27 of 127 Domains Agreed to Remove Bad Links, Is this an Unusually Low Ratio?
-
Hi MOZ Community:
I hired an SEO firm to run a link audit, identify bad links, request that those links be removed and upload a disavow file to Google Webmaster tools for the domains that would not agree to remove their links.
My SEO company after emailing the owners of the bad domains linking to us obtained the following results:
NYCOfficeSpaceLeader
- Total for Removal: 125 (118)
- Found: 87 (84)
- Removed: 27 (27)
Only a total of 27 domains out of 87 found domains have been removed so far. Seven additional domains have asked for a link removal ransom which we are refusing.
Only getting 27 removed seems really low. Is this normal? Is there any way to increase this number?
Will the disavow file have any effect and if so when? If Google does not actually remove the links, how can I determine when the disavow file has been processed.
I feel a little silly having paid a lot of money and the only tangible effect to date is that links from 27 domains have been removed. Has it been a worthwhile investment for only having links from 27 domains removed? My company does not have an unlimited marketing budget so obviously there is some concern. At the same time the SEO firm seems professional.
Thanks,
Alan -
Hi Alan,
It was the Panda algorithm that updated this week, not Penguin. Panda is about on page quality and not about links. (We don't know for sure if links play any part in Panda, but my guess is that they don't.)
"So are you saying that despite the new Penguin update, Google will not review our disavow file and that the only action to take is to ping the links from the low quality domains in order to expedite Google's review of our site?"
The disavow file starts working as soon as you file it. It's complicated though. If the Penguin algorithm has decided that your site is untrustworthy in regards to links, then Google will still continue to suppress your rankings until Penguin refreshes again.
Regarding pinging links to make them get disavowed, that's still up for debate. The idea is that you get Google to visit the link so that it can recrawl it and apply your disavow. Jim Boykin of Internet Marketing Ninjas asked John Mueller about whether it was possible to use the Google submit url to ping urls to get them recrawled (see video here at about 1hr 4min: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0FC1K25Z3w&feature=c4-overview&list=UUthrUiuJUtFSXBUp48D8bAA). John said it wouldn't work. But who knows, perhaps building links to those pages might work.
EDIT: That type of thing - building links to bad urls to get them to be recrawled is not something I would recommend that you do. It's something I might experiment with myself at some point but it's not something I'd recommend the average Penguin hit site does.
-
Thanks for the recommendation Gary. I really appreciate it.
I was confused by this:
"If you have a manual penalty then you will have to wait for a refresh of penguin. HOWEVER, if you are affected simply by the algorithm then it will simple be a case of Google looking at your disavow file max 48hrs, then visiting each and every link one by one and applying the nofollow to it, when the hourly/daily/weekly algorithms update you will see changes happen, not have to wait for 6 months etc.."
Did you mean to say, "If you have Penguin?" as opposed to a manual penalty? In some cases, sites with manual penalties ALSO have Penguin issues and even if their penalty is lifted they won't see ranking improvements until Penguin refreshes. But, sometimes the links that are marked as unnatural on a manual review are actually different than the ones that Penguin can get. An example, I think, would be a site that has done extensive trading of free product in exchange for a review with a link. Penguin may not hit that site, but a manual review would. In that case, if you cleaned up those issues and got your manual penalty lifted you might see an improvement right away. But, it depends of course on the strength of the rest of your link profile and on what type of penalty you had.
-
Hi there,
Just adding to what has already been said here: for the longterm health of the website, I'm in favour of removing all bad links where possible rather than relying solely on disavowal, even though disavowal can and does work in the short term. My reason for this is that relying on disavowal puts the power in Google's hands to at some point say: "Well we don't really care about the content of your disavow file anymore; those links still exist so here's your penalty back again."
Likely, no. But if the links are completely gone, they can never hurt the site again.
Regarding losing the links worsening your rankings, it's possible if those links (as bad as they may have been) were not actually contributing to your penalty (yet) and were passing PageRank / helping you rank. Hopefully the SEO company were correct in marking them as bad... and even if they weren't hurting yet but were otherwise spammy, you're best rid of them in the long term.
The success rate of link removal can vary a lot. At my old agency, we had a set process of "outreach" for link removal that carefully left a certain number of days between emails to webmasters if we received no response from out initial email. We also used carefully-worded templates that we had tested enough to be confident that they worked well. We made at least three attempts to contact a webmaster for link removal.
