Unnatural Link Warning No Longer Showing in GWT?
-
Hi,
We recently took on a new client that had been hit by the recent Google updates. After having a really good look at their analytics and their link profile it looked like they had been hit with over-optimisation of anchor text.
Over the last month or so we have been working to remove a pile of links that contain their main keyword starting with the easiest to remove and the lowest quality. At the same time we have been building links using sematic keywords and junk anchor text in a bid to dilute the ration of main anchor text within their profile.
We have a timetable of tasks drawn-up which we are working through, at the end of the timetable when all tasks were complete we planned to write a very nice reconsideration request to Mr Google.
I have logged in to Google Webmaster Tools this morning and I have noticed that the 'Unnatural Links' notice has been removed from that domain.
Does anyone know if this signifies anything? We haven't sent a reconsideration request to google yet.
Thanks.
Ade. -
Hi Cyrus,
The GWT account belongs to the client, I just checked with them and they say that they are 'Not Sure' if they deleted the message or not which suggests that they possibly may have. Overnight there has been no upwards movement in rankings.
Back to the original plan I think, we will finish all of the tabled tasks before submitting a reconsideration request. The link profile still looks a bit suspect to us and I am sure that Google aren't going to be any less critical.
Thanks for your reply.
Ade.
-
Another possibility, does more than one person have access to the Google Webmaster Tools account? If so, it's possible another user deleted the message.
If you have planned on cleaning up your links anyway, I don't see the harm of submitting the reconsideration request (unless you are notifying Google of paid links they haven't caught yet) Usually Google will respond with a message that will either confirm there is no manual penalty on your site, or that they are still seeing unnatural links that hurt you.
There's been a lot of discussion lately about whether webmasters should respond to every unnatural link warning in GWT, or simply ignore them. Those that have submitted reconsideration request often go though massive efforts to reach resolution.
The big question is - have your rankings/traffic improved? This might indicate any possible penalty has been removed, or that Google now considers your backlink profile more clean - or at least good enough not to trigger any automatic messages.
-
OSE is not 'live' data...it's archived data. What you are seeing is the web as it (mostly) was as of the beginning of May. Next update scheduled for May 29.
-
Hey!
Yes, it signifies that now you don't have that much of unnatural links, but it really doesn't mean that you now don't need to apply for re-consideration.
Google keeps on checking/ updating your link profile, so that message was flashing till the moment Google could see those links but now, when you have removed those links it has disappeared automatically. You still shall need to request for re-consideration.
You please proceed as per your plan and ignore the rest of the things, you are going just great.
-
I actually have a similar question. So I also have changed all "unnatural links" to the Brand name of my client. However, when I run an OpenSiteExplorer backlink report, all of these links that have been changed are still showing up? I do I get Google to crawl these other websites so that the current backlinks are accurately portrayed in the report - and by Google?
Thanks
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
-
Internal no follow links
I have just discovered that the WordPress theme I have been using for some time has no follow internal links on the blog. Simply put each post has an image and text link plus a 'read more'. The Read more is a no-follow which is also on my homepage. The developer is saying duplicate follow links are worse than an internal no follow. What is your opinion on this? Should I spend time removing the no follow?
Technical SEO | | Libra_Photographic0 -
Link Spam from Competitor Help
A clients link profile is recently getting lots of spam links related to "abortion pills" and "does my husband cheat" I found a few of the sites that link, and it appears that there is some malicious code on the site injecting links at the top of the site. http://www.med-reporter.at/index.asp?men=Gesundheit&submen=Produkte&artid=1587&kategorie=&blockzl=3 Can anyone look at the link above and tell me what network or software is creating these links?
Technical SEO | | webbroi0 -
We have 302 redirect links on our forum that point to individual posts. Should we add a rel="nofollow" to these links?
Moz is showing us that we have a HUGE amount of 302 redirects. These are coming from our community forum. Forum URL: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/ Example thread URL: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/viewthread/322/ Example URL that points to a specific reply: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/viewreply/1582/ The above link 302 redirects to this URL: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/viewthread/322/#1582 My two questions would be: Do you think we should we add rel=nofollow to the specific reply URLs? If possible, should we make those redirects 301 vs. 302? Screencast attached. nofollow_302.mp4
Technical SEO | | Bjork1 -
Tags showing up in Google
Yesterday a user pointed out to me that Tags were being indexed in Google search results and that was not a good idea. I went into my Yoast settings and checked the "nofollow, index" in my Taxanomies, but when checking the source code for no follow, I found nothing. So instead, I went into the robot.txt and disallowed /tag/ Is that ok? or is that a bad idea? The site is The Tech Block for anyone interested in looking.
Technical SEO | | ttb0 -
Why is this url showing as "not crawled" on opensiteexplorer, but still showing up in Google's index?
The below url is showing up as "not crawled" on opensitexplorer.com, but when you google the title tag "Joel Roberts, Our Family Doctors - Doctor in Clearwater, FL" it is showing up in the Google index. Can you explain why this is happening? Thank you http://doctor.webmd.com/physician_finder/profile.aspx?sponsor=core&pid=14ef09dd-e216-4369-99d3-460aa3c4f1ce
Technical SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Which version of pages should I build links to?
I'm working on the site www.qualityauditor.co.uk which is built in Moonfruit. Moonfruit renders pages in Flash. Not ideal, I know, but it also automatically produces an HTML version of every page for those without Flash, Javascript and search engines. This HTML version is fairly well optimised for search engines, but sits on different URLs. For example, the page you're likely to see if browsing the site is at http://www.qualityauditor.co.uk/#/iso-9001-lead-auditor-course/4528742734 However, if you turn Javascript off you can see the HTML version of the page here <cite>http://www.qualityauditor.co.uk/page/4528742734</cite> Mostly, it's the last version of the URL which appears in the Google search results for a relevant query. But not always. Plus, in Google Webmaster Tools fetching as Googlebot only shows page content for the first version of the URL. For the second version it returns HTTP status code and a 302 redirect to the first version. I have two questions, really: Will these two versions of the page cause my duplicate content issues? I suspect not as the first version renders only in Flash. But will Google think the 302 redirect for people is cloaking? Which version of the URL should I be pointing new links to (bearing in mind the 302 redirect which doesn't pass link juice). The URL's which I see in my browser and which Google likes the look at when I 'fetch as Googlebot'. Or those Google shows in the search results? Thanks folks, much appreciated! Eamon
Technical SEO | | driftnetmedia0 -
External Sitewide Links and SEO
I have one big question about the potential SEO value -- and possibly also dangers? -- of "followed" external sitewide links. Examples of these would be: a link to your site from another site's footer a blogroll link a link to your site from another site's global navigation Aside from the link's position in the HTML file (the higher the better, presumably), are these links essentially the same from an SEO point of view or different (and how)? There used to be an influential view out there that the link juice value of a sitewide link was the same as that of a single link (presumably from the linking site's home page), even though a sitewide link may in fact result a huge number individual links. Is this true or false? What is the math here? Should one worry about having "too many" sitewide links, in the sense that this may raise red flags by way of the algo? I talked to someone a few months ago (before the recent algo updates) who believed that he had got a minus 10 penalty or whatever it was for getting too many sitewide links We offer website design and development as well as SEO, and we put a keyworded link to ourselves in the footer. I think this is a fairly common practice. Is this a good or bad idea SEO-wise? One opinion is that for external sitewide footer links, you should best have a dofollow link on the home page, but nofollow it on all other pages. What is your opinion about that? Is there anything else that is distinct, interesting or important about sitewide links' SEO value and pitfalls? Thank you!
Technical SEO | | Philip-SEO1