Do you need a place to ditch bad links?
-
This is not a question as such, more a gift
I have registered a domain name to ditch bad links.
For example, let's pretend I have a page on my site:
and have never done any good SEO to promote this page, just a load of spammy directory links.
The page used to rank for Viagra but then Google took manual action and I lost my ranking. Booo!
Now the page is of no use to me until I get all these links removed and the manual action revoked. Even then, I'll be starting from scratch re-building good links to the page.
Here's another option, simply re-direct the url to badlinksbin.com and say goodbye to all those spammy links.
This bypasses the lengthy link removal process.
Warning: I wouldn't recommend using this method if you have some good links in the mix, unless you can contact the site owners and get the links changed.
And, don't forget to change the name of the url first so the Viagra page still exists on your site.
As I've already set this up, I thought no harm sharing it and letting you guys use it too.
I hope it helps some people.
-
I don't control the original site, it's a SEO directory. There are links from it to a page on my site that I want to remove, so I figure I'll 404 the page on my site and re-direct the url back to the directory site.
It is rhetorical given that you've already confirmed that it's enough to 404 the page.
-
I'm confused - why would you link out to another site and then 301-redirect that 3rd-party page back to the original site (especially to the home-page on the original site)? I honestly have no idea how Google would treat that - I think it would send a bit of a mixed signal, but it could be seen as an internal link. If you control the original site, though, this would have no benefits on search or users, so I'm just not clear on the motivation.
-
I don't follow, sorry.
In this scenario:
www.badlinksdirectory.com/pagewithmylink
links to
and re-directs to
Presuming I've changed the url of /targeturl so the content still exists on my site and /targeturl is effectively 404'd.
How are the links consolidated?
Wouldn't it become just an internal link but with a detour?
-
Redirecting to the root domain can preserve the link value, but it won't shake loose any penalties. You'd basically just consolidate those links.
-
Thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it.
Out of interest, what are your thoughts on re-directing the link back to the source? e.g. re-direct www.badlinksdirectory.com/pagewithmylink to www.badlinksdirectory.com
This is of course a somewhat moot point given your response, but I'm just curious what your opinion on this would be in a rhetorical scenario.
-
As best we know, 404s should kill the page as a link target, which essentially severs the links. I don't think Google views the link on a domain-wide level at that point. If they did, then honestly it's likely the same rules would apply to other HTTP headers, including 301s. If the page is dead, you're pretty safe at that point. I don't think 301-redirecting the bad page is going to have any additional positive impact.
Re: "breaking rules", the problem is that it's very subjective. Let's say that a bunch of SEOs realize that Penguin and other link-based penalties created an opportunity, and they start taking their own pages with bad links and 301-redirecting those to competitors (maliciously). If Google sees that pattern and then they see you 301-redirecting your links to a 3rd-party site, they may not be able to separate you from the pattern. In other words, they're going to assume bad behavior.
That's speculation, of course (in this specific case - I've definitely seen them mistake bad intent in other areas). I just don't see that you'd be gaining anything by taking on that risk, even if it's small.
-
Hey Dr. Peter, thanks for your reply. No need to apologise, I really appreciate your critical opinion. I'd like to explore this a little further if I may. If I 404 the page (which is something I've considered), the links are still pointing at my domain, so remain potentially harmful until removed, right?
Same applies if I meta noindex it, I'm still stuck with the links. And with link removal being a major part of SEO at the moment I'm seeing more and more webmasters applying a charge to remove links, so it's either costly or a stalemate.
Obviously, that's what the Disavow Links tools is there for, but I haven't seen much evidence of it working... not quickly anyway.
In your opinion would re-directing to badlinksbin.com move the links out of harms way?
I take your point about negative SEO and concede the activity may have the same hallmarks, but I'm not actually breaking any rules here, right?
-
It seems like you're trying to share something you believe is helpful, so I apologize if this comes off as overly critical, but that's really not a good tactic at all. First off, it's unnecessary. If you are fortunate enough to be able to isolate and redirect a page with bad links (as you said, assuming there aren't good links in the mix), then you'd do just as well to 404 that page entirely. There's no need to redirect it somewhere.
Second, it could actually look manipulative. Redirecting a page full of bad links to a 3rd-party site would look to me like negative SEO. I have no proof Google penalizes this particular behavior, but it seems like a red flag that could potentially cause risks for the site setting up the redirects.
Even if the risk of that happening is <5%, it's a risk on top of doing something completely unnecessary. Just kill the page (404 or Meta-Noindex if it still has user value) - it's a clear signal to Google. If you start getting weird with 301-redirects, you could raise alarms.
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
-
Links
Hi, im wondering if links that is not exact anchor links gives any boost for rankings? Example if lets say somebody links to my site http://domain.com/category/article with anchor: domainname or url link.
Link Building | | Rob_I0 -
Is are Scoopon type sites a good place to get a link?
We have noticed that our competitors have links with equality from sites like this: http://www.groupon.com.au/ Scoopon type sites like this can be an effective way to generate sales for a business, I'm just wondering if these types of sites also have added value for SEO as sites like these do have a strong Domain Authority? Any thoughts on this subject would be most appreciated. Thanks!
Link Building | | Gavo0 -
Internal Linking - Post links vs Side Bar Links behaving differently
Hi, I have a question regarding the internal linking behavior. My website is www.hindimeaning.com which is approx 3 years old. I have approx 450 posts. Now i have a widget on right sidebar "Popular posts". A widget below my posts "Related Posts". And a simple html CSS menu above the posts (I removed menu around 6 month before so currently it will not show.) I crawled my site with moz crawler (same are the result from google crawler as well) and it shows menus links as internal links. While sidebar widget "Popular posts" and "Related Posts" are not showing as internal links. If we talk theoretically what i learn