Not much anyone - you or the SEO company - can do about being held to random for link removal. Sadly that's a popular part of the link take-down process now, as people are aware they prey on site owners' desperation to clean up their profiles.
If there are good reasons why the rest of the 100 of the domains can't be reached, this is certainly where we're lucky disavowal now exists. You are not under a manual penalty so won't be submitted reconsideration requests, but if you ever do, it's there that you'd cite your attempts to contact the X sites you've not managed to remove links from.
-
My site was only effected by Google's algorithm (Penguin),there is no manual penalty.
Well I though I was in luck as I understand Penguin 2.0 was rolled out today!
So are you saying that despite the new Penguin update, Google will not review our disavow file and that the only action to take is to ping the links from the low quality domains in order to expedite Google's review of our site?
Thanks,
Alan -
My site does not have a manual penalty. The penalty is the Penguin. We were first hit in April 2012, with a drop in traffic from 6700/month to as low as 3,000 about a year ago. Since then after a site relaunch, some new content, social media traffic has climbed back up to about 4,500/month. Since November I am working with a MOZ recommended SEO firm. Link audit and disavow remove has been done and now content marketing is commencing.
Do you think my domain should be changed? Being that there has been an improvement I would think not, but am not sure.
Also, while my domain www.nyc-officespace-leader.com my brand is Metro Manhattan. I have owned the domain www.metro-manhattan.com since 2010. In fact that domain has redirected back to ww.nyc-officespace-leader.com for 4 years.
Would it make sense make www.metro-manhattan.com the primary domain? Would it help get around any penalties? From a branding point of view it would might be beneficial. But then I would lose all the links.
-
Marie is bang on here.
The only thing discussed earlier that was not addressed by Marie and answer incorrectly by a few people in my view and various discussions with John Mueller is:
"Regarding the disavow, are you saying that if Google does not refresh Penguin for another 6 months I will not receive the benefit of the disavow until then?"
If you have a manual penalty then you will have to wait for a refresh of penguin. HOWEVER, if you are affected simply by the algorithm then it will simple be a case of Google looking at your disavow file max 48hrs, then visiting each and every link one by one and applying the nofollow to it, when the hourly/daily/weekly algorithms update you will see changes happen, not have to wait for 6 months etc..
Many people are pinging those old links to get googlbot to visit the pages quicker as it can take a long time. Also you do not need to wait for those pages to be cached just crawled, sometimes google may never update the cache on old crappy pages.
If you need help then you need someone with experience and contact with people that have most of the answers. Marie Haynes above is probably the best you will find with a proven track record. Dont waste your money on SEO companies that have only gone through this a few times and charge through the nose for it, every day wasted is a day of revenue lost. Think of that lost revenue as an addion to what you are paying the SEO
-
Do you have a manual penalty or is it Penguin that you are trying to escape?
If it's Penguin it's debatable whether you even need to remove links or whether disavowing is just as good. My current advice is to remove what you can easily remove and then disavow the rest. Of course, if you have a manual penalty then you've got to make efforts to remove every bad link.
Regarding the percentage of links that got removed that really varies depending on the type of links you have. For the link removals that I have done for manual penalties, I rarely succeed in getting more than 30% of the bad links removed. I'd say we're usually in the 10-15% range and we've even had penalties revoked after only removing 5% of the bad links. For manual penalties what Google wants to see is that you've put good effort into trying.
In this webmaster central hangout at 41:20 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWYooFjmx5c&list=UUthrUiuJUtFSXBUp48D8bAA&index=2) John Mueller was asked if disavowing was just as good as removing in regards to Penguin. He said, "From a theoretical point of view, using the disavow tool is enough...from a practical point of view it almost always makes sense to still delete those links as much as possible."
And in this hangout at 13:48 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaT0aie9Wqk when asked about disavowing vs removing, John says, "That's pretty much the same with regards to an algorithm...Essentially if you can't have a link removed then putting it in a disavow file is pretty much equivalent."
