Old Spammy Backlinks but No Manual Penalty...No Results
-
We have taken over a site in which the client had unfortunately hired an SEO consultant who bought bad comment spam links. Webmaster Tools does not show a manual penalty of any kind but clearly this was bad practice from the former "SEO" consultant. I believe we have a good structure of the completely new website we have built for the client but I am not sure of the best way to reduce any negative fallout from the previous actions.
I've read conflicting information about submitting disavow report to Google for the comment spam links. In some cases, I have read that it would be irrelevant since there is not a manual penalty. I am fairly certain rankings are being negatively effected from this action and looking for the best way to neutralize the algorithmic penalty.
Not sure if this helps or not but I use GWMT "Download Latest Links" and see that the soonest Google discovered one of these links is 4/4/2013. Most of the links were generated some time during 2012.
How do you even begin to try to reach out and have comment spam manually removed...when most of the sites that allowed the comment spam to begin with are spam sites themselves?
-
Without looking at the links specifically it is hard to speculate. Realistically the site made it through all Penguin updates unharmed. That has to say something. Disavowing the links will have a negative affect on SEO. It will take time to come back from it. It is expensive and time consuming. I would pose the options to your client and see what they decide. Pros and Cons of both options and let them decide.
-
Monica and Sheena,
Thank you for the responses.
We are working on producing new, good, quality content.
Monica, the problem is that these sites are pretty much abandoned spam sites, many of them not even in English. Finding the actual webmaster and communicating with them is a very difficullt, if not impossible task. In most cases, these spam links are in the form of comment spam.
-
Have you reached out to the Webmasters first? I know it seems silly, but it would be better than a disavow action. Refreshing the link profile would be really helpful too, like Sheena said, having high quality links from content.
I would not recommend a disavow action be the first step. I would try to remove the links first, because you can't be 100% certain that is what is causing the ranking problems for the site.
-
All good points you're making here. Unfortunately, there isn't a consensus on whether it's best to use the tool or not. I fall into the category of SEOs who disavow obvious spam/low quality links even without any manual penalty notification... I feel it's the honest thing to do & also don't like the idea of waiting for Google to really penalize the site. I then focus on creating unique, engaging, possibly long-format content pieces that the audience will love & share (building up authentic, high quality, contextually-relevant links that support on-site optimization & outnumber/overshadow any residual low quality links).
This Moz post walks through some critical steps for using the tool: http://moz.com/blog/google-disavow-tool
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
-
Backlinks and SPAM
I was doing some back link review of competitors and I have noticed that many of our competition have 300+ do follow back links from Justia.com and an additional 300+ do follow links from law.cornell.edu (they share the same database). The links on Justia are from different pages and they are all going to the root of our competitors site. So the questions are as follows; 1: For the purpose of SEO is this considered SPAM 2: If not SPAM, then does it have a positive effect on the competitions website and should I attempt to emulate for my client. Thanks in advance. -Jeff
Link Building | | FriedmanSimon10000 -
Spammy no follow backlinks - what should I do?
There is a individual/company that is creating lots of spam sites in my niche. It doesn't seem that they are trying to rank for any keywords, so I'm a little confused as to their purpose, but here's what they're doing. They scrape the top 10 Google results for each keyword and create a page - so if the niche is "widgets", they scrape the top 10 ranked sites for 'widgets', 'blue widgets', 'red widgets', and so on. A 'results' page is created for each keyword, which is linked from a home page. The results page always contains 10 websites - text is the site metadescription or similar. Each website gets a nofollow link back with the page title used as the anchor text. The host sites all have the keyword in the domain name - e.g www.widgetsxyz.com. The sites are thrown together but interestingly have a very crappy but individual logo (like 90's clipart). The host sites all have high DA/PA due to some very extensive link spam pointing to the sites, with very targeted keywords. There is seemingly no purpose to these sites that I can see - no other 'followed' links on the page or site. Whoever is doing this is churning out tens, if not hundreds of these sites. Any ideas what might be going on here, and whether I should be disavowing these sites (even though no follow). The fear is that they could switch the links to do follow, and get all the major players penalised in one fell swoop. ???
Link Building | | johnohara0 -
Backlinks Redirected Temporarily (New to Old)
I have a website of which we are being forced to change the domain name and soon after give the control of the domain name to the corporate office. The corporate office will eventually put a new website up on it. We would like to build more backlinks without the threat of losing all of these backlinks to the corporate site. We were considering to start building backlinks to the new domain with temporary redirects to the old domain but have recently been advised against doing this (threat of Google looking down on this technique). Should we continue to build back links to the old domain, or should we 302 redirect the links to the old domain? Any advice is greatly appreciated!
Link Building | | wishmedia0 -
Blogging for backlinks
I have a real estate website. I would like to start blogging on blogs not related to real estate. I like reading web design, html, css, php, word press etc... blogs. I want to start talking to the bloggers using my real name (not keyword anchor text) on their blog. I'd like to have authentic conversations; however, will this confuse google about my site? If I am using my name as anchor text on sites about webdesign and linking back to a real estate website, what will that do to the SEO? It's also important to consider one other detail. I have determined through link building in real estate related fields that it's really hard to find good domains/page rank when compared to the fields above. I could get a dozen great links in 10 minutes on the above subjets AND be legitimately engaging in conversation with my name, not keywords... Does the invention of "author rank" make this more viable?
Link Building | | JML11790 -
Concerned about quality of backlinks - should I take action?
I regularly work on websites to which previous SEOs have built questionable backlinks. This morning I've just been analysing some backlinks - found 40 odd were coming from 20 odd websites which all had the same gentleman as personal registrant, who happens to be the boss of an SEO company. The SEO company name is mentioned in registrant details too, and often on the websites in question (including weblinks from some of these 20 odd websites to the SEO company). I did note the IP addresses / hosting for these websites did vary though, as did the postal address of the individual in question, perhaps throwing Google off the scent a bit. I should add that these websites are virtually all tourism related/themed, with up to a few dozen backlinks per page - usually articles. It's very clear they are backlinking to keyphrases. Now, this kinda thing<a></a> sets the alarm bells ringing. Firstly, this looks like an infringement of Google Webmaster Guidelines. Secondly, it doesn't sound like a White Hat technique for building links! Am I correct? I guess it might be denied they are partner pages due to the quality of content, perhaps, which isn't as spammy as it might've been. However, I suggest these are at least paid links because there is no other clear way of getting content on these pages, as far as I can see.<a></a><a></a> Should I demand these backlinks are taken down? What level of risk is posed do you think? I don't want this website to suffer a Google penalty at some point, particularly not after I've started work on it. Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you.
Link Building | | McTaggart0 -
How important are edu and gov backlinks?
I have heard that edu and gov backlinks are important but how so in a niche area like mine - real estate? Perhaps I am missing the point but I do not see how either type of site would ever backlink to a commercial real estate entity. If these are that important in theory, are they obtainable in practice?
Link Building | | casper4340 -
Backlinks from HTTPS adresses
I did a search of the Q&A and didn't see a direct answer to this, so here it goes! Is a backlink from an HTTPS address valued the same as an HTTP? Thanks!
Link Building | | endlesspools0