Getting Rid Of Spammy 301 Links From An Old Site
-
A relatively new site I'm working on has been hit really hard by Panda, due to over optimization of 301 external links which include exact keyword phrases, from an old site. Prior to the Panda update, all of these 301 redirects worked like a charm, but now all of these 301's from the old url are killing the new site, because all the hyper-text links include exact keyword matches. A couple weeks ago, I took the old site completely down, and removed the htaccess file, removing the 301's and in effect breaking all of these bad links. Consequently, if one were to type this old url, you'd be directed to the domain registrar, and not redirected to the new site. My hope is to eliminate most of the bad links, that are mostly on spammy sites, that aren't worth linking to. My thought is these links would eventually disappear from G.
My concern is that this might not work, because G won't re-index these links, because once they're indexed by G, they'll be there forever. My fear is causing me to conclude I should hedge my bets, and just disavow these sites using the disavow tool in WMT. IMO, the disavow tool is an action of last resort, because I don't want to call attention to myself, since this site doesn't have a manual penalty inflected on it. Any opinions or advise would be greatly appreciated.
-
A 401 is 'unauthorized' - is that the code it would produce, or a different error (or a typo!)?
That could work in theory - I'd be a bit hesitant about the extra step involved in 301ing to get to an error page on a different site. In general, the fewer steps you make Google go through, the better. This method would mean that your new site should not be "credited" with the bad links, however.
-
Matt-Antonio suggested I send the 301's to a different site, which I thought was very provocative, though a bit risky. Your suggestion of re-writing the 301 so it points to a non-existent page on the new site creating a 404, should work as well. Now if I combine both of your suggestions,...why not just send the 301's on the old site, to a non-existing page on the old site, letting the old site produce the 404?
-
I understand your concern, and in that light I would file the disavowal, but even very poor-quality, over-optimised links that point to your domain should not incur a penalty if the pages they link to are 404s or 410s. All the same, I obviously can't guarantee this so the disavowal would be a good move.
-
Thanks for the 404 advise, but I do think the drop is ranking is due to an automatic algorithm penalty that's the result of too many external links the have exact keyword matches to areas this site is competing in. For example the ratio "Free White Widgets" on external links, to the actual url and in site links is tripping this automatic penalty. By breaking these links, I how hope G will un-index, thus lowering the ratio.
-
Very provocative idea, Matt-Antonino, and that's certainly a creative option. What about if I just pinged all the old 301 links to the old url?
-
Hi there,
I'm going to disagree that this is a Panda issue unless those links + 301s were creating duplication, loops etc. on your site. If I'm reading this correctly, your problem is links from bad sites pointing to your site, albeit through 301 redirects - Panda deals with on-site issues and Penguin / manual penalties with off-site. Is this the issue, or are there on-site issues that this has created? Keep in mind that a drop in rankings that coincides with a Panda update isn't necessarily because of the Panda update.
As far as removing the effects of the bad links goes, sending bad-quality inbound links to 404 or 410 pages should remove them from consideration as far as Google's view of your backlink profile is concerned. That is, an inbound link pointing to yoursite.com/page.html where /page.html returns a 404 or 410 should ensure that that link doesn't hurt you. If, however, you are still concerned, go ahead and submit a disavow file with these links included.
-
I'm going to suggest something a bit unusual but I like to think outside the box.
-
Put the 301s back in place - but to another site.
-
Get those 301s indexed and
-
ping the crap out of them (try pingfarm.com) and then once they go to the new site (and google sees that) they'll be off the good site.
At that point you can do whatever with the 301s - let them go. Just point them to a random tumblr site or something for now.
-
-
You have 3 options for the website.
-
Do nothing and hope links go away.
-
Keep the 301s in place.
-
Disavow them.
You know Google has already spotted your site and hit it, so keeping the 301s isn't an option. Doing nothing has unknown results and hasn't worked for you so far. That only leaves one option, unless you want to start from scratch.
I'm of the mindset that Google sees it as cleaning things up. Just because you submit the disavow doesn't mean you created the need for it, so why would Google see it as a bad thing?
-
-
Thanks William. My concern is that too many of the links from the old domain were over optimized and contained too many keywords associated to the field I'm in, and are doing more harm than good. I have mixed filling about the disavow tool at this point because it sound too good to be true. I'm kind of suspicious G would let me choose the link I want to loose, but at the same time allow me to keep the ones I want.
-
If these domains are completely useless to you otherwise, disavowing will help remove the links from your link profile.
Disavow is no longer a last resort, it's part of the job. Sending in a disavow report isn't going to call attention to you: the spammy links and penalty are already doing a good job of that
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
-
Risks of moving a site back to an old domain
Hi Nearly 2 years ago our site was moved from a .co.uk domain to .media. Because this TLD isn't supported for DA, it's hard to measure whether linkbuilding campaigns (for example) are having a positive effect. The old site has a DA of 38 (even after 2 years of inactivity) and the new one is 1, but the new one has better Trust and Citation flow, for example. I'm now investigating whether it's worth moving back to .co.uk and I want to fully understand the risks involved. So far I know of the following potential risks: It's a lot of work so human error is a real risk Could create a redirect loop as the old site has 301 redirects in place to the new one It will take several months for metrics to recover Any thoughts on more risks, how these challenges can be overcome etc will be welcome. Or do I just set fire to the lot and create a new site with yet another 301 redirect from the .media site? What would you do?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AxonnMedia0 -
Old sitemaps after site migration.
