Need help determining how toxic this backlinking is
-
Okay, so my company has an SEO company already. However, we're trying to get people internally cross-trained on SEO, so I've been selected to kind of do a crash-course in SEO and look at our site from a new perspective. We are in the process of getting our old site ported over to a new one we've also created on Wordpress. I've been doing a LOT of online research, but this is definitely a very new field for me.
Here's our current site: www.cedrsolutions.com
So, here's my question: While doing some SEO-optimizing automatic tests on our site, I came across some weird backlinks to one of our pages: http://www.cedrsolutions.com/dental-office-manual/
http://en.calameo.com/read/003415063525a885728e7
Here's the thing: We didn't make this. It looks HORRIBLE, the copy is gibberish, and it looks weird. Doing some more searching, I started finding stuff like this
https://lessons.engrade.com/dentalofficemanual/1
http://pumosust.over-blog.com/2014/09/how-to-get-customized-dental-office-manuals-online.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egMonqa5eRo (???? I don't even understand how someone did this, the photo in the book is just the photo from our page)
http://www.tuugo.in/Companies/cedr-hr-solutions/0150008267958#!
Conservatively, I'd say there's at least 100 of these types of pages out there linking to us, maybe more
Then I started finding comments on blogs
http://blog.kenexa.com/hr-focus-on-increasing-revenue-not-just-managing-costs/
So, my first thought is obviously "Okay, these are gibberish, over-optimized, and ALL of them are trying to bump our relevancy for something along the lines "Dental office manual"
EDIT: I should also mention these links ALL just appeared out of thin air. A whole bunch in early July, and more in mid-September. They didn't just slowly accumulate.
So (finally) here's my questions:
1. Did our current SEO company probably do this? The only thing they've mentioned before is that they were going to create some backlinks for us, with an assurance they'd be genuine links that would build Pagerank without getting us slapped by Google.
2. Am I correct in my opinion that these are toxic links that could get manual action taken against us by Google? I'm not sure how LIKELY it is (as again, there's only about 100 or so) but they seem to be violating multiple Google principles. With how often Google pushes out algorithm updates I feel like we could still get busted for this even if the links are like 6-7 months old and not sending us much traffic.
I'm asking because I've been told to set up a conference call with the account manager at our current SEO place, and I want to know what I'm getting into. I might be wildly over-reacting about nothing, I might be kind of right but it's not that bad, or I might be 100% right and what they are doing is not cool at all, and could kill our SEO if we get busted by Google. I'm not sure which it is.
Checking Google webmaster tools and analytics, I don't see any drops in organic traffic between July '14 and now, so I don't think we've been smacked by Google algorithm-wise. And there's no notice from Google of manual action being taken, or anything being wrong with our backlinks, so I'm fairly confident these links haven't hurt us at least as of today. I'm just worried going forward (especially when we finish the new site and submit it to Google to get crawled, the URLs will be the same)
Sorry this was so long. I'm kind of nervous, honestly. On the one hand, these backlinks seem SUPER sketchy to me, but on the other hand, I don't KNOW any of this stuff. It sounds kind of ridiculous for me, someone with maybe 3 weeks of intense Google-education in SEO, to be questioning something a real, established SEO company is doing. I mean, I kind of have to assume they know better, right?
-
I'd say you need to get a full overview of what's been done so far - and sign-off on anything that they're planning to do for you in the future (including tactics, target media and so on). You might find this helpful: http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/what-is-nofollow/
See the bit here, under "How do we get natural links" http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/unnatural-links/
Switch to PR focused work, in the future, where your submissions are editorially reviewed (sure, some will be rejected - yet this is all about quality over quantity).
This is a good rundown of what not to do: http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/seo-to-avoid/
-
That is tough to say. I think there is more likely the sites themselves can be punished for having poor quality content, but, that being said Penguin is becoming ever more advanced and you can be penalized for being in a bad neighborhood. So far that refers specifically to link profiles, but I don't put it passed Google to start including content in that evaluation as well. My rule of thumb is always go with your gut, because your instinct is usually spot on. If you get bad vibes then do whatever you can to make sure you are satisfied with the end result.
-
Thanks, you've answered my question! I understand what you're saying, building a backlink profile in this way isn't automatically bad, per se, if it's done really well. But we seem to be in agreement that these were done very poorly.
