Unnatural Links From My Site Penalty - Where, exactly?
-
So I was just surprised by officially being one of the very few to be hit with the manual penalty from Google "unnatural links from your site." We run a clean ship or try to. Of all the possible penalties, this is the one most unlikely by far to occur. Well, it explains some issues we've had that have been impossible to overcome.
We don't have a link exchange. Our entire directory has been deindexed from Google for almost 2 years because of Panda/Penguin - just to be 100% sure this didn't happen. We removed even links that went even to my own personal websites - which were a literal handful. We have 3 partners - who have nofollow links and are listed on a single page.
So I'm wondering... does anyone have any reason to understand why we'd have this penalty and it would linger for such a long period of time? If you want to see strange things, try to look up our page rank on virtually any page, especially in the /gui de/ directory. Now the bizarre results of many months make sense. Hopefully one of my fellow SEOs with a fresh pair of eyes can take a look at this one.
-
Todd - Thanks for your message. On the bright side - a quick response to my request. Today I received a message back that Google removed the manual penalty for outbound links. Apparently they agreed with us.
Again, many thanks. M
-
Hi Michael, best of luck. I am sure that you can get the site back to where it needs to be with some clever thinking and a reinclusion that speaks about how much time and effort you have put into the website in order to make it 110% compliant (even though we know it already largely is
Let us know how it goes!
-T
-
Todd - Great answer. I do appreciate the time you've taken to compile this list. I hope I can reaward a best answer because this deserves one.
Frustration is putting it mildly but thanks for the empathy. You wouldn't know this but I've actually torn down the entire site and rebuilt it trying to find these alleged "unnatural" and "manipulative" outbound links. I removed/disabled registration on the directory for many months and that had no effect. I've killed much of the income stream and have had people question why so many parts are disabled for so long to the detriment of the reputation of the site. I've invested a colossal number of hours reading, learning and inhaling SEO. The question unfortunately becomes whether to abandon a great site and many years of work because Google has us perpetually in the penalty box and the cost of trying to guess in the dark why this happened is far above any potential benefit. Anyway - I'll answer your chart:
1. Great suggestion: Already done but I'll run it again for the last time.
2. Will do although I know that the one way out of the site to an affiliate contains all nofollow links and I confirmed this numerous times. I'll kill that revenue stream and deindex about 80 pages to so we can kill almost every outbound link, even the pages with nofollow links too.
3. No warnings in GWT except the single one years ago about unnatural outbound links. GWT did let us know once that there was a "big traffic change" for a "top URL" on our site. No kidding Google. That's what happens when you slam a site with a manual penalty, lol.
4. We have virtually no widgets on the CMS. Most are basic functional, created by donnacha at Wordpress (who is beyond reputable), custom developed or absolutely clean.
5. Every business listing is noindex and nofollow (except mine, which has one link on one page to my own personal blog - I'll kill that one too.) If you look in a search, everything directory page is robots.txt blocked as well as noindexed. But I'm going to delete every single entry in our directory - and that's lots of them. We'll kill it again to prove the point.
6. I don't know what you're linking to. Our publishing section is dead because of my hunting this issue instead of launching yet another part of the site. I've had to cut the amount of content produced by well over 50% just to deal with this. There are only 4-5 authors on the site at the moment, almost all work is mine. None of the authors are follow links and I am absolutely sure.
7. There are virtually no website urls in the profiles in the forum. I disabled that ability and regularly clean out every profile from links (e.g. home page) using mysql queries. Nobody except super moderators can have a signature. Mine is an internal nofollow link. If there is another one or two, both are nofollow but I'll kill that link as well for this, much to my supermod's likely chagrin.
The thing that kills me is just finding out that I've made a colossal effort chasing a possible algorithm issue to find out this is a manual action - and nobody will tell me how they could possibly think I'm engaged in an outbound links scheme. So it goes. Speaking of which, I'll let you know how it goes. Many thanks.
-
Hi Michael,
I can sense your frustration but business and marketing are unforgiving. And while I do agree with your sentiments the best thing you can do is be absolutely 100% thorough in your approach to the problem.
I would recommend running the Screaming Frog and Xenu and re-evaluating.
Here is a handy checklist that you can do through to ensure you are covering bases, if you have not already.
1. Run Xenu Screaming Frog and examine in detail. Look for any pages which have outlinks and scrutinize those outlinks and ensure they are nofollowed. Be sure to include all subdomains, even subdomains you believe are noindex at the robots.txt level.
2. Check page code on 20 random pages in each subdomain to ensure that there are not hidden bits of code you might be missing that contain an external link. Check CSS and javascript while you are at it just to be certain
3. Check GWT to ensure that there are no warnings or alerts as to any hacking or suspicious page activity.
4. Thoroughly audit any and all widgets to ensure they do not contain outlinks, and if they do, assess as necessary based on authority of destination website and relevance / commercial natural of link.
5. Ensure any business listings on the website are nofollow
6. Nofollow any links (for now) from any areas where you published articles (I noticed here that you do allow for this option)
7. Nofollow signature links in the forums, if they are not already. Nofollow profile page links in the forum, if they are not already.
When you run these reports and checks, make extensive notes of what you are doing. Google is looking to see that you have put exhaustive effort into the process. Since you have control over link on your own domain, the level of scrutiny is higher.
On a side note, some of your important business pages seem to be hanging up on an internal redirect. The about us and privacy policy in particular appear to have a closed loop redirect.
Wishing you the best of luck!
Best,
Todd -
Todd - Thanks for your response.
The very troublesome aspect of this is the manual action taken by Google about something someone may have been clearly mistaken about. They have forgotten about it and the issue hasn't resolved over time like Matt Cutts insists it should as per his blog. But the kicker is this -- if more than a dozen very smart and experienced SEOs, webmasters of very large community sites and even people in the Google Webmaster Help forum can't find any reasonable problem, then we can't assume that the webmaster is always to blame.
As of right now, the only links any of us have identified are three links - yes, three links. Let's say there were seven just to be on the safe side. Let's be reasonable... do I really need to explain this? If this happened to your client's site, you probably would be thinking "are you kidding me?"
Google needs to explain exactly what issue it was that one of its employees found that was reason enough to manually decide give us a prolonged prison sentence. Until we spot truly "wrongful conduct" there isn't any crime for which to ask forgiveness. All I'd be doing is tap dancing about a handful of links that no sober person would confuse as a questionable or irregular link building scheme. I want to know what will have lifted this manual penalty, even if it's "oops".
-
Hi Michael,
I would suggest running Screaming Frog and re-running Xenu again on the entire domain and all sub directories. Ensure that outbound links that are not editorial in nature (freely given and relevant to the user) have nofollow applied (even on sections where robots.txt are set to limit / prevent indexing). Every outbound link needs to be scrutinized. Nofollow first, ask questions later.
Take 20 pages in different sections and also hand check page code. Look for iframe injections or other unusual patterns or outbound links. Nofollow any outbound widget links, or if not possible, then remove those widgets.
Once done, develop the reinclusion.
Before reincluding be sure to be extremely thorough in your explanation to Google. Explain how the outbound links you had, you felt were editorial. Document and explain in detail how you have remedied the entire situation and comply with guidelines and understand those fully.
You might consider referencing this URL in the reinclusion request, which shows more proof that you are trying to clean up any possible areas.
Panda could still be influencing the website, but taking care of the manual penalty is definitely the right place to start.
Hope this helps,
Todd -
Thanks guys, I thought those 3 links were nofollowed. I'm getting rid of our_ one singe page_ that gives credit to the three companies that help us that have a total of three outbound hyperlinks. It's absolutely insane to even think this is the problem among 100,000+ pages of unique content, carefully moderated and created over 15 years. This is why Google owes us a full and complete explanation for the manual penalty, which appears to have lasted for a very long time.
If this is considered problematic, Google might as well penalize 99.99% of websites, including moz.com - all dofollow, lol!!!
http://moz.com/community/recommended
It would appear this "manual action" against our site is an error that has never been corrected automatically and plagued us for a long, long time. I'll await to hear what Google says if they eventually get around to reconsidering our site. Thank you guys for scouring this large site in all directions and confirming what I've found and now making the argument airtight.
-
Good catch, Anders!
-
Hi!
One more final suggestion: Add nofollow to the links at http://www.thelaw.com/partners/
Perhaps they are considered to be problematic.
Good luck in getting traffic etc back to normal.
Anders
-
Sheldon - Thanks for the suggestion. I actually posted in the Google Webmaster Help Forum on this issue several months ago - both the zero page rank and loss of all +1s. The best anyone could find (from some smart SEO experts there who were generous with their time) were the handful of links I mentioned and nobody had answers. This new manual actions information from Google helps greatly in an unfortunate way - it seems to confirm an ongoing anomaly that appears to be a manual Google action for outgoing links that has never been lifted. The only warning I've ever received was about outgoing links from my site - and that was a long time ago.
I appreciate you guys giving the look over that it appears everyone has confirmed independently. Perhaps it's long overdue to camp out on Matt Cutts' doorstep, lol.
-
Michael- You're definitely facing an odd situation here... makes no sense. Have you tried posting an inquiry on the Google Webmaster Help Forum? I'd say there's a good chance you can get a Googler's attention there and maybe get a hint as to where the problem lies.
-
Sheldon - I will look into the redirect issue. Regarding the directory, no, it is not fully deindexed although virtually every entry is deindexed. Search for any name (other than one) and you won't find any of them. Robots.txt blocks those pages and every page has a "noindex" on it. But most importantly... there are virtually no outbound inks. None!
Yes... this is a puzzling issue that has hit us for many months and nobody has been able to solve it. There is a zero or no page rank at all on every page in the site - thousands of them. The primary domain was a 6.
-
Anders - thanks for spotting that but it's not the problem. That was installed 2 days ago - actually, not even that long ago. The error message predates that plugin. In addition, I think those are only 10 pages in total right now -- but thank you for reminding me that this is still there.
Apparently there is a discussion on it at Wordpress.com. Incredibly devious.
-
Hi!
In regards to the "directory"-question, I think what Todd wondered, was if it was some special part of the site that had gotten a penalty, or was reported as problematic.
It appears that you have invisible links in the social sharing plugin on the left side (at least on the article-section) that are not nofollowed. Search in the source code for
.
I found this:
_<div class="wpsr-linkback"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.aakashweb.com/wordpress-plugins/wp-socializer/">WP Socializera><a class="wpsr_linkaw" target="_blank" href="http://www.aakashweb.com">Aakash Weba>_div>
Hope this helps!
Anders
-
Odd... the first time I pasted the URL you gave in your original post, it took me to lawyers.thelaw.com
but the second time, it took me to thelaw.com. As you said, lawyers.thelaw.com and the many pages I checked had TBPR of 0. But thelaw.com shows TBPR of 2.By the way, lawyers.thelaw.com hasn't been de-indexed.
-
Anders - Thanks. Yes, I used Xenu. The penalty is on the entire site.
-
Hi Michael!
Have you tried spidering your site (with screaming frog or similar tools), to see if any of the profile pages on the subdomain contains any suspicious outbound links?
Is there a penalty for the entire domain, or just the subdomain?
Best regards,
Anders
-
Dates of noticeable traffic changes:
- Mid June 2011 (Panda - extremely significant)
- Mid August 2011 (significant)
- Mid March 2012 (slight)
- End April/Beginning May 2012 (significant)
- Mid August 2012 (somewhat significant)
The only warning was practically the same warning a while ago. That's it, nothing else. An earlier reconsideration request back in August 2011 resulted in no response from Google and was done because actions taken to combat Panda as recommended did almost nothing. All concerning outbound links from the site. Even back then we didn't have any link exchanges or anything that seemed remotely related to the warning.
The only thing that helped us - removing Google Analytics for 1.5 month's time. During that time traffic increased noticeably and traffic grew until the End of April issue.
-
Todd - Thanks for your response:
1 - Yes, I can confirm that the message is from my site, which is what puzzles me. Google just released its manual actions field in Webmaster Tools and that was my first experience with it today. I suspect that this action may have been taken a very long time ago but let's hold off on that for now:
Unnatural links from your site
Google detected a pattern of unnatural, artificial, deceptive, or manipulative outbound links on pages on this site. This may be the result of selling links that pass PageRank or participating in link schemes2 - There is only one directory on the site. http://legal.nu/kdlu
Apparently Google suppresses some of the results (and it recognizes robots.txt blocks the pages) but has included about 10K entries in its index if you add the additional results. Every page has a noindex meta tag and the robots.txt file in the subdomain also has a disallow. Regardless, there are virtually no outbound links. Other than 2 entries, most do not have outbound links to websites and, if they do, every link is nofollow. So I don't see any outbound there.
3 - There were 2 personal websites and 1 partner website - yes, a total of 3 sites - that's it. They were removed at least 2 months ago. They represented my professional personal blog, the website of our development company and the website of our hosting company. This was the most anyone could guess that might even be an issue so it was removed entirely, as innocuous as it seemed.
4. I have no idea how long but it could be a penalty since Panda. Panda came and virtually nothing made a difference. You could add good original content and there would be marginal gains although Bing and Yahoo reported gains. The odd part is that the directory grew in traffic while the best content on the site dropped. Thus the whole directory was deindexed. Go figure.
Other information:
Ranking drops - about 5 months ago all page rank from the site went to zero or unable to be ranked and now only two pages are ranked. Every +1 on the site was gone. http://legal.nu/kdlv - check this link. It gets a good number of page views every month. The pagerank cannot be determined. The site used to rank very, very well. Several pages lost their Facebook Likes too but not all across the board like the Google +1s.
That's about all I know. Backlinks disavowed (some are the remnant of 15 years on the web, scrapers, people with blogrolls of sites, some others were there and not our doing but we disavowed those that were gone, which was only a few hundred entries in total.)
I can't find the outbound links that it appears Google may have penalized us for a long time. Neither has anyone else, at least nothing substantial and most benign at best. Thanks for the look over.
-
Hi Michael, to start let's look at a few areas so that we have some supporting information
1. Can you confirm the message is "Unnatural links from your site"? What date did you receive this message?
2. Which directory has been deindexed by Google (url please)
3. When did you remove the links to your personal websites, and where were those links located in the website, and what were the topics that those websites represented?
4. Which penalty do you feel has been lingering for a long time?
Any other supporting information as to the history of the website (suspected penalties, ranking drops + those corresponding dates) would be helpful.
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
-
Disavow Links & Paid Link Removal (discussion)
Hey everyone, We've been talking about this issue a bit over the last week in our office, I wanted to extend the idea out to the Moz community and see if anyone has some additional perspective on the issue. Let me break-down the scenario: We're in the process of cleaning-up the link profile for a new client, which contains many low quality SEO-directory links placed by a previous vendor. Recently, we made a connection to a webmaster who controls a huge directory network. This person found 100+ links to our client's site on their network and wants $5/link to have them removed. Client was not hit with a manual penalty, this clean-up could be considered proactive, but an algorithmic 'penalty' is suspected based on historical keyword rankings. **The Issue: **We can pay this ninja $800+ to have him/her remove the links from his directory network, and hope it does the trick. When talking about scaling this tactic, we run into some ridiculously high numbers when you talk about providing this service to multiple clients. **The Silver Lining: **Disavow Links file. I'm curious what the effectiveness of creating this around the 100+ directory links could be, especially since the client hasn't been slapped with a manual penalty. The Debate: Is putting a disavow file together a better alternative to paying for crappy links to be removed? Are we actually solving the bad link problem by disavowing or just patching it? Would choosing not to pay ridiculous fees and submitting a disavow file for these links be considered a "good faith effort" in Google's eyes (especially considering there has been no manual penalty assessed)?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Etna0 -
URL Value: Menu Links vs Body Content Links
Hi All, I'm a little confused. I have read a number of articles from authority sites that give mixed signals over the importance of menu links vs body content links. It is suggested that whilst all menu links spread link juice equally, Google does not see them as favourably. Inserting a link within the body will add more link juice value to the desired page. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks Mark
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mark_Ch0 -
Google webmaster tools showing "no data available" for links to site, why?