Hi, I was wondering if it's safe to remove all the sitemaps from the old site in search console? It's been 3 months since site migration from http://sitea.com (301 redirected) to http://siteb.com. Therefore, can I delete the old sitemap from the http://sitea.com from search console? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ggpaul5620 -
Internal Link Analysis (Site Wide)
Hi i'm currently doing a internal link analysis for one of my clients and want to pull internal link data for the entire website. So i can look at the distribution of internal anchor text and to identify ways in which we can optimize internal linking. I have had a look at screaming frog the trouble is, this data is only exportable one page at a time. Meaning, you can’t export an entire site “In Link” data. The site has 200+ pages so pulling in link data for each page would take quite long! Can anyone recommend anyways or tools which can look at the entire link profile for a website. I have checked OSE but there's not much data because the site is relatively new. Cheers, RM
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MBASydney0 -
Client is paranoid about Google penguin penalty from getting links from a new website they are building
We have a client that is creating a new promotional website that consists of videos, brands and product reviews (SITE B). After a visitor watches a video on SITE B they will be given a "click to purchase" option that will lead them to the original website (SITE A). Our client is paranoid that since all the outgoing links on the new SITE B are going to the original SITE A there might be algorithm penalty (for one website or both). I find this very unlikely and even recommend "no follow" coding for a peace of mind. However are there any resources/links out there that can back up my argument that they will be alright? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VanguardCommunications0 -
Using both dofollow & nofollow links within the same blog site (but different post).
Hi all, I have been actively pursuing bloggers for my site in order to build page rank. My website sells women undergarments that are more on the exotic end. I noticed a large amount of prospective bloggers demand product samples. As already confirm, bloggers that are given "free" samples should use a rel=no follow attribute in their links. Unfortunately this does not build my page rank or transfer links juice. My question is this: is it advisable for them to also blog additional posts and include dofollow links? The idea is for the blogger to use a nofollow when posting about the sample and a regular link for a secondary post at a later time. What are you thoughts concerning this matter?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 90miLLA0 -
Does link equity to a page that is 301'd to a new domain pass juice on?
If we build some quality inbound links to certain pages, that are a later date 301'd to another domain, does any equity or juice get transferred across? Or is the inbound link's value wasted? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjs20100 -
Strange situation - Started over with a new site. WMT showing the links that previously pointed to old site.
I have a client whose site was severely affected by Penguin. A former SEO company had built thousands of horrible anchor texted links on bookmark pages, forums, cheap articles, etc. We decided to start over with a new site rather than try to recover this one. Here is what we did: -We noindexed the old site and blocked search engines via robots.txt -Used the Google URL removal tool to tell it to remove the entire old site from the index -Once the site was completely gone from the index we launched the new site. The new site had the same content as the old other than the home page. We changed most of the info on the home page because it was duplicated in many directory listings. (It's a good site...the content is not overoptimized, but the links pointing to it were bad.) -removed all of the pages from the old site and put up an index page saying essentially, "We've moved" with a nofollowed link to the new site. We've slowly been getting new, good links to the new site. According to ahrefs and majestic SEO we have a handful of new links. OSE has not picked up any as of yet. But, if we go into WMT there are thousands of links pointing to the new site. WMT has picked up the new links and it looks like it has all of the old ones that used to point at the old site despite the fact that there is no redirect. There are no redirects from any pages of the old to the new at all. The new site has a similar name. If the old one was examplekeyword.com, the new one is examplekeywordcity.com. There are redirects from the other TLD's of the same to his (i.e. examplekeywordcity.org, examplekeywordcity.info), etc. but no other redirects exist. The chances that a site previously existed on any of these TLD's is almost none as it is a unique brand name. Can anyone tell me why Google is seeing the links that previously pointed to the old site as now pointing to the new? ADDED: Before I hit the send button I found something interesting. In this article from dejan SEO where someone stole Rand Fishkin's content and ranked for it, they have the following line: "When there are two identical documents on the web, Google will pick the one with higher PageRank and use it in results. It will also forward any links from any perceived ’duplicate’ towards the selected ‘main’ document." This may be what is happening here. And just to complicate things further, it looks like when I set up the new site in GA, the site owner took the GA tracking code and put it on the old page. (The noindexed one that is set up with a nofollowed link to the new one.) I can't see how this could affect things but we're removing it. Confused yet? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarieHaynes0 -
301 or 302 Redirects to Mobile Site
When it's detected that a mobile device is accessing the site it has the ability to redirect from www.example.com to m.example.com. Does it make more sense to employ a 301 or 302 redirect here? Google says a 301 but does not explain why (although usually I stick to "when in doubt, 301") . It seems like a 302 would prevent passing link juice to the mobile site and having mobile-optimized results also showing up in Google's index. What is the preference here?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEOTGT0