Will a Google manual action affect all new links, too?
-
I have had a Google manual action (Unnatural links to your site; affects: all) that was spurred on by a PRWeb press release where publishers took it upon themselves to remove the embedded "nofollow" tags on links. I have been spending the past few weeks cleaning things up and have submitted a second pass at a reconsideration request. In the meantime, I have been creating new content, boosting social activity, guest blogging and working with other publishers to generate more natural inbound links.
My question is this: knowing that this manual action affects "all," are the new links that I am building being negatively tainted as well? When the penalty is lifted, will they regain their strength? Is there any hope of my rankings improving while the penalty is in effect?
-
Hi Maria
What do you mean by "Low quality directory made just for the purpose of gaining a link" -- Is there an issue with linking back from directories to your site?
Does this apply to submitting my website to social bookmark websites using a specific anchor text that am optimizing for?
Thanks
James
-
Hi Michael,
"You are correct that it wasn't a single press release but 3-4 that all had the same circumstances."
It's quite unlikely that a few press releases are the sole cause of your penalty, although it is possible. But I think you may have more links to clean up. Here are two examples:
http://healthmad.com/health/when-las-vegas-gets-the-best-of-you-6-ways-to-get-back-on-your-feet-in-sin-city/ - self made article
http://www.cannylink.com/healthhospitaldirectories.htm - Low quality directory made just for the purpose of gaining a link
-
Interesting. I hadn't seen these links before and have never purchased links. I'll download the list from open site explorer and review and disavow these and similar. Thanks for pointing these out!
-
Agreed. Ordinarily it wouldn't matter, but once subject to manual review they would be.
-
Looking in Open Site Explorer, I'm seeing several suspicious links in the report. These are links from sites that have nothing to do with medicine whatsoever, all with targeted keywords in the anchor text. When I click to view the page and look for the actual links, I'm not seeing anything. So, it seems the links are no longer there.
If the report from Open Site Explorer is correct, it looks to me like someone was purchasing links and has now removed them. Did you purchase links?
Some of the suspicious links are:
- afghan-network.net/Bookshop/persian-books.html
- learnscratch.org/resources/why-learn-scratch
- www.tiltshift.com/
If these links are also in Google's link profile, I could see why the site is penalized.
-
I suspect you missed some and Google are being well... Google.
Ahrefs do a 7 day money back guarantee. You can even find a 50% off coupon around for the first month. Some people will even need to check majestic as well.
No one site will get all the links unfortunately.
-
Agreed. But given that I had those removed in quick order and it has been several weeks since they have considerably dropped, any reason why they wouldn't have removed the manual action. I am essentially back to a pre-PRWeb profile.
-
Just looking a bit more, but you could have been flagged for manual checking because from around the beginning of August you had a huge spike of links. Based on Matt Cutts previous statements about Prweb, they would have seen it as possibly spammy.
From August you went up to nearly 125 referring domains, before dropping back down to 36 now. Prior to PRweb, you were at around 30 referring domains. I suspect this spike is what caused a manual review.
-
I don't know if that makes me feel better or not, but you basically confirmed my thoughts. I may do what you indicate and disavow everything, but I am going try one more time and cut a lot more deeply in actual link removal first.
Meanwhile, of course, I am top 5 for all my major terms in Bing and Yahoo. Joy!
Thanks
-
I have to say on my first quick look I cannot determine why you would have got a manual penalty. Your link profile does not look spammy, and I wonder if google are specifically targeting sites that use PRweb.
With Ahref's I only see 77 dofollow backlinks, and to be honest you could probably be very brutal when it comes to dissavowing these links and starting again.
It is strange that the two methods of link building (prweb, and infographics) are two methods that Matt Cutts has recently (in the last few months) said that should be nofollow links.
But I cannot give anything definitive based on what I am seeing.
-
I disavowed in the same day I submitted a reconsideration request, but I did also include it in my documentation. I also included multiple emails to publishers and contact form submissions, as recommended to me.
-
Sure. http://www.urgentcarelocations.com
I just added the footer links to each state profile this week and see how those could be considered "spammy." They weren't supposed to be implemented with "urgent care" after every one of them. I doubt that is an issue here, however, given that they keep referring to unnatural links.
-
Sometimes it takes a little while for the disavow tool to remove links. So, you may need to give it some time if you just did that. You can always include the disavow request in the documents for your reconsideration request. Beyond that, I'd take a closer look at your other links to see if there are other links causing an issue.
-
Thinking about it Kurt, I have to agree that it is odd that a manual penalty has arisen from this. Michael, if you would like to share a link to your site, perhaps we can have a look and see if there is something obvious happening.
-
I have disavowed the URLs now. The major offender was streetinsider.com. I was able to remove URLs on two other offending publisher sites. Even with the disavow, however, Google didn't remove the manual action. Going to try out removeem.com to see if their tools/service can assist.
-
Bummer about the rejection. You said that you were having trouble getting the press releases removed (and I assume the links), have you disavowed those links?
-
Thanks Kurt. You are correct that it wasn't a single press release but 3-4 that all had the same circumstances. In fact, it was the same 2-3 publishers that removed the nofollow tags. The real crummy thing is that those publishers refuse to remove the links so I am having to resort to disavowing them.
While I have been working through a couple of reconsideration requests, I have built some pretty strong links, but Google seems to have capped me at page 5.
I actually got a negative response back from Google this morning following my latest reconsideration request. It provided no specifics as it did in the past only that my "Site violates Google's quality guidelines" and references the manual action of "Unnatural links to your site." I'm on round three now. I only have about 300 total inbound links nearly all of which are purely natural or nofollow. What a mess...
-
That stinks that those publishers did that. I'm a little suspicious that this would happen from a single press release. Usually, it takes Google a bit more than that to trip a manual action. Are you sure there aren't other links, maybe other press releases, that are suspicious? I only ask because Google usually responds to a pattern of manipulation, not a single action.
In regards to your actual question, natural links typically aren't "tainted" by a previous penalty. In fact it would probably work in the exact opposite way. With manual actions Google thinks that you are trying to manipulate them. In order to get the manual action removed, Google is looking for you to clean up the old links, apologize, and demonstrate that you have changed your ways. So, getting new links that are completely natural demonstrates that you have changed your ways.
Kurt Steinbrueck
OurChurch.Com -
Yes. The publisher (streetinsider.com, amongst others) are technically violating PRWeb's copyright terms as they are altering the content prior to publishing. PRWeb isn't very happy, but has been unsuccessful at getting the articles removed (which isn't helping my reconsideration request).
-
Ditto. I saw a competitor use PRweb, and was tempted. However, I felt the potential for spammy links not the direction I wanted my SEO to go in.
This just reinforces the issue.
-
manual action ... that was spurred on by a PRWeb press release where publishers took it upon themselves to remove the embedded "nofollow" tags on links.
Seriously? I've been thinking about trying PRWeb for product announcements but this makes me rethink that strategy.
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
-
Our new site will be using static site generator which is supposed to be better for SEO?
Hi folks, Our dev team is planning on building our new marketing webpages on SSG or Static Site Generator(we are stepping away from SSR). Based on my research this is something that can help our SEO in particular for site speed (our site has a poor score).
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TyEl
Are there any challenges or concerns I should be aware regarding this direction? If so what are they and how can this be addressed? Thanks0 -
How will canonicalizing an https page affect the SERP-ranked http version of that page?
Hey guys, Until recently, my site has been serving traffic over both http and https depending on the user request. Because I only want to serve traffic over https, I've begun redirecting http traffic to https. Reviewing my SEO performance in Moz, I see that for some search terms, an http page shows up on the SERP, and for other search terms, an https page shows. (There aren't really any duplicate pages, just the same pages being served on either http or https.) My question is about canonical tags in this context. Suppose I canonicalize the https version of a page which is already ranked on the SERP as http. Will the link juice from the SERP-ranked http version of that page immediately flow to the now-canonical https version? Will the https version of the page immediately replace the http version on the SERP, with the same ranking? Thank you for your time!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JGRLLC0 -
Google Manual Penalty - Unnatural Links FROM My Site - Where?
