Search ranking for a term dropped from 1st/2nd to 106th in 3 months
-
Hello all,
Just a couple notes first. I have been advised to be vague on the search term we've dropped on (in case this page ranks higher than our homepage for it). If you search for my name in Google though you should be able to figure out where I work (I'm not the soccer player).
While I am looking for an answer, I've also posted this question on a couple other forums (see https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4934323.htm and https://productforums.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!msg/webmasters/AQLD7lywuvo/2zfFRD6oGAAJ) which have thrown up more questions than answers. So I have posted this as a discussion.
We've also been told we may have been under a negative SEO attack. We saw in SEMRush a large number of backlinks in October/November/December - at about the same time we disavowed around 1m backlinks (more on this below) but we can't see this reflected in Moz. We just got off a call with someone at Moz to try and work this out and he suggested we post here - so here goes...
On 4th October for the search term 'example-term' we dropped from number 2 to number 9 on Google searches (this was confirmed in Google Search Console).
We also paid an external SEO consultant to review our site and see why we are dropping on the term 'example-term'.
We've implemented everything and we're still dropping, the consultant thinks we may have been penalised in error (as we are a legitimate business and we're not trying to do anything untoward).
In search console you could see from the graphs on the term we used to rank 1st and 2nd (you could go back 2 or 3 years and still see this).
The thing we do find confusing is that we still rank very highly (if not 1st) for 'example-term + uk' and our brand name - which is very similar to 'example-term'.
Timeline of events of changes:
-
2nd October 2018 midday: Added a CTA using something called Wisepops over the homepage - this was a full screen CTA for people to pledge on a project on our site helping with the tsunami in Indonesia (which may have had render blocking elements on).
-
4th October: we added a Google MyBusiness page showing our corporate headquarters as being in the UK (we did flag this on the Google MyBusiness forums and both people who responded said adding a MyBusiness page would not affect our drop in rankings).
-
4th October: dropped from number 2 to number 9 on Google searches (this was confirmed in Google Search Console)
-
4th October: Removed the Wisepops popup
-
5th November: Server redirect so anything coming in on / was redirected to a page without a /
-
12th November: Removed around 200 junk pages (so old pages, test cms pages etc that were live and still indexed). Redirects from any 404s resolved
-
19th November: Updated site maps and video site maps to reflect new content and remove old content. Reviewed the whole site for duplicate meta tags and titles and updated accordingly with unique ones. Fixed issues in Google Search Console for Google search console for 404 and Mobile usability. Removed embedded YouTube video from homepage.
-
11th December: Removed old content and content seen as not useful from indexing; 'honey pot' pages, old blog, map pages, user profile pages, project page ‘junk pages which have little SEO value’ (comments, contact project owner, backers, report project) from indexing, added ‘no-follow’ to widgets linking back to us
-
3rd January 2019: Changed the meta title from to remove 'example-term' (we were concerned it may have been seen as keyword stuffing)
-
7th January: Disavow file updated to refuse a set of external sites powered by API linking to us (these were sites like example-term.externalsite.co.uk which used to link to us showing projects in local areas - our SEO expert felt may be seen as a ‘link farm’)
-
11th January: Updated our ‘About us’ page with more relevant content
-
15th January: Changed homepage title to include 'example-term' again, footer links updated to point to internal pages rather than linking off to Intercom, homepage ordering of link elements on homepage changed (so moving external rating site link further down the page, removing underlines on one item that was not a link, fixed and instance where two h1 tags were used), removed another set of external Subdomains (i.e. https://externalsite.sitename.co.uk) from our system (these were old sites we used to run for different clients which has projects in geographical areas displayed)
-
18th January: Added the word 'example-term' to key content pages
We're at a loss as to why we are still dropping. Please note that the above changes were implemented after we'd been ranking fine for a couple years on the 'example-term' - the changes were to try and address the drop in ranking. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
-
-
Thanks for the info! It's good to get a bigger picture of the nefarious 'globe' network which seems to link to every site on the entire internet, with absolutely zero value-add whatsoever for end users. It's interesting to see that you guys got hit by some variants of that pure-spam domain, which didn't seem to hit us. Clearly the problem is far more widespread than we had at first anticipated
We also disavowed a whole load of non-globe related domains, those weren't in our export
What I'm talking about in terms of the 'targeted' methodology, is not the deployment of the disavow - but the decision making process before the disavow file was compiled. We really made sure that, we got a very granular view of each and every link before deciding whether to disavow or not. We had rows of metrics against each link, before we decided whether to keep or disavow any particular link
In almost all situations, once we reached deployment we used to domain-level disavow directives. There were only 1-2 exceptions, where the client had good editorial pieces on a site - yet also spammy banner / sidebar links from paid advertising. In such situations we used a mixture of disavow directives, to try (as hard as we could) to let to good links through the net. That being said, very few people will be in that same situation. In the majority of cases, if you don't want one link from a domain - you don't want any!
-
This is really useful thank you. We've reviewed our spammy backlinks and noticed we also have a load of links from the Globe network also.
Looks like a few of the urls we're seeing were not in your disavow list, so I've listed them below so you can update your disavow file if needed.
earth.firm.in
theglobe.shop
advertisewebpages.org
searchingweb.org
accent-rugs.search-web.us
search-web.us
theworld.gen.in
globe.clothing
the-seek.net
theglobe.ru
www.search-internet.net
theglobe.capital
theglobe.co.za
theglobe.insure
theglobe.rocks
the-internet.co
www.internet-advertising.us
www.internetads.us
advertise.country
advertise-web-pages.org
internet-seek.org
the-web.in
theworld.capital
advertise.loans
acne.search-web.us
ad-net.net
advertise.contractors
advertisewebpage.net
arizona-mortgages.search-web.us
globe.video
jitensha.seek-web.net
online-seek.com
seekinternet.net
submit-urls.org
theglobe.exchange
theglobesearch.com
the-globe.today
the-globe.tv
theworld.diamonds
theworlds.marketing
the-world.tv
web-advertisement.com
websearch.world
www.advertising.recipes
www.earth.shopping
www.web-page.org
www.websearch.cz
www.web-seek.net
advertise.cologne
theglobe.bid
web-seek.org
the-internet.in
theseek.org
advertise.cruises
kitsukekyoshitsu.seek-web.net
theglobe.education
advertising.shoes
advertise.condos
advertise-webpages.com
advertise-website.org
seek-internet.com
seek-web.org
theglobe.org.in
theglobe.yt
the-world.site
globe.ru.com
auto-insurance.search-web.us
theglobe.loans
globe.com.de
www.theglobe.ru
theworld.estate
advertise-web-page.net
globe.com.ar
globe.pe
theglobe.ee
worlds.games
searching-web.com
advertise.computer
theglobe.cn.com
add-urls.net
globe.br.com
theglobe.ae
theglobe.sk
web-advertising.net
netfind.eu
theglobe.international
theglobe.gr
theglobe.fi
advertise.jewelry
searchinginternet.net
search-pages.org
submit-page.com
submit-pages.com
submitwebpages.com
theglobe.bz
theglobe.cl
theglobe.email
theglobe.gallery
theglobe.my
the-globe.siteWhen you said you disavowed the links in a targeted way - was that doing each link or grouped domain one by one in a disavow file?
Thanks again
-
So firstly, remember that Google's rankings are a competitive environment. It might be that others are rising as the query-space has been identified as lucrative by a number of competitors, rather than that you are 'dropping'
Another factor to consider is algorithmic devaluation. If you haven't had a message from Google within Search Console saying that you have had a penalty of some kind, then Google aren't adjusting your rankings to be lower than they were before.
When sites which previously gave you SEO authority are deemed as 'manipulative' by Google, the pipe from their site to your site (which was previously sending across ranking power) is switched off, so you drop. No one has edited your rankings to be lower, it's just that previously 'suspect' links have been switched off by Google. From Google's POV those links should never have contributed to your rankings, so it's not an attack on you - it's Google balancing the table to 'how things should always have been'
I recently wrote an in-depth post on this phenomenon, you can find it here as my primary answer to the asked question. I recommend you have a read of that one!
I can confirm that at our agency, from late Summer last year to the end of the year (Autumn to Winter period) we did notice an increase in terms of negative SEO attacks. 2-3 of our client's sites were hit and on one of our client's websites, the attack actually worked and drained some of their ranking positions a little. We recovered from it pretty fast via accurate disavow work. The main offending network was this crappy one which as you can see is just a series of spam domains linked together with billions of pages listed, in Google's least-favourite manipulative 'link-list' format
For reference we purged a load of globe-related domains:
- https://d.pr/f/PLkscH.txt (list of globe-related domains we disavowed)
I'm giving you the above as our timelines somewhat converge for very similar issues, actually if you'd be open to it I'd like to compare lists of disavowed spam domains to see if it was part of the same attack
This list isn't exhaustive, we actually did a much more thorough job of the work than just that. We fetched tens or hundreds of thousands of backlinks from all relevant tools (SEMRush, Ahrefs, Moz Link Explorer, Majestic SEO, Google Search Console) and aggregated all the data. We then used Google Analytics (site-visits / sessions metrics) and URL Profiler (fetching metrics like Citation Flow, Trust Flow, Page Authority, Domain Authority, Ahrefs Rating - all from different data sources) and boiled each link down to a single 'SEO Authority' metric
Once we had that we began deciding which links were 'fake' ore 'negative SEO' links and we disavowed them in a very, very targeted way
The problem is that, when you get penalties or algorithmic devaluations, Google won't explicitly tell you which links are the problem. If you get too aggressive and do the disavow work in a non-data-led, non-targeted way, you can end up disavowing some links which were giving you some SEO ranking power. That makes you dip down further
Even with out solid tools and methodology, we _still _usually experience slight dips from disavow work. But after it's done, limiters on performance are removed and then you can begin to see it trend up again. Especially if you replace some of the bad links with good ones (or compensate for having less authority by introducing better content), you very quickly start to see the site recovering
IMO it sounds like you have had:
- Spammy inbound links and / or negative SEO
- Which led to algorithmic devaluations, not a penalty
- Which was then back-plated with low quality disavow work
- Which then hit you harder than was necessarry
- Which then nullified your content efforts
I'm not a gambling man, but if I had to roll some dice - that's what I'd say
This is the kind of lengths we were going to, in order to get an accurate disavow which killed negative links whilst preserving decent ones:
- https://d.pr/i/o4GM8p.png (screenshot of Excel)
This particular sheet has over 5,000 rows of data, but before we began our cull it had many more (into the tens or hundreds of thousands of rows of data, from memory)
A lot of the colouration is conditional formatting, designed to make stuff stand out. There were also rules saying stuff like, actually if this link is already a no-follow it therefore can't be a risk so don't disavow (basic logic)
If this doesn't look like the lengths to which your agency or freelance partner went to (with very sensitive disavow work) then the work wasn't done right
Sorry that I haven't provided a clear-cut, out of the box answer to your query. Hopefully the knowledge and resources which I have shared here, will be some use to you on your **quest for restored **rankings
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
-
Help identifying cause for total rank loss
Hello, Last week I noticed one of my pages decreased in rank for a particular query from #8 to #13. Although I had recently made a few minor edits to the page (added an introductory paragraph and left-column promo to increase word count), I thought the reason for the decrease was due to a few newly ranked pages that I hadn't seen before. In an attempt to regain my original position, I tried to optimize the meta title for the singular form of the word. After making this change, I fetched and rendered the page as Google (status = partial) and submitted the page for indexing (URL only, not including on-page links). Almost immediately after submitting, the page dropped from #13 out of the top 50. I've since changed the meta title back to what it was originally and let Google crawl and index the page on its own, but the page is still not in the top 50. Could the addition of the page description and left column promos tipped the scales of keyword stuffing? If I change everything back to the way it was originally, is it reasonable to think I should regain my original position below the new pages? Any insights would be greatly appreciated!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | jmorehouse0 -
Rank product pages
What are the best ways to rank your product pages, We have a few ecommerce sites and we want to increase the position of both our product and catagory pages. I know that gaining more popularity will help to increase the DA but I want my product pages to rank higher.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Johnny_AppleSeed0 -
Competitor ranking well with duplicate content—what are my options?
A competitor is ranking #1 and #3 for a search term (see attached) by publishing two separate sites with the same content. They've modified the title of the page, and serve it in a different design, but are using their branded domain and a keyword-rich domain to gain multiple rankings. This has been going on for years, and I've always told myself that Google would eventually catch it with an algorithm update, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Does anyone know of other options? It doesn't seem like this falls under any of the categories that Google lists on their web spam report page—is there any other way to get bring this up with the powers that be, or is it something that I just have to live with and hope that Google figures out some day? Any advice would help. Thanks! how_to_become_a_home_inspector_-_Google_Search_2015-01-15_18-45-06.jpg
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | inxilpro0 -
The purpose of these Algo updates: To more harshly push eCommerce sites toward PPC and enable normal blogs/forums toward reclaiming organic search positions?
Hi everyone, This is my first post here, and absolutely loving the site and the services. Just a quick background, I have dabbled in SEO in the past, and have been reading up over the last few months and am amazed at the speed at which things are changing. I currently have a few clients that I am doing some SEO work for 2 of them, and have had an ecommerce site enquire about SEO services. They are a medium sized oak furniture ecommerce site. From all the major changes..the devaluing of spam links, link networks, penalization of overuse of exact match anchor text and the overall encouraging of earned links (often via content marketing) over built links, adding to this the (not provided) section in Google Analytics, and the increasing screen real estate that PPC is getting over organic search...all points to me thinking on major thing..... That the search engine is trying to push eCommerce sites and sites that sell stuff harder toward using PPC and paid advertising and allowing the blogs/forums and informational sites to more easily reclaim the organic part of the search results again. The above is elaborated on a bit more below.. POINT 1 Firstly as built links (article submission, press releases, info graphic submission, web 2.0 link building ect) rapidly lose their effectiveness, and as Google starts to place more emphasis on sites earning links instead - by producing amazing interesting and unique content that people want to link to. The fact remains that surely Google is aware that it is much harder for eCommerce sites to produce a constant stream of interesting link worthy content around their niche (especially if its a niche that not an awful lot could be written about). Although earning links is not impossible for eCommerce sites, for a lot of them it is more difficult because creating link worthy content is not what eCommerce sites were originally intended for. Whereas standard blogs and forums were built for that exact purpose. Therefore the search engines must know that it is a lot easier for normal blogs/forums to "earn" links through content, therefore leading to them reclaiming more of the organic search ranking for transaction and non transaction terms, and therefore forcing the eCommerce sites to adopt PPC more heavily. POINT 2 If we add to the mix the fact that for the terms most relevant to eCommerce sites, the search engine results page has a larger allocation of PPC ads than organic results (above the fold), and that Google has limited the amount of data that sites can see in terms of which keywords people are using to arrive on their sites, which effects eCommerce sites more - as it makes it harder for them to see which keywords are resulting in sales. Then this provides further evidence that Google is trying to back eCommerce sites into a corner by making it more difficult for them to make sense of and track sales from organic results in comparison to with PPC, where data is still plentiful. Conclusion Are the above just over exaggerations? Can most eCommerce sites still keep achieving a good percentage of sales from organic search despite the above? if so, what do the more niche eCommerce sites do to "earn" links when content topics are thin and unique outreach destinations can be exhausted quickly. Do they accept the fact that the are in the business of selling things, so should be paying for their traffic as opposed to normal blogs/forums which are not. Or is there still a place for them to get even more creative with content and acquire earned links..? And finally, is the concentration on earned links more overplayed than it actually is? Id really appreciate your thoughts on this..
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | sanj50500 -
Why does Google recommend schema for local business/ organizations?
Why does Google recommend schema for local business/ organizations? The reason I ask is I was in Structed Data Testing Tool, and I was running some businesses and organizations through it. Yet every time, it says this "information will not appear as a rich snippet in search results, because it seems to describe an organization. Google does not currently display organization information in rich snippets". Additionally, many of times when you do search the restaurant or a related query it will still show telephone number and reviews and location. Would it be better to list it as a place, since I want to have its reviews and location show up thanks? I would be interested to hear what everyone else opinions are on this thanks.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | PeterRota0 -
Link Building on Blog Posts w/ Ads & Mostly Pictures
I found a group of similar websites that offer anchor text links with good to great domain and page authority (30 to 75), but I'm not sure how "safe" they are. Most of their posts are compilations of images/logos and there are a lot of ads on the page. Would links from sites like TutorialChip.com help or would Google discount them because of the nature of the site? Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | pbhatt0 -
How to rank internal pages?
Hello, I have a website about consoles, on the homepage are a few thoughts about what consoles are and a short history. The main attraction are the pages about Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Nintendo Wii, PSP Vita. So, I want to rank my homepage and my internal pages about the consoles ranking for "xbox360", "play station 3" each one on a separate page of course. Basically I want to rank brands. My main questions are: 1. How much link builing should I do for my homepage considering that I'm not really interested in ranking it as much as the internal pages? In percentage how it would look like? Random (stupid) example: 60% links to homepage, 10% to each internal page? 2. I guess I must do links for internal pages otherwise they won't rank good, only linking to homepage. 3. Considering the penguin update, my main keyword should be around what % of the overall anchors to each internal page? Thank you very much for your help!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | corodan0 -
Page Rank is 0
Hi. Can you please point me in the right direction concerning a site whose default page has a PR of 0? There does not appear to be any errors in the robots.txt file (that I can tell). When I ran a duplicate content check by searching the title tag and first sentance in quotes it did not return more than 2 sites. When I ran a site: it is reporting 287,000 results. Does this mean that they purchased links and have now been penalized? Or where should I go from here? Thank you for any feedback and assistance.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | JulB0