Links from music/celebrity based fansites - sitewide images with no alt text
-
We're currently in the middle of a link audit on our website OneDirection.net and a large part of our incoming links come from fansites such as the following:
- ladygaganow.net
- nickjonline.com
- justinbieberhood.com
- joejonashq.com
- harrystylesfan.org
- brunodaily.org
- onedirectiondaily.com
- onedirectionfans.net
Now, our previous way of thinking was that these are very relevant websites in the same niche as us, and therefore should be passing some value? However all of the links on these sites come from sitewide images with no alt-text. Some of the sites are passing 1000+ links to us.
We've been wary to disavow or request removal of these links as we've usually gone with the thinking that Google applies "common-sense" based logic in its algorithms, and therefore these backlinks should be ok - in our opinion.
However we think we are suffering from some kind of algorithmic penalty with our current rankings, and are now thinking these could be the cause.
What are people's opinions on these links? Should we stay clear of sitewide links altogether? Should we contact the site owners and try to get them to mix up the alt-text? Or should we get rid of them altogether?
Thanks,
Chris.
-
Further to my previous update, it now seems that Penguin 2.1 positively affected our site. So there's still the chance that the disavowed links have not been taken into account yet.
Either way, rankings have remained strong, but we still think there is further to go. We're continuing to contact sites directly, asking them to remove or nofollow our links.
-
Update...
Our rankings suddenly improved on Saturday October 5th, and we've seen an uplift in google traffic by a factor of 20/30% so far, but manually checking some of our rankings puts us on page 1 for a lot of medium/long tail keywords. We've not seen rankings this strong for ages.
It's still a little too early to tell fully so I'll update again in another week or so, but from an initial couple of days of data & analysis we're seeing better rankings right across the Google network
As well as simply disavowing the links, we also contacted 10 of the sites asking them to remove our links directly. Two of them responded saying they had done this on Wednesday, but this seems a little too soon to see an effect from so we're putting more belief that the the disavow links have been reflected.
This is the first time I've felt like we're finally seeing daylight, and it was the last source of links we've thought were damaging us!
-
Quick update on this - we've disavowed 22 entire domain links from these fansites and will monitor rankings to see if anything improves.
As mysterious as the disavow tool is, we're expecting to have to wait anything from 3 weeks to 3 months before anything happens. Will report back here with our findings.
Cheers.
-
The problem with sitewide links and sidebar links is that they have been abused by the spamming world so stick out as if a paid link despite in a lot of cases actually being genuine.
You have got to remember that at the end of the day it is a computer analysing these links and they are not quite there yet. Although they are legitimate there are hundreds of thousands that are not and this im guessing is what Google is basing it on.
-
Thanks for your quick responses guys.
Since the original penguin update back in April 2012, we've cleaned up our link profile immensely, improved the load speed of our site by over 150% and totally reworked & simplified our UI. Throughout all this we've provided unique, daily content.
As such it's been annoyance that we've only seen our rankings drop, but frankly we've never touched our core of fansite links. I'll be quite surprised if these are indeed the source of our problems - but at the same time delighted to have finally found the culprit.
Still, ignoring whatever decisions Google has made in its algorithms, are these fansites (and ourselves) actually doing anything wrong with their sitewide links? What is it that Google doesn't like about them? Usually the individuals who run the sites provide a lot of up-to-date content that other fans like to see, and quite often users will be interested in similar artists/bands, hence the links to "friends" or "affiliate" sites in the sidebar.
Is this a niche way of doing things that probably should have an exception from Google's calculations?
Or are they just bad, bad, bad?
-
I agree with Mark. Sitewide links are an extremely quick way to get a penalty these days.
Another option is to ask those links to be no-followed if they do give traffic (and try to get an editorial link on the front page, or some other page), but at the end of the day if they refuse, your only option will be to dissavow.
-
I don't think sitewide links are a good idea any more. Im sure they have been legitimately placed but in the eyes of a computer could look like paid links which as we all know is a bad thing.
My advice would be contact each website in turn and ask for an editorial link rather than a sidebar/sitewide link. This way you keep a genuine link.
If they refuse then I would ask for it to be removed as in my opinion these links are more than likely the cause of your penalty despite them being relevant as if they link to your fan site they are probably linking to lots of fan sites so could also look like a link ring of some sort.
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
-
Does redirecting a duplicate page NOT in Google‘s index pass link juice? (External links not showing in search console)
Hello! We have a powerful page that has been selected by Google as a duplicate page of another page on the site. The duplicate is not indexed by Google, and the referring domains pointing towards that page aren’t recognized by Google in the search console (when looking at the links report). My question is - if we 301 redirect the duplicate page towards the one that Google has selected as canonical, will the link juice be passed to the new page? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Lewald10 -
Link Juice
Do you guys think having a guest post close to the root domain has more link juice that being in subfolders? example.com/123 vs example.com/nov/123 Both pages have the same amount of internal links and both pages don't have external links
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | arango201 -
Page auto directing to /#/id0 but no 301 in place?
I'm a little perplexed and hope someone technically savvy can help. Wordpress site. Our page: www.curveball-media.co.uk/animation Redirects to: www.curveball-media.co.uk/animation/#/id0 I cannot see any reason for this. No 301s, nothing.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | curveballmedia0 -
Google WMT/search console: Thousands of "Links to your site" even only one back-link from a website.
Hi, I can see in my search console that a website giving thousands of links to my site where hardly only one back-link from one of their page to our page. Why this is happening? Here is screenshot: http://imgur.com/a/VleUf
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vtmoz0 -
OK to change the anchor text of a link?
I have built a link on behalf of a ciient in a long, well-written article on a reputable website that accepts contributor accounts. I therefore control the link. I have since realised that the anchor text of the link could be optimized much better than it currently is (while still only being a partial match). Would I be punished by the algorithm for going in and changing the link? I know it's not 100% "natural," but then we're SEOs, and i don't think it's too implausible that a website owner may go in and do the same... Maybe if I add some text as well, it would make things look more natural?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | zakkyg1 -
Fixed "lower-case/mixed-case" Internal Links causing duplicate- Now What?
Hi, So after a site re-launch, Moz crawled it and reported over 150 duplicate content errors. It was determined that it was because of incorrect uses of capitalization in internal links. Using screaming frog, I found all (500+) internal links and fixed them to match the actual URL. Now the site is100% consistent across the board as best I can tell. I am unsure what to do next though. We launched the site with all the internal link errors, and now many of the pages that are indexed and ranked are with the incorrect URL form. Some have said to use a canonical tag. But how can I use a canonical tag on a page doesn't even exist? Same thing with 301. Can I redirect /examplepage to /ExamplePage if only /ExamplePage actually exists? I would really appreciate some advice on what to do. After I fixed the internal links, I waited a week and Moz crawled the site again and reported all the same errors, and then even more. All capitalization. Seems like it's a mess. After I did another Screaming Frog crawl, it showed no duplicates, so I know I was successful in fixing the internals. Help!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | yogitrout10 -
Bad links
Well just set up SEO Moz to find out someone thought it funny to build a load of links to our site http://bluetea.com.au/ with the anchor txt "Buy Cocks" .... PLEASE PLEASE let me know how much I should worry about this and how can I get rid of it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Intrested0 -
Image Alt tags--always include the targeted keyword?
Question for all the SEO's out there. Do you always include your target keyword in the image alt tag? For example, if you had an article on osteoarthritis, and you included a photo of an old man, would you put "old man on a bench" or "old man suffering from osteoarthritis" -- even though you have no idea if the old man suffers from osteoarthritis?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0