-
_Are you saying that removing a lot of these bad links will actually result in poorer ranking? _
Potentially. However, it is necessary in order to get unflagged by penguin. I'm thinking that you have a lot of links with highly keyword targeted anchor text. In order to get out of penguin, you need to 1) remove bad keyword anchor links and 2) create new good brand anchor links. Once your ratio of brand:keyword anchor text falls below a certain threshold, you should start to rank much better (at least based on my experience with cleaning up backlinks).
Regarding the disavow, are you saying that if Google does not refresh Penguin for another 6 months I will not receive the benefit of the disavow until then?
Unfortunately that is most likely the case. I have experienced it happening faster but there is still a lot of mystery about the disavow tool and penguin. The most drastic changes in SERPs occurs during a refresh.
EDIT: Sean makes some great points and a new domain could be a potential solution.
-
Hi Alan,
All of your inferences from Oleg are correct. They are also especially hard to hear. We do not know when the next Penguin refresh will take place and that means you will not receive the benefits of this work till then.
This can be difficult to hear but unless it is a vanity domain I would suggest getting a new domain and just focusing a new marketing effort there. I have worked with clients that were affected by Penguin 1 and they have not recovered to this day. It is a long process of recovery and in many cases starting new with an untainted domain is the best possible answer.
The rankings you had previously were due to the links. Once they are removed you will need to get fresh links to replace them to get rankings back.
I apologise for having to say this but a new domain if it is penguin is your best option at this time.
Sean
-
Hi Oleg:
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
The 87 links looked very spammy to me, consisting of low quality directories for the most part. So your response regarding the 31% removal is very encouraging.
My SEO is convinced my site was hit with a Penguin penalty in April of 2012. There has been a partial but incomplete recovery in search traffic. There never was a manual penalty.
Are you saying that removing a lot of these bad links will actually result in poorer ranking? My SEO firm has told me to get a significant recovery I need to start a program of content marketing to have new high quality links created.
Regarding the disavow, are you saying that if Google does not refresh Penguin for another 6 months I will not receive the benefit of the disavow until then?
Thanks,
Alan -
There is a lot to consider here. For some websites that I've cleaned up, 27 of 87 (31%) links removed by webmasters is fantastic. Most of the time, a link from a bad site is just ignored since the webmaster just doesn't care about the website. In your case, it seems like a lot of the links that were removed came from engaged website owners which makes me question whether the link was bad in the first place.
RE effect of disavow... did your website receive a manual penalty? Or did your SEO determine that you were hit by Penguin? Those are the only two scenarios where you should be removing/disavowing links.
If manual penalty, then you will see results after you submit a reconsideration request and have the penalty revoked
If penguin, you may see results after the next penguin refresh.
Keep in mind that if the majority of your links are bad and are removed, you will probably not rank as well as you used to prior to the removal process.
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
-
Bad if Hosting Company Performs Domain Migration
InMotion Hosting hosts our domain. At the moment, we use domain "A". Domain "B" redirect to domain "A" . Domain "B"" better represent our brand and we want to redirect domain "A" to "B". Our website is designed in Wordpress. It contains about 750 pages. At the moment we do not have an SSL certificate. I would like to add the SSL certificate at the same time we migrate the domain. The data we collect on the site are company name, phone number, email address etcetera. No transactions. I was told that the Auto SSL free certificate is fine and that there is no need to pay for a certificate. Is this correct? My developer has told me that installing an SSL certificate would take about 8 hours. And that migrating the domain would take 24 hours, plus or minus 5 hours. My developer is very professional, and usually does a great job but this seems costly considering a $24/hour labor rate. It also seems like an inordinate amount of time. Several well rated (100% approval) Upwork developers are willing to perform this job for less than $200. Huge differential!! Also, Inmotion Hosting is willing to migrate the site and install the certificates for free. But pay nothing and the quality is usually questionable. Any thoughts?? Also, I have a lot to lose in terms of SEO if something goes wrong. Are there any specifications that I should insist on to make sure the migration proceed smoothly? What do I need to modify on Google Analytics once the migration is done. Any steps I should take to ensure the maintenance of page rank? Thanks!!!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan1
Alan0 -
Any success stories after removing excessive cross domain linking?
