orange' URL's;
http://www.24searchengines.com/ (not exact URL as it goes to the travel section which is my clients niche) - this to me looks spammy and I would normally 'paint it red' and look to remove, however, when I go to the 'contact us' page;
(http://www.24searchengines.com/texis/open/allthru?area=contactus)
and follow the link to remove from directory, it takes me here;
http://www.dmoz.org/docs/en/help/update.html
DMOZ???
My clients has a 'whole heap' of these type of links;
http://www.25searchengines.com/
http://www.26searchengines.com/
http://www.27searchengines.com/
http://www.28searchengines.com/
...and many many more!!
Here is another example;
http://foodys.eu/2007/01/04/the-smoke-ring-bbq-community/
...plus many more...
My client is in the 'cruise niche' and as there is a 'cruise' section on the site I'm not sure whether this constitutes a good, bad or indifferent link!
Finally, prior to me working with this client (1 month) they moved their site from a .co.uk to a .com domain and redirected all links from the .co.uk to the .com (according to GWT, over 16k have been redirected) - a lot of these 'spammy' links were to the .co.uk and have thus been redirected, should I even consider removing the redirection or will that have severe consequences?
Apologies for the long (long) post, I know I'm heading in the right direction but some assurance wouldn't go amiss!
Many thanks
Andy
<colgroup><col width="1317"></colgroup>
| | -
Thanks to you all for taking the time to answer my very long question, it is very much appreciated!
I will post updates regarding my my progress!
Andy
-
Hi Andy,
Welcome to the challenging world of penalty removal! Here are my thoughts on your questions.
First of all, don't worry about dmoz and 23searchengines and the like. The 23searchengines sites are scraper sites and Google knows that they are not self made links. 99.9% of the time a dmoz link is ok. The exception would be the case where a site managed to get an anchor texted link on there (usually by accessing a corrupt editor). If your link from dmoz is anchored by your brand/url then just ignore them.
Regarding the foody's link, whether or not it's unnatural depends on the patterns your client has. If you've got the occasional blogroll link it may be ok. But, when you're auditing the links you'll soon see if this is a pattern. If your site has a whack of blogroll links, especially if they are keyword anchored, then they are probably on Google's radar. What I would do in my audit is mark this as "blogroll" and then, once I'm finished my audit I would decide whether blogroll links should be removed or not. The exception to this would be if I know that my client has paid for blogroll links. If that's the case then I would flag them for removal right away.
If you've got a pile of spammy links from your .co.uk site then removing the redirect is probably a good idea.
There is always middle ground when assessing links.
Good luck!
Marie
-
I saw with your link example http://foodys.eu/ that they have alot of sitewide sidebar links. This is a big red flag. Sitewide sidebar links are one of the easiest ways to get a penalty, as the links are unnatural, even if it is a good site (i.e. one link is great, but sitewide links bad).
Any decent sites that have these sort of links and which are giving decent traffic you should get the rel="nofollow" tag added. Of course this is dependent on the webmaster dealing with your request.
-
Hi Andy,
I'd be totally ruthless with your link audit, even if 1% of you thinks it is spammy, disavow it. In fact, if it isn't driving traffic then disavow it, what are you going to lose. The question to ask yourself is would you be happy to show the link to Matt Cutts? If not, then get rid.
We heard from Google recently that they are not allowed to open any files that are sent to them for security reasons so, for me, going through the effort of contacting webmasters and sending Google files with emails etc is pointless. I know they say you should be we have stopped asking because it gets you nowhere and you haven't got the time to wait for replies. I'd just get some numbers and info together about what you have disavowed, why there was these links in the first place and what you have done to remedy it. Obviously, if you can get them taken down easily then do so.
Stop building links until you have the penalty lifted! Don't look at the anchor text used to justify whether it is a good or bad link, look at the relevance to your website. I even disavow 404 and no-followed links if I think they are spammy.
Good luck in the recovery!
