Site Interlinking - footer and menu - whether to nofollow/remove
-
Hello,
We've got a bunch of interlinking going on between the following sites:
nlpca(dot)com
thewealthymind(dot)com
shop.nlpca(dot)com
dynamicspinrelease(dot)com
These are all owned and operated by the same people. Some linking is in the footer and some is in the menu or header.
Could you take a look and tell me which interlinks you'd recommend nofollowing and which you'd recommend deleting entirely? We can always place a home page single link to replace those sitewides we delete or nofollow.
I'm thinking we should delete everything in the footers and nofollow those in the menu or headers, placing a single dofollow link on the home page when deleting/nofollowing a sitewide link.
-
That's an excellent idea. I will take a look and talk to the owners. What tool(s) do you recommend. Will OSE do it?
-
Maybe Google sees them as suspicious because they are international sites and also use keyword rich anchor text across hundreds of pages. They stand out more to me than your internal links. It may be worth it to contact them and get the links changed to your brand name.
-
Those are valid sites in our same niche, they're just international.
Could links like those be causing problems because of anchor text?
-
Your internal linking doesn't seem very spammy to me, but I am seeing a lot of external sitewide links from foreign language sites that do use anchor text rich links:
-
We have dropped off the chart for our main keyword "NLP".
I'm wondering if any of this interlinking has anything to do with that. Other terms, like "NLP Training" are performing OK.
-
It also might be a good idea for you to place these links in context in the footer.
"This site is in association with...."
Also, if the sites are on the same IP address or C block then Google will probably figure out that there is a real relationship between the sites and the people who run them.
Also, put those links in your Google+ profile. That's another good way to give Google the signal that there is a relationship. If you're not trying to manipulate or deceive anyone or Googlebot you shouldn't have much to worry about.
-
The links in the footer that use exact keyword anchor text could be potentially problematic. Have you seen a drop in ranking for those keywords? If you haven't, I would recommend leaving it alone as it doesn't look particularly spammy. I would also advise against nofollowing links to your sites. If they're good sites and you trust them, then leave them be (again, unless you've been penalized or are receiving notices in GWT).
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
-
Manual Removal Request Versus Automated Request to Remove Bad Links
Our site has several hundred toxic links. We would prefer that the webmaster remove them rather than submitting a disavow file to Google. Are we better off writing web masters over and over again to get the links removed? If someone is monitoring the removal and keeps writing the web masters will this ultimately get better results than using some automated program like LinkDetox to process the requests? Or is this the type of request that will be ignored no matter what we do and how we ask? I am willing to invest in the manual labor, but only if there is some chance of a favorable outcome. Does anyone have experience with this? Basically how to get the highest compliance rate for link removal requests? Thanks, Alan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan11 -
Mobile Site Annotations
Our company has a complex mobile situation, and I'm trying to figure out the best way to implement bidirectional annotations and a mobile sitemap. Our mobile presence consists of three different "types" of mobile pages: Most of our mobile pages are mobile-specific "m." pages where the URL is completely controlled via dynamic parameter paths, rather than static mobile URLs (because of the mobile template we're using). For example: http://m.example.com/?original_path=/directory/subdirectory. We have created vanity 301 redirects for the majority of these pages, that look like http://m.example.com/product that simply redirect to the previous URL. Six one-off mobile pages that do have a static mobile URL, but are separate from the m. site above. These URLs look like http://www.example.com/product.mobile.html Two responsively designed pages with a single URL for both mobile and desktop. My questions are as follows: Mobile sitemap: Should I include all three types of mobile pages in my mobile sitemap? Should I include all the individual dynamic parameter m. URLs like http://m.example.com/?original_path=/directory/subdirectory in the sitemap, or is that against Google's recommendations? Bidirectional Annotations: We are unable to add the rel="canonical" tag to the m. URLs mentioned in section #1 above because we cannot add dynamic tags to the header of the mobile template. We can, however, add them to the .mobile.html pages. For the rel="alternate" tags on the desktop versions, though, is it correct to use the dynamic parameter URLs like http://m.example.com/?original_path=/directory/subdirectory as the mobile version target for the rel="alternate" tag? My initial thought is no, since they're dynamic parameter URLs. Is there even any benefit to doing this if we can't add the bidirectional rel="canonical" on those same m. dynamic URLs? I'd be immensely grateful for any advice! Thank you so much!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Critical_Mass0 -
Sideways interlinking in silos
I've been looking at a lot of Silo illustrations and reading a lot on the optimal silo structure lately. In many of the illustrations I see the Silos are all linking down or up in the structure, but not much sidelong action. But I read about how you are supposed to have a "mini sitemap" on each page in the silo that links to every other page in the silo. Is this really a good idea? Seems to me you would only want to link up & down in the structure, or at most have links to the "next" & "previous" parts of the silo (sideways). Having all those links on a page would just dilute the link juice wouldn't it? I hardly ever see illustrations for linking sideways between pages in a silo, yet there seems to be a lot of talk about it, which is correct?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DownPour0 -
Redirecting site from html/php to wordpress
I've never come across this and haven't been able to really find anything that explains it very well. I want to get opinions before we make a definitive decision. Here's the scenario... I am working on a site that was built in HTML/PHP and some of the pages are ranking pretty well. (some page 1, but not number 1) We are going to start using the Wordpress platform by year's end. The pages that were built in html have been built a little spammy but they still rank. I just think they are keyword stuffed a little and not very "reader friendly" (I think the last person was spinning content). So, we've built completely new content on our new pages and we've commissioned really good content writers for them. I will be handling the on-page SEO going forward so I know what to do there. My questions are this.... Should I 301 the old pages to the new pages with the better content? (old pages have the .html or .php extensions so www.example.com/keyword.php will become www.example.com/keyword-keyword Is there any negative side to doing this since the content will be completely different then the old pages that are being 301 from. (Keywords are pretty much staying the same with the exception of minor variations. ie, www.example.com/red-cashmere-sweater.php to www.example.com/cashmere-sweater) I ask this because I've moved sites before where I've just changed the location of the same content. I've never done it where the content is changing and so is the URL extension. Thank you in advance for your help and guidance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DarinPirkey0 -
Linking to bad sites
Hi, I just have a quick question. Is it very negative to link to "bad" sites, such as online pharmacies, dating, adult sites, that sort of stuff? How much does linking to a "bad" site negatively affect a "good" site? Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | salvyy0 -
A Site in Flash to Optimize
Hello, I have to understand if this site www.spacemilanmodels.com.pt can be optimize since the entire website is in flash wich is not good for optimizacion. What do you guys suggest? Recommendations? Is it possible only with link-building? Tks for the help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PedroM0 -
Building a mobile site.
We are building a mobile site that will be launching in another month. I’m concerned that the mobile site will start catabolizing our traditional rankings. Is there a way to keep this from happening? Should we utilize the cross domain canonical tag and point back to the traditional site URLs?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEO-Team0