Matt Cutts or No Action Is Required
-
Here's the deal. I got a message in the Manual Action section in GWT:
Unnatural links to your site—impacts links
On one hand, Matt Says that I need to do my best to take down links on sites that Google hinted me about (I've got a sample link) and it that does not work, I can apply the Disavow tool. Matt says it on this page in his video:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604772?ctx=MAC
On the other hand, if you take a look at the text on the same page, it says that I'm not supposed to do anything at all if I got this message. Here's the quote:
"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. "
I am not sure why I need to apply the Disavow tool if, " the links already won't count in ranking".
-
Google tends to downplay the existence of negative SEO, because: (1) frankly, it makes them look bad, and (2) people tend to over-estimate how common it is (we all like to blame the competition). In most cases, if Google thinks a link is malicious and being created by a third-party to harm you, they'll just devalue it.
The problem is that Google is far from perfect at detecting who created a link. If they had that down, they'd be a lot better at dealing with spam. So, I wouldn't trust them to simply figure it out. If a link or linking domain is clearly bad, and especially if you've suffered a penalty, be proactive.
The very fact that Google is warning you in Webmaster Tools suggests that they haven't simply devalued these links. They think that the links are suspect.
-
Thanks Marie and good addition.
-
I like Kurt's answer.
In some cases a partial match penalty only affects say, one page of your site. So, say you were a news site and someone wanted to boost up a particularly favorable article about themselves and they built spammy links to just that one article. You don't need to do anything about those links. The "penalty" just means that that page is not going to rank well.
But, if you've hired an SEO or done SEO on your own and know you have unnatural links then really you should clean it up. In some cases a site can be penalized for one or more keywords and when the warning is lifted you can rank better for those keywords. But, in many cases, when the work is done to remove the bad links and the warning gets lifted there is no immediate change in rankings. However, if you have enough bad links to warrant a manual warning, you can be fairly certain that the Penguin algorithm either is, or is going to be, affecting your site. For many sites once the work is done to remove the manual warning and then Penguin refreshes, they see a jump up. You're not going to see a jump to prior levels though because those were gained on the power of unnatural links.
If you know you've got unnatural links and you do nothing to remove them you'll likely always have an anchor pulling down your rankings and even if you get new links you're not likely to see much improvement.
-
Vince,
There are different kinds of manual action that Google can take on a site. In some cases, it's necessary to clean up the offending links and in others it's not. It's not quite as black and white, however, as to which manual actions do not require clean up. I've seen some sites that received the same message you did where there was no noticeable effect on their rankings. For them, there really wasn't any need to do anything. Other sites, however, there was a noticeable effect on their rankings and it appeared that the manual action Google had taken was not just to ignore the offending links, but Google was actually penalizing the rankings of sites for certain keywords. For those sites, it was advisable to clean up the bad links.
So, if your rankings have been effected, then go ahead and clean up the links. If not, it up to you, but I'd agree with Patrick that it's probably still a good idea anyway.
Lastly, note that Google's examples may not be the only type of link that is causing an issue. They are just a couple of examples. When you request reconsideration, you may find that Google denies it and gives different examples as to why. Just a heads up that the issue may be bigger than you think.
Good luck.
Kurt Steinbrueck
OurChurch.Com -
Vince,
Go with the Disavow for that link and any links which could be misconstrued as spammy. Even though GWT is telling you not to take action, you should do it anyways as it can't hurt to have that link removed from your profile.
Alternatively, you could message/email the specific site owners or managers to request the link to be taken down. It may take a while for this though for them to respond and schedule that task. Keep that in mind also.
Hope this helps! - Patrick
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
-
Keywords used to land on specific page?
Hi all, Does anyone know if there's anywhere where I can see what keywords are used in search engines to land on a specific page? I have access to the Google Analytics account and linked it to Moz as a campaign, but I can't find this data. I'm curious about this because a very uncommon word is used in a page title for a page I try to optimize. It's the Dutch translation of 'malicious'. And now I wonder if it's better to switch to a word that's used more often. Or if it's better to 'win the battle' on this (probably) rarely used word. I've used Google trends to see how many people use it, but it says there's not enough data to show the interest over time.
On-Page Optimization | | RaoulWB0 -
Adding CTAs in Meta Descriptions
Whats peoples opinions about putting Call To Cations CTAs in Meta Descriptions, and does this ever occur a Google penalty, as it can sometimes look a bit clickbait. For example I am looking at a site which currently has this meta description Meta Description: For more information on our sustainable, natural office furniture, click here to get in contact. Is this kind of description ranking unfriendly, Ive seen them used a lot but IM not a big fan of this myself. Any thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | Donsimong1 -
Blog On Company Website
I have a huge blog which is connected to a company website. This blog is full with dead links and spam comments. Is it worth to clean up? The website itself ranks very well in search engines. I'm amazed with all de spam that it still ranks. Do you think by removing all de dead links and spam the site will improve ranking in search results?
On-Page Optimization | | bill3690 -
Google is showing erroneous results on SERPs page
Hello, All, In April, two months ago, we caught a hack on a client's website. It created about 40 pages in what looked to be a black hat link tactic. We removed the pages, resubmitted the sitemap.xml (it reprocessed) and ran it through screaming frog to confirm all the pages were gone, but the forty pages still show up in the search results for a site search. We have both the www. and non www. version of sites claimed and set a preference. Nothing is awry with the robots.text. We're not really sure what to do to resolve it. We asked Google to recrawl (fetch) the site. I'm not sure what's going on with it. The website's name is fortisitsolutions.com The site search bringing up the pages from the hack is below. site:www.fortisitsolutions.com Any ideas?
On-Page Optimization | | Cazarin-Interactive0 -
Is my domain holding me back in the SERPS?
Even after a good year or so, my site intensivedrivingschoolmiltonkeynes.co.uk does not rank in the top 10 (google.co.uk) for "Intensive Driving School Milton Keynes", and is nowhere for "Driving School Milton Keynes". Do you think the domain name is being penalised, or do you think there are other factors that contribute to the poor performance.
On-Page Optimization | | Buffalo-Mobile1 -
Help required to get the right landing page ranking
Hi, I've taken on a new ski client who wants to rank on page 1 on google.co.uk for [ski instructor courses]. When I first put that keyword into Moz rank tracker the landing page http://www.snowrehab.com/ski-instructor-courses/revelstoke-12-week-csia-level-1-&-2.html came up and it was ~ #30 Instead we wanted http://www.snowrehab.com/ski-instructor-courses to rank and I've optimised the copy (perhaps over optimised?) and have been redirecting & building links to that page. When I check in the SERPs (as unpersonalised as I can get) that new page appears to be ranking ~ 20 and the old page is nowhere to be seen. So far so good. However in the rank tracker Moz says the new page (exact URL) isn't ranking (not in top 50) and that when I put in 'entire subdomain' that the old page still comes up (and has improved to ~ 25). Any help / advice really appreciated! I want to prove to the client the rankings have improved / work I've been doing has helped!
On-Page Optimization | | richardpatey0 -
Hey guys! I was looking at adding the H1 tag lower on the page than the H2 tag because I want the top bit to be a call to action. Is this proper practice?
Hey guys! I was looking at adding the H1 tag lower on the page than the H2 tag because I want the top bit to be a call to action. Is this proper practice?
On-Page Optimization | | Web3Marketing870 -
Word count requirement
The on page optimization tool recommends a minimum word count of 50. Given the panda update, what word count would you recommend? Would that count vary if a photo appeared on the page, too?
On-Page Optimization | | thappe0