-
Hello,
Ihave recovered more than 3 websites affected by unnatural link penalty (which is a manual penalty) and used the disavow tool for several clients of mine. Here is what i do recommend for u:
1. Be more determined/accurate with links analysis. You may classify links into 3 groups:
a/definetly spammy: links in footers, sitewides, links from low quality directories, linsk from blog/directory networks, etc...
b/maybe spammy: these are links that appear to be good, but you may have to digg mire to be sure if it's really good (these could be links exhanges, links from websites that have been spotted of seeling links, etc...)
c/good links: this are links using branded anchors, parital matches or low number of exact macth anchors. These links should be placed in relevant websites and high editorial level (not linking to every rubbish oin the web)
About the redirected links, if i were to take this project, i would analyze the redirected links and check if most of them are spammy or have little to no value, i will remove the redirect and take the time and effort to build new links to the .com domain. Creating new links is better than deleting the old ones, here is why:
1. creatinng links is easier and funnier (you feel success when u earn a new good link)
2. it takes less time to see results (disavowing and deleting links may take upt to 3-6 mnths to reflect resullts as google takes time to process these data)
If you have further questions, don't hesitate to get back to me.
Regards
Amine Rihane
SEO Consultant
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
-
Links Not Detected by MOZ, AHREFS, GSC-ARE THESE QUALITY LINKS?
Our SEO provider has been creating content (6 blog posts per month as well as building page write ups) and has been promoting that content. Several links per month have been created as a result of this effort. Many of the links have been from commercial real estate publications. I am concerned that the quality of these links is not high enough to improve our ranking. Most links do not appear on AHREFS, Google Search Console or MOZ. Is this a red flag that these links are weak? Ranking and traffic on the site have improved considerably since this provider began the project in April of 2019. They have been writing about 30 pages about New York City. commercial buildings each month in addition to 4 short blog posts and 2 extremely well researched and authoritative blog posts. My concern is that the links are not of sufficient quality to result increased ranking. That the improvement in ranking is solely due to the addition of new content rather than the creation of these links. Basically, that I am incurring the cost on an ongoing basis of an link building campaign with little to no benefit. That being the case, I would shift resources to content creation and increase and improve content rather than develop links with little value. A sample of links are below: Would greatly appreciate some feedback as to whether these are in fact helpful to the domain authority, reputation and ranking of our website. Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan1
Alan https://patch.com/new-york/bayside/bayside-queens-priciest-area-retail-office-space-study https://qns.com/story/2019/12/04/these-commercial-streets-in-queens-were-among-the-most-expensive-in-2019/ https://patch.com/new-york/brooklyn/flatbush-ave-priciest-retail-spot-outside-manhattan-study http://thejewishvoice.com/2019/12/07/nycs-most-expensive-commercial-streets-neighborhoods-in-2019-would-surprise-you/ https://atalyst.com/investment-banking-interview-metro-manhattan/0 -
Internal Linking
Hi, I'm doing internal anchor text links. Relative path. if I use /destination-page instead of https://website.com/destination-page will I still receive a transfer of internal Google trust to the destination page? Does google treat just the / url the same as full url??
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Scotty_Wilson0 -
Recovering from spam links on MY site
Hey guys, Having a weird situation and wondering if anybody can help. I run a sizable WordPress site with a number of content writers. One of the writer's accounts was hacked and was used to post several dozens of complete spam posts with spun content and links to all sorts of shady sites. Recently the site has begun losing rankings on all sorts of pages. There's no manual penalty or anything, but I'm concerned that we're being penalized for having had these links on the site. Of course, as soon as we found the content, we immediately removed it, reset passwords, etc. But a decent number of the pages were indexed. Does anybody have any experience with this or ideas of what to do about it? Is there somewhere we can talk to Google about it or some way to show that we are not part of bad neighborhoods? Thanks so much for any thoughts, Yon
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | yon230 -
Google Manual Penalties:Different Types of Unnatural Link Penalties?