Hi Mozzers, I've just received a manual penalty for one of my websites. The penalty is for 'unnatural links from my site which I find disturbing because I can't see that anything really wrong with it. The website is www.lighting-tips.co.uk - its a pretty new blog (only 6-7 posts) and whilst I've allowed guest posting I'm being very careful that the content is relevant and good quality. I'm only allowing 1 - 2 links and very few with proper anchor text so I'm wondering what has been done so wrong that I'm getting this manual penalty? Am I missing something here? Thanks in advance. Aaron
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AaronGro0 -
How hard would it be to take a well-linked site, completely change the subject matter & still retain link authority?
So, this would be taking a domain with a domain authority of 50 (200 root domains, 3500 total links) and, for fictitious example, going from a subject matter like "Online Deals" to "The History Of Dentistry"... just totally unrelated new subject for the old/re-purposed domain. The old content goes away entirely. The domain name itself is a super vague .com name and has no exact match to anything either way. I'm wondering, if the DNS changed to different servers, it went from 1000 pages to a blog, ownership/contacts stayed the same, the missing pages were 301'd to the homepage, how would that fare in Google for the new homepage focus and over what time frame? Assume the new terms are a reasonable match to the old domain authority and compete U.S.-wide... not local or international. Bonus points for answers from folks who have actually done this. Thanks... Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
What To Do With Too Many Links?
We have four pages that have over 100 links (danger, danger from what I gather), but they're not spammy footer links. They are FAQ videos for our four main areas of practice. Does that make a difference? If not, should I just take half the questions on each page and make four additional pages? That strikes me as a worse UX, but I don't want to get penalized either. Thanks, Ruben
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Google WMT Turning 1 Link into 4,000+ Links
We operate 2 ecommerce sites. The About Us page of our main site links to the homepage of our second site. It's been this way since the second site launched about 5 years ago. The sites sell completely different products and aren't related besides both being owned by us. In Webmaster Tools for site 2, it's picking up ~4,100 links coming to the home page from site 1. But we only link to the home page 1 time in the entire site and that's from the About Us page. I've used Screaming Frog, IT has looked at source, JavaScript, etc., and we're stumped. It doesn't look like WMT has a function to show you on what pages of a domain it finds the links and we're not seeing anything by checking the site itself. Does anyone have experience with a situation like this? Anyone know an easy way to find exactly where Google sees these links coming from?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingof50 -
Site wide footer links vs. single link for websites we design
I’ve been running a web design business for the past 5 years, 90% or more of the websites we build have a “web design by” link in the footer which links back to us using just our brand name or the full “web design by brand name” anchor text. I’m fully aware that site-wide footer links arent doing me much good in terms of SEO, but what Im curious to know is could they be hurting me? More specifically I’m wondering if I should do anything about the existing links or change my ways for all new projects, currently we’re still rolling them out with the site-wide footer links. I know that all other things being equal (1 link from 10 domains > 10 links from 1 domain) but is (1 link from 10 domains > 100 links from 10 domains)? I’ve got a lot of branded anchor text, which balances out my exact match and partial match keyword anchors from other link building nicely. Another thing to consider is that we host many of our clients which means there are quite a few on the same server with a shared IP. Should I? 1.) Go back into as many of the sites as I can and remove the link from all pages except the home page or a decent PA sub page- keeping a single link from the domain. 2.) Leave all the old stuff alone but start using the single link method on new sites. 3.) Scratch the site credit and just insert an exact-match anchor link in the body of the home page and hide with with CSS like my top competitor seems to be doing quite successfully. (kidding of course.... but my competitor really is doing this.)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nbeske0 -
Posting new PDF. How to Keep Google Happy?
Posting new PDF. Is there anything beyond maintaining the PDF metadata, filename and URL I need to do to keep its current top ten search ranking on Google for a specific generic noun which it currently ranks for? Many thanks ahead of time for your help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nabarro0