Hi, I found some excessive cross domain linking from a separate blog to the main company website. It sounds like best practice is to cut back on this, but I don't have any proof of this. I'm cautious about cutting off existing links; we removed two redundant domains that had a huge number of links pointing to the main site almost 1 year ago, but didn't see any correlated improvement in rankings or traffic per se. Hoping some people can share a success story after pruning off excessive cross linking either for their own website or for a client's. Thanks 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ntcma0 -
New Domain Vs. Existing Domain
Hello, A potential client of mine has been blacklisted because of bad SEO process basically they have over 1,500 toxic links on their site. They have penalised to such an extent that they are now on page 12 for most of their keywords and not ranking well on brand terms either. They are keen to on to a new domain entirely and ditch their current domain when we design their new site. I wanted to get people's opinion on whether this is the best course of action or should we try to salvage the current domain? Many thanks, Mat
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Barques-Design0 -
Redirect multiple domains to a primary domain
Hello that such I make the following query imagine we have three domains on the same thematic or category primary domain: domain-antiguo1.com (3 years) (200 Backlink), domain-antiguo2.net (10 years) (1000 Backlinks) and domain-antiguo3.com (6 years) (500 Backlinks) and decide to redirect all these domains favorite one: domain-principal.com The three domains registered refeccionar this google webmaster, has its respective income sitemap and google webmaster area change of address to the main domain the three domains are my property It would have a penalty for doing this practice?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | globotec0 -
Urgent Site Migration Help: 301 redirect from legacy to new if legacy pages are NOT indexed but have links and domain/page authority of 50+?
Sorry for the long title, but that's the whole question. Notes: New site is on same domain but URLs will change because URL structure was horrible Old site has awful SEO. Like real bad. Canonical tags point to dev. subdomain (which is still accessible and has robots.txt, so the end result is old site IS NOT INDEXED by Google) Old site has links and domain/page authority north of 50. I suspect some shady links but there have to be good links as well My guess is that since that are likely incoming links that are legitimate, I should still attempt to use 301s to the versions of the pages on the new site (note: the content on the new site will be different, but in general it'll be about the same thing as the old page, just much improved and more relevant). So yeah, I guess that's it. Even thought the old site's pages are not indexed, if the new site is set up properly, the 301s won't pass along the 'non-indexed' status, correct? Thanks in advance for any quick answers!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JDMcNamara0 -
Avoiding 301 on purpose; Landing homepage linking to another domain with "Click here to go" and 5 sec meta refresh
Hello, Some users when they search for our site by using "ourbrand" keyword that ignore the first result (we will call it here ourbrand.de -not real name-) and they look for ourbrand.com . Even though we have that domain name also registered (indeed it also has a high ranking power) we are doing a 301 from the dot com to the dot.de . What we want to do is to index the homepage of the dot com, that is http://www.ourband.com as a secondary result while doing a 301 to any other internal URL of the dot com to the dot .de. Yes, we will loose link juice for the main domain but at least we will not loose visits from the brand traffic (which is our main traffic). So the question is, would Google index ourbrand.com if we show just a landing page that just show our logo, a "Click here to go to ourbrand.de" with a link to http://www.ourbrand.de and a meta refresh of 6 seconds to that URL? Additionally a cookie would be sent to the first time visitors, so in the next time they would be automatically redirected. PS: The 6 seconds is to avoid search engine consider it a "301" like it do with short meta refresh (not sure what time is the minimum to avoid be considered a 301). Any other suggestions on how to deal with this problem are welcomed
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Zillo0 -
Does 301 redirect to a new domain removes penguin penality
Hi, One of my client has shady link profile and has hit by penguin update. I have confirmed the penalty using Google hack. Now, seeing his link profile, most of his links comes from blog comments which are from unmoderated blogs, and there is no way, we cant remove those comments. But without removing them, we cant get rid of the Google's penguin penality. So, i am planning on 301 redirecting to a new domain. But my question is, will the penality transfers, if i 301 to a new domain? What iff, if someone buys an old domain hit by a penguin update? Please clarify me, or if there are any alternatives to get rid of penguin update, please help me.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Indexxess0 -
Asking Sites to Remove Links.. What should I say?
After getting some guidance from you guys here on this forum i have decided to go through my WMT backlinks and contact all the sites that I think are spammy and are linking back to me....and I will ask them to remove my links from their sites... Can you guys please provide some guidance as to what I should say in the letter (also, anything i should definitely not say).... Thanks for the help...
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Prime850