Hello Guys, I have a few questions regarding google manual penalties for unnatural link building. They are "partial site" penalties, not site wide. I have two sites to discuss. 1. this site used black hat tactics and bought 1000's of unnatural backlinks. This site doesn't rank for the main focus keywords and traffic has dropped. 2. this site has the same penalty, but has been all white hat, never bought any links or hired any seo company. It's all organic. This sites organic traffic doesn't seem to have taken any hit or been affected by any google updates. Based on the research we've done, Matt Cutts has stated that sometimes they know the links are organic so they don't penalize a website, but they still show us a penalty in the WMT. "Google doesn't want to put any trust in links that are artificial or unnatural. However, because we realize that some links may be outside of your control, we are not taking action on your site's overall ranking. Instead, we have applied a targeted action to the unnatural links pointing to your site." "If you don't control the links pointing to your site, no action is required on your part. From Google's perspective, the links already won't count in ranking. However, if possible, you may wish to remove any artificial links to your site and, if you're able to get the artificial links removed, submit areconsideration request. If we determine that the links to your site are no longer in violation of our guidelines, we’ll revoke the manual action." Check that info above at this link: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604772?ctx=MAC Recap: Does anyone have any experience like with site #2? We are worried that this site has this penalty but we don't know if google is stopping us from ranking or not, so we aren't sure what to do here. Since we know 100% the links are organic, do we need to remove them and submit a reconsideration request? Is it possible that this penalty can expire on its own? Are they just telling us we have an issue but not hurting our site b/c they know it's organic?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
To Many Links On Page Problem
Hello My Moz report is showing I have an error for too many links on my sitemap and blog. The links on both pages are relevant and I'm not sure if this has to be sorted out, as I would have thought Google would expect sitemaps and blogs to have lots of links. If I were to reduce the number of links how much of a positive affect would it have on my site? If any of you feel it is best practice to reduce number of links on these particular pages, do you have any suggestions on how I can tackle this? http://www.dradept.com/blog.php http://www.dradept.com/sitemap.php Thank you Christina
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ChristinaRadisic0 -
How to ping the links
When i do link building for my website, how can i let the search engines know about that. is there any way of pinging?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | raybiswa0 -
Link Juice - Lots of Pages
I have a site, PricesPrices.com where I'm steadily building inbound links and pagerank. I have about 4600 pages on the site, most of which are baby products in the baby gear sector. There are many outdated items that aren't really my focus, but do pop up in long-tail search queries from time to time. My question is a pretty basic one. Theoretically if a site has say 28/100 link juice, then as you go deeper and deeper into the site, the link juice is divided more and more. My question: Is this really true or just a concept? My thoughts are to hide many of the products that i don't really need to focus on therefor passing more link juice to the products that remain, but I also don't want to that if it won't necessarily make the remaining pages rank higher or have more link juice. I also have to keep in mind the merchandising aspect of the site and providing a good user experience. If i only have 300 products on the site, there will be a ton of unhappy people who can't find the products they are looking for. Any thoughts and/or pointers in the direction of funneling that pagerank down into my site would be much appreciated. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | modparent0 -
First Link Priority question - image/logo in header links to homepage
I have not found a clear answer to this particular aspect of the "first link priority" discussion, so wanted to ask here. Noble Samurai (makers of Market Samurai seo software) just posted a video discussing this topic and referencing specifically a use case example where when you disable all the css and view the page the way google sees it, many times companies use an image/logo in their header which links to their homepage. In my case, if you visit our site you can see the logo linking back to the homepage, which is present on every page within the site. When you disable the styling and view the site in a linear path, the logo is the first link. I'd love for our first link to our homepage include a primary keyword phrase anchor text. Noble Samurai (presumably seo experts) posted a video explaining this specifically http://www.noblesamurai.com/blog/market-samurai/website-optimization-first-link-priority-2306 and their suggested code implementations to "fix" it http://www.noblesamurai.com/first-link-priority-templates which use CSS and/or javascript to alter the way it is presented to the spiders. My web developer referred me to google's webmaster central: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353 where they seem to indicate that this would be attempting to hide text / links. Is this a good or bad thing to do?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dcutt0