Should I disavow links from pages that don't exist any more
-
Hi. Im doing a backlinks audit to two sites, one with 48k and the other with 2M backlinks. Both are very old sites and both have tons of backlinks from old pages and websites that don't exist any more, but these backlinks still exist in the Majestic Historic index. I cleaned up the obvious useless links and passed the rest through Screaming Frog to check if those old pages/sites even exist.
There are tons of link sending pages that return a 0, 301, 302, 307, 404 etc errors. Should I consider all of these pages as being bad backlinks and add them to the disavow file?
Just a clarification, Im not talking about l301-ing a backlink to a new target page. Im talking about the origin page generating an error at ping eg: originpage.com/page-gone sends me a link to mysite.com/product1. Screamingfrog pings originpage.com/page-gone, and returns a Status error. Do I add the originpage.com/page-gone in the disavow file or not?
Hope Im making sense
-
Sounds a plan. Thanks for your help bud, much appreciated.
-
My take, I'll just go ahead and start doing other things to improve it's current rankings. I could assign someone to go over links if another team member is available.
If I see improvements, within the next month, then that's a good sign already that you should continue and not worry about the dead links.
It takes google a long time to actually forget about those links pointing to your site. So if they are dead AND then you didnt notice any increases or drops in analytics, then they are pretty much ineffective so they shouldnt be a major obstacle. I think someone coined a term for it, ghost links or something. LOL.
-
Hi. I did go through GA several years back, think back to 2011, but didn't really see dramatic changes in traffic other than a general trend of just low organic traffic throughout. Keep in mind that it's an engineering site, so no thousands of visit per day... the keywords that are important for the site get below 1000 searcher per month (data from the days when Google Keyword Tool shared this info with us mortals).
That said, I do notice in roughly 60% of the links absolutely no regard for anchors, so some are www.domain.com/index.php, Company Name, some are Visit Site, some are Website etc. Some anchors are entire generic sentences like "your company provided great service, your entire team should be commended blah blah blah". And there are tons of backlinks from http://jennifers.tempdomainname.com...a domain that a weird animal as there's not much data on who they are, what they do and what the deal is with the domain name itself. Weird.
In all honesty, nothing in WMT or GA suggests that the site got hit by either Penguin or Panda....BUT, having a ton of links that originate from non-existing pages, pages with no thematic proximity to the client site, anchors that are as generic as "Great Service"...is it a plus to err on the side of caution and get them disavowed, or wait for a reason from Google and then do the link hygiene?
-
Hi Igor,
Seeing ezinearticles in there is definitely a red flag that tells you that it probably has web directories, article networks, blog networks, pliggs, guestbooks and other links from that time.
Maybe you can dig up some old analytics data, check out when the traffic dropped.
If you did not see any heavy anchor text usage, then the site must've gotten away with a sitewide penalty, I would assume it's just a few (or many, but not all) of the keywords that got hit so either way, youll need to clean up -> disavow the links if they are indeed like that. So that's probably a reason for it's low organic rankings.
That, and since it's old, it might have been affected by panda too.
-
Thanks for your response. Im about done with cleaning up the link list in very broad strokes, eliminating obvious poor quality links, so in a few hours I could have a big list for disavowing.
The site is very specific, mechanical engineering thing and they sell technology and consulting to GM, GE, Intel, Nasa... so backlinks from sites for rental properties and resorts do look shady....even if they do return a 200 status.
But...how vigilent is google now with all the Penguin updates about backlinks from non-related sites, and my client's site has tons of them? And if Majestic reports them to have zero trust flow, is there a benefit of having them at all?
Thanks.
-
Hi. Thanks for responding. WMT shows just a fraction of the links actually. about few thousand for the site that Majestic Historic reports 48k. But I dont have any notifications of issues. Im guessing that with all the Penguin updates most sites won't get any notifications and it's up to us SEO guys to figure out why rankings are so low.
About quality of the links, many do come from weird sites, and I've noticed ezinearticles too. Problem is that the 48k portfolio was built by non-seo experts and now, few years after the fact, Im stuck with a site that doesn't rank well and has no notifications in WMT. But can I take the lack of notification as evidence that the site has no backlinks problem, or do I read-in the problem in poor organic ranking?
-
If I would be in that similar situation I would not really care about it but if it didn’t took too much of my time, I would have included all of these in the disavow file too.
But if the page is not giving a 200 status, this shouldn’t really be a problem.
Hope this helps!
-
Hi Igor,
Do they still show up in Webmaster tools? Do you have a penalty because of those links that used to link to the site? If not then I wouldn't really worry about it and just prioritize other things and make that a side task.
Are the majority of them on bad looking domains? If you checked the link URL on archive.org, were they spammy links? Then go ahead and include them in the disavow list.
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
-
I want to find all the keywords that an existing page is currently ranking for...is there a way to do that in MOZ or another tool?
I've seen this done during a software demo and saw it as the only value add for that tool but it's not worth the price of the whole tool for that one feature. The tool I saw showed you all the keywords you currently ranked for (within the top 200 positions), the position you were at, the number of users that term drove to your site and the total search volume for the keyword. SUPER useful info to have.