In my google webmaster account I'm seeing all the data in other categories except links to my site. When I click links to my site I get a "no data available" message. Does anyone know why this is happening? And if so, what to do to fix it? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Nicktaylor10 -
Broken Links from Open Site Explorer
I am trying to find broken internal links within my site. I found a page that was non-existent but had a bunch of internal links pointing to that page, so I ran an Open Site Explorer report for that URL, but it's limited to 25 URLs. Is there a way to get a report of all of my internal pages that link to this invalid URL? I tried using the link: search modifier in Google, but that shows no responses.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sbaylor0 -
Help Identifying Unnatural Links
http://bit.ly/XT8yYYHi,Any help with the below will be most appreciated.We received an unnatural links warning in Webmaster Tools and noticed a large drop in our rankings. We downloaded and carried out a full link audit (3639 links) and logged in an excel spreadsheet with the following status: OK, Have Contacted, Can't Contact, Not SureWe have had some success but the majority of the ones we identified are not contactable.We use the dis-avow tool to tell Google of these. We then submitted a reconsideration request where we explained to Google our efforts and that we can supply them with our audit if necessary by email as you can't upload any evidence.A few days later we received a response suggesting that we still have unnatural links. We are a little stuck as we don't know what they can be:1. Is Google actually looking at our dis-avowed links before making this judgement?2. We have missed something that Google is considering bad but we can't see in our audit?Again we need a little help as we are trying to sort this out but can't see what we are falling down on.I can provide our spreadsheet if necessary.Many ThanksLee
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | LeeFella0 -
Google penalized site--307/302 redirect to new site-- Via intermediate link—New Site Ranking Gone..?
Hi, I have a site that google had placed a manual link penalty on, let’s call this our
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Robdob2013
company site. We tried and tried to get the penalty removed, and finally gave up and purchased another name. It was our understanding that we could safely use either a 302 or 307 temporary redirect in order to redirect people from our old domain to our new one.. We put this into place several months and everything seemed to be going along well. Several days ago I noticed that our root domain name had dropped for our selected keyword from position 9 to position 65. Upon looking into our GWT under “Links to Your site” , I have found many, many, many links which were pointed to our old google penalized domain name to our new root domain name each of this links had a sub heading “Via this intermediate link -> Our Old Domain Google Penalized Domain Name” In light of all of this going on, I have removed the 307/302 redirect, have brought the
old penalized site back which now consists of a basic “we’ve moved page” which is linked to our new site using a rel=’nofollow’ I am hoping that -1- Our new domain has probably not received a manual penalty and is most likely now
received some sort of algorithmic penalty, and that as these “intermediate links” will soon disappear because I’m no longer doing the 302/307 from the old sight to the new. Do you think this is the case now or that I now have a new manual penalty place on the new
domain name.. I would very much appreciate any comments and/or suggestions as to what I should or can do to get this fixed. I need to still keep the old domain name as this address has already been printed on business cards many, many years ago.. Also on a side note some of the sub pages of the new root domain are still ranking very
well, it’s only the root domain that is now racking awfully.. Thanks,0 -
Should I link my similar sites together?
Hi I currently have two sites within exactly the same market. I've just purchased a third website from someone. Should I link these sites together? (i.e. in the page header should I cross link them or point two of them to the third?) If I do this will it harm them if they are on the same C-Class IP blocks? Is using private domains and different hosting companies considered dodgey in any way? Basically I'm a big wimp and don't want to do anything potentially that might potentially hurt my rankings;)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Blendfish0 -
First Link Priority question - image/logo in header links to homepage
I have not found a clear answer to this particular aspect of the "first link priority" discussion, so wanted to ask here. Noble Samurai (makers of Market Samurai seo software) just posted a video discussing this topic and referencing specifically a use case example where when you disable all the css and view the page the way google sees it, many times companies use an image/logo in their header which links to their homepage. In my case, if you visit our site you can see the logo linking back to the homepage, which is present on every page within the site. When you disable the styling and view the site in a linear path, the logo is the first link. I'd love for our first link to our homepage include a primary keyword phrase anchor text. Noble Samurai (presumably seo experts) posted a video explaining this specifically http://www.noblesamurai.com/blog/market-samurai/website-optimization-first-link-priority-2306 and their suggested code implementations to "fix" it http://www.noblesamurai.com/first-link-priority-templates which use CSS and/or javascript to alter the way it is presented to the spiders. My web developer referred me to google's webmaster central: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353 where they seem to indicate that this would be attempting to hide text / links. Is this a good or bad thing to do?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dcutt0