I'll ask about getting them re-written, of course since this is the first we're seeing of these links, it's entirely possible our SEO company will deny ever making them. Of course, in that case, it's either a poorly done negative-SEO campaign, or someone REALLY likes CEDR and is just incapable of expressing it correctly.
I know removal is the best step, and then disavowal. Do you agree then, that these links are a penalty threat from Google if just left alone and Google later notices them? I'm assuming that's why you didn't mention just ignoring them as an option.
-
Yes, you are not incorrect. As I said, this is not necessarily bad, but it isn't necessarily good. The tactic isn't bad, but the implementation is bad. If you can rewrite the content, that would be my recommendation. Before you disavow, ask the webmaster of the other sites to remove the links if you feel that is what you want to do.
If the current company you are working with published these articles, you should remind them of Hummingbird, Panda and Penguin. I am not saying these links are best practice, but there are alternatives to disavowing them. Without knowing what the rest of your link profile is I cannot say that removing them would be my first jump. I would first try to fix the content and anchor text, second I would ask whichever webmaster has links you can't salvage to remove them, and my last resort would be to disavow them.
-
I'm not disagreeing (I mean, I asked for opinions, so I appreciate your input) but I feel like a lot of what I've read about what kinds of things annoy Google's algorithm, these posts are like Exhibit A for how to do everything incorrectly.
-
Most of the posts are either written by a robot script or a non-english speaker. With how insanely keyword optimized the writing is, and how a lot of it is borderline gibberish, it just screams "SPAM" to me. My understanding the rule of thumb with Google's algorithm is "If it feels really spammy to you, it will come across as spammy to Google"
-
Is it really just kind of frowned-upon for an SEO company to just slap our name on content that like, without discussing it with us first? That fake CEDR e-book, and the Youtube video, those look like a 12 year old made it. A potential customer who sees that kind of stuff isn't going to think "Well, these guys sure seem competent and like someone I can trust with my livelihood!" I would think doing this sort of thing without telling us would be a HUGE red-flag no-no.
-
Bottom line though, your feeling is that these links are very unlikely to get us penalized at all, SEO-wise?
-
-
These all look like directory listings and guest blog posts. I don't believe they are toxic, but I also don't think they are the best kind of links either. I would have a chat with your seo company and give them the clear understanding of exactly what you want your content to sound like and where you want it to be.
Guest blogging is not an unacceptable form of backlinking. In my opinion it is just not 100% best practice anymore. You want high authority natural links.
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
-
Moz spam score 16 for some pages - Never a manual penalty: Disavow needed?
Hi community, We have some top hierarchy pages with spam score 16 as per Moz due to the backlinks with very high spam score. I read that we could ignore as long as we are not employing paid links or never got a manual penalty. Still we wanna give a try by disavowing certain domains to check if this helps. Anyway we are not going to loose any backlink score by rejecting this low-quality backlinks. Can we proceed? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | vtmoz0 -
Does Google checks the author name of the articles with backlinks to a website?
Hi, This may sound a little too suspicious; but just want to take your suggestions and experience in this. We are trying to create articles on third party websites to increase backlinks, our brand popularity and awareness about our features. If the same author is mentioned in multiple or tens of articles with backlinks to same website; will Google monitor the author name? Is there anything wrong in creating too many external articles with same author name? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | vtmoz0 -
Is this site buying backlinks?
dankstop.com Almost all of their links come from mainly the same few sites, and some of their links have a really high spam score.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | tlorenzi0 -
Image redirection: Will it helps or hurts?
Hi all, There are some old images (non-existing now) from our website which have backlinks. We would like to redirect them to some live images to reclaim the backlinks. Is this Okay or sounds suspicious to Google? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | vtmoz0 -
Website that just got hit....Need some tips or ideas...
Hey guys, The website of the company i work hit in the PR update two days ago . A little history , the site was notice by Google about spam links around 5-6 months ago .
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | WayneRooney
Since then there is a company that cleans all the spam links and manage all the disavow process. In the last penguin update ( about two months ago ) the site jumped like crazy in the ranking and stayed there ever since... In the last three months we create less than ten links to the site, and we have focus all our work to improve
the optimization of the site.
It should be noted that the company is investing a lot in social networks and all the work in the past 3 month are White and clean... Now, two days ago in the PR update (more or less) the site just dropped , but when i say dropped , it's 200 keys that was in page 1-2 that just want out to page 5-6-7. Like the website is gone, i never see something like this... The things that pass through my head: A lot of the links the linking to the site with high PR lost their pr and now they are worthless, but still this drop ? its to extreme.
Or that Google received the disavow and just disavow a lot of links.... Does anyone have any ideas or tips on the subject ? Thank you0 -
Do rss feeds help seo in 2013?
I have seen answers for this back in 2012 but as we all now things have changed in 2013. My question is Do rss feeds help seo in 2013? Or does google see it as duplicate content (I see that the moz site has RSS ...)
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Llanero0 -
Redesign Troubleshooting Help
We launched a redesign at the end of May and soon after, our website was de-indexed from Google. Here are the changes that I implemented so far to try to fix this issue: 301 redirect chain - We changed all our URLs and implemented 301 redirects. However, these are multiple redirects meaning 1 URL redirects to a second and then a 3rd. I was told that this could confuse Google. For example: http://cncahealth.com 301s to http://www.cncahealth.com 301s to https://www.cncahealth.com We wrote a rule for each variation of the URL and not there is only a one to one 301 redirect and this was validated with urivalet.com. Canonical tags did not match URL - We created the new website in a CMS where the CMS generated non-SEO friendly URLs. We applied 301 redirects to those CMS URLs, but when we enable canonical tags within the CMS, it uses the original CMS URL and not the URL of the page, so the canonical URL doesn't match the page. For now, I disabled canonical tags until I can figure out a way to manually insert canonical tag code in the pages without using the CMS canonical tag feature. After doing these two fixes our website still doesn't seem like it is able to get re-indexed by Google even when I submit the sitemap in Google Webmaster Tools...the sitemap doesn't get indexed? Questions...there are two more concerns that I am hoping can be answered in this community: Cache-Control = private : I saw from URIvalet.com that our cache-control is set to private. Is this affecting us being indexed and should this be set to public? Load Balancer - Our old website was not on a load balancer, but our new website is. When I look in our analytics at servers, I notice that the site is being picked up on one server and then another server at different times. Is Google seeing the same thing and is the load balancer confusing Google? I'm not sure what else could be an issue with us not being indexed. Maybe its just a waiting game where after I implemented the 1 & 2 change I just have to wait or does 3 & 4 or other issues also need to be addressed in order to get re-indexed? I hope someone can help me. Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | rexjoec0 -
Being penalized for unnatural links, determining the issue, and fixing the problem. What to do?
Hi all, A client has been penalised, having received the message in Google Webmasters last week, along with two more yesterday. It seems the penalty is for something specific: “As a result, for this specific incident we are taking very targeted action on the unnatural links instead of your site as a whole“. This is the first time I've had to deal with this so I'll be a bit layman about it The penalty, firstly, seems to be for the old domain, from which there is a re-direct to the current one. This redirect has been in place since Feb 2012 (no link building has been done for the old domain since then). In Webmasters, I have the old and new domains set up separately and the messages are only coming for the old (but affecting the new, obviously). I need to determine if it’s the old or new URL I’m being hit for, or would that even matter? Some questionable links I can see in WM: There is an affiliate for whom WM is showing 154,000 links (all followed) from their individual products listings to the client’s site (as a related product) but they’re linking to the new domain if that matters. Could this affiliate be an issue? There is also Updowner, which has added 2000+ links unbeknownst to me but apparently they are discounted by Google. I see a ton of recent directory submissions - right up until last week - that I am not responsible for. Could that be intentional spam targeting? I did also use a 3<sup>rd</sup> party link building company for Feb, March and April who ‘manually’ submitted the new domain to directories and social bookmarking sites. Could this be issue? For what kind of time-scale are penalties usually imposed - how far back (or how recently) are they penalising for? Ranking were going really well until this happened last Thursday. Will directories with non-followed links effect us negatively - one such one has over 2000 links. What is the most conclusive way to determine which are the poor, penalty-incurring links pointing to us? I know I now have to contact all the dodgy directories the site is now listed on to get links removed, but any and all advice on how to rectify this, along with determining what had gone wrong, will be most appreciated. Cheers, David
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Martin_S0