Technical SEO | | BrianPiper1 -
My 'complete guide' is cannibalising my main product page and hurting rankings
Hi everyone, I have a main page for my blepharoplasty surgical product that I want to rank. It's a pretty in-depth summary for patients to read all about the treatment and look at before and after pictures and there's calls to action in there. It works great and is getting lots of conversions. But I also have a 'complete guide' PDF which is for patients who are really interested in discovering all the technicalities of their eye-lift procedure including medical research, clinical stuff and risks. Now my main page is at position 4 and the complete guide is right below it in 5. So I tried to consolidate by adding the complete guide as a download on the main page. I've looked into rel canonical but don't think it's appropriate here as they are not technically 'duplicates' because they serve different purposes. Then I thought of adding a meta noindex but was not sure whether this was the right thing to do either. My report doesn't get any clicks from the serps, people visit it from the main page. I saw in Wordpress that there's options for the link, one says 'link to media file', 'custom URL' and 'attachment'. I've got the custom URL selected at the moment. There's also a box for 'link rel' which i figure is where I'd put the noindex. If that's the right thing to do, what should go in that box? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Smileworks_Liverpool0 -
Received A Notice Regarding Spammy Structured Data. But we don't have any structured data or do we?
Got a message that we have spammy structured data on our site via webmaster tools and have no idea what they are referring to. We do not use any structured data using schema.org mark up. Could they be referring to something else? The message was: To: Webmaster of <a>http://www.lulus.com/</a>, Google has detected structured markup on some of your pages that violates our structured data quality guidelines. In order to ensure quality search results for users, we display rich search results only for content that uses markup that conforms to our quality guidelines. This manual action has been applied to lulus.com/ . We suggest that you fix your markup and file a reconsideration request. Once we determine that the markup on the pages is compliant with our guidelines, we will remove this manual action. What could we be showing them that would be interpreted as structured data, and or spammy structured data?
Technical SEO | | KentH0 -
Disavow a big part of my external link profile
Hi There, With the latest penguin 3.0 algorithm update (on October 17th,) I noticed a drop in my rankings. Even though I didn’t receive any manual penalty because no messages have been found in WebMaster Tool, I suspect it is an algorithm penalty. For this reason, I definitively decided to clean-up my external link profile. **I am excluding it is a Panda 4.1 penalty because an extensive site structure review has been conducted quite recently. I collected external links from Webmaster Tool and Open Site Explorer. What I found is that 83% of my external links need to be disavowed because the links come either from poor directories or marketing articles that are evidently and specifically written for link building purposes. My questions are: 1) Shall an external link clean-up be set in place anyway although I didn’t receive any penalty message in order to prevent future problems with penguin algorithm? 2) Is it too dangerous to disavow 83% of external links? May such a manoeuvre destroy my actual rankings? Thanks in advance for you advices 🙂
Technical SEO | | Midleton0 -
Why are pages linked with URL parameters showing up as separate pages with duplicate content?
Only one page exists . . . Yet I link to the page with different URL parameters for tracking purposes and for some reason it is showing up as a separate page with duplicate content . . . Help? rpcIZ.png
Technical SEO | | BlueLinkERP0 -
Https-pages still in the SERP's
Hi all, my problem is the following: our CMS (self-developed) produces https-versions of our "normal" web pages, which means duplicate content. Our it-department put the <noindex,nofollow>on the https pages, that was like 6 weeks ago.</noindex,nofollow> I check the number of indexed pages once a week and still see a lot of these https pages in the Google index. I know that I may hit different data center and that these numbers aren't 100% valid, but still... sometimes the number of indexed https even moves up. Any ideas/suggestions? Wait for a longer time? Or take the time and go to Webmaster Tools to kick them out of the index? Another question: for a nice query, one https page ranks No. 1. If I kick the page out of the index, do you think that the http page replaces the No. 1 position? Or will the ranking be lost? (sends some nice traffic :-))... thanx in advance 😉
Technical SEO | | accessKellyOCG0 -
Linking from and to pages
My website, www.kamperen-bij-de-boer.com, tells people what campingssites can be found in The Netherlands for recreational purposes. In order for a campingsite to be mentioned on our website we ask them to place a link to our website (either using a text link or image link) and then we make a page for that campsite on our website with in the end a link to ther website, e.g. http://www.kamperen-bij-de-boer.com/Minicamping-In-t-Oldambt.html -> they in return link back to us. Since this comes natural will this or won't this be penalized by Google and so on for linkfarming. At this moment we have about 600 camping sites on our website alone linking to us (not all of them) and we are linking to them. Since this can be explained as link trading which is not as good for your ranking as one-way-linking what should be wise? Should i include a nofollow? I already have many links from other sites linking to mine without having to link back, is there anything else i can do with linking to ensure better ranking?
Technical SEO | | JarnoNijzing0 -
Link juice distributed to too many pages. Will noindex,follow fix this?
We have an e-commerce store with around 4000 product pages. Although our domain authority is not very high (we launched our site in February and now have around 30 RD's) we did rank on lots of long tail terms, and generated around 8000 organic visits / month. Two weeks ago we added another 2000 products to our existing catalogue of 2000 products, and since then our organic traffic dropped significantly (more than 50%). My guess is that link juice has been distributed to too many pages, causing rankings to drop on overall. I'm thinking about noindexing 50% of the product pages (the ones not receiving any organic traffic). However, I am not sure if this will lead to more link juice for the remaining 50% of the product pages, or not. So my question is: if I noindex,follow page A, will 100% of the linkjuice go to page B INSTEAD of page A, or will just a part of the link juice flow to page B (after flowing through page A first)? Hope my question is clear 🙂 P.s. We have a Dutch store, so the traffic drop is not a Panda issue 🙂
Technical SEO | | DeptAgency0