Competitor's 'hidden' links harming my site?
-
Hi everyone, I'm new to both Moz & seo, and am attempting to tackle our site's issues after being hit by panda / penguin, so would be grateful for any advice offered.
I bought a website 3 years ago after the previous company that ran it went into administration. Having bought the website, it became apparent that the employees of the previous company had copied the entire site content, and relaunched it with a new look / brand. Over the last 3 years they've rewritten much of the content, but there remains a lot of links from their site back to ours which have had the anchor text stripped out, and point to images on our site which have since been removed, example below...
<a href="http://www.MyCompany.com/catalog/images/filename.pdf" target="<a class="attribute-value">_blank</a>"><strong>strong>a>
What I'm trying to understand is whether the 404 errors being returned by the broken links, and the presence of 'hidden' links on their site, is likely to reflect badly on our site or theirs?
I'm not interested in outing anyone here, and I realise the standard recommendation for these kinds of situations is to write to the company telling them to remove the offending content, but if at all possible I'd prefer to fix our site by improving content & links etc, rather than 'force' them to take action and inadvertently improve their own site's content / rankings.
As I say, all advice gratefully received
-
Thanks Mike, much appreciated!
-
DO NOT just blindly Disavow Links. The tool is really only intended for use when you have received an Unnatural Links warning or you have a massively spammy link profile that you're preemptively taking care of. Disavowing Links improperly can wind up hurting you.
If another site is linking to pages on your site that don't exist then the correct course of action is the 404. You could always try contacting them to tell them about the broken links pointing to your site and ask if they can be fixed or removed them as needed. Ultimately the 404s on your site are not harming you and they are also not benefiting you via any link equity because your page does not exist so there is nothing to pass the equity on to.
If you actually receive a decent level of traffic via those links or if a large number of valuable links are pointing to the 404'd pages, THEN you may want to consider redirecting somewhere else. If the other site is a spammy mess or you have 1000s of crap links pointing to you, then I'd say you might need to do a Disavow. But currently it would seem to me that you could let the pages 404 and get on with your day.
-
Many thanks for the response Mat. I'm in the middle of preparing a disavow file, having spent the last month trying to get rubbishy links removed from suspect directories....a whole other world of pain
I guess what I'm trying to understand is whether our competitor's links are likely to be harming or helping us?
If the 404's and hidden links are either de-valuing their site, or benefiting ours by passing link juice, then I see that as good news for us.
If however, the 404's / hidden links reflect badly on our site, then I'd certainly want to get them disavowed quick smart.
-
Hi Sandy & welcome to the wonderful world of SEO!
Sounds like an annoying situation. It smacks a little of either dishonesty or bad sales agreements too, but that is another issue entirely.
Luckily Google has recently made this very very easy to deal with. They have introduced a tools to "disavow links" - literally tell them which links you don't want them to take in to account when dealing with your website. You can do this on a per website basis, so if you disavow all links from the competitor site it will stop any of those taking effect.
(Note - one idea might be to do this on a link by link basis so that you can keep one or two that might be helping you! However that is getting a little more in depth)
In order to do this you need to first get your site registered on google webmaster tools if you have not done so already. See here : https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/
You then want to disavow the links : https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487?hl=en
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
-
Will Multiple 301's to the Same URL Cause Issues?
Hey Everyone, We have a client (I don't have permission to disclose) that has just attempted to create better URL's for their site, per our direction. In the process, their website platform kind of took over their renaming attempts and instead of creating the clean, short, descriptive URLs we all wanted, they got convoluted, longer URLs. This all happened within the past 3 or 4 days. So, they went out and got an add-on that's going to help them create better URL's. In the meantime, they now have the original page/URL plus two new ones for a total of three. No 301's have been setup yet. When they create the new and (hopefully) improved URL tomorrow, will it hurt their rankings to have three pages redirected to the new one? Is a 301 redirect the right method for this issue or should they do something different? Thanks in advance, Kirk
On-Page Optimization | | kbates0 -
On page links
Hi I am really intrigued by Bloomberg strategy. if you look at their article pages they are full with internal links done with what I assume to be an automated process (too many pages to be done manually). it seems to work for them. I would love to hear your opinions.
On-Page Optimization | | ciznerguy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-26/uber-said-close-to-raising-funding-at-up-to-40b-value.html0 -
Site restructure question
Our site was deigned years ago to target customers in specific cities, now we've grown beyond this and I believe it is time to change the site structure.
On-Page Optimization | | PM_Academy
Ignore the 302 from the root page. Current structure: (assuming you've never been to our site before) projectmanagementacademy.net 302->/select-location.php /select-location.php -> /city-name/pmp-training.php This page was meant to be a "homepage" for each city, pointless page really /city-name/pmp-training.php -> /ciy-name/product-name.php These pages are for each individual product My suggested site structure: /city-name/pmp-training.php becomes projectmanagementacademy.net no more redirect /city-name/pmp-training.php gets removed and 301 to root page. /product-name.php each product's page and you would select a location when necessary (some products are online only) would 301 each /city-name/product-name to corresponding product page /product-name/city-name.php could add these pages if we still wanted the city name in url for city specific products My thoughts here are /product-name.php would receive a higher % of link juice because there are fewer page between 2 vs 4 if you came to the root page. and 2 vs 3 if you came from the select-location page. Also instead of being split between over 50 locations, all these would be together on one page. Your thoughts? Would this change improve our SERP for those product pages? Would we see a drop off in traffic if we did this? How long, if done correctly, would it take to see the recovery of rankings and traffic? Could we 301 /select-location.php to the root page? Thanks in advance for your insights to this. Any answer is a good answer. Trenton0 -
Dates in URL's
I have an issue of duplicate content errors and duplicate page titles which is penalising my site. This has arisen because a number of URLs are suffixed by date(s) and have been spidered . In principle I do not want any url with a suffixed date to be spidered. Eg:- www.carbisbayholidays.co.uk/carbis-bay/houses-in-carbis-bay/seaspray.htm/06_07_13/13_07_13 http://www.carbisbayholidays.co.uk/carbis-bay/houses-in-carbis-bay/seaspray.htm/20_07_13/27_07_13 Only this URL should be spidered:- http://www.carbisbayholidays.co.uk/carbis-bay/houses-in-carbis-bay/seaspray.htm I have over 10,000 of these duplicates and firstly wish to remove them on block from Google ( not one by one ) and secondly wish to amend my robots.txt file so the URL's are not spidered. I do not know the format for either. Can anyone help please.
On-Page Optimization | | carbisbayhols0 -
Changing my site (dramatically)
I am about to do a complete site change. I am going to WordPress. I am ranked #2 on SERPS. Will I lose rank for changing everything on my site? I have 500 pages indexed but I am about to have 30k indexed. It is a real estate site that is switching from a "framed" solution, to a listing indexed solution. If I make good use of my keywords etc (on site optimization) will I be at risk of losing risk just for changing my site?
On-Page Optimization | | JML11790 -
Why does the on page report reports a full path link as Cannibalize link?
On the seomoz on page report i get a cannibalize error. This is due to a link being full path. When i change the link to relative path then there is no Cannibalize error. Should i change the internal links of the site to relative path? I would appreciate your help.
On-Page Optimization | | pickaweb0 -
Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be. I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation. My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation. I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | dgmiles
Dave0 -
Link cannibalization
My on page report card gives me an "A" in every category but "link cannibalization". The key word is I am targeting is "home care". It says my links to "home care blog" and "in home care agency locator" are cannibalizing my home page. Am I indeed causing problems by using these modified versions of the keyword? Also is it okay to have the link "home care" for the home link in the main navigation bar? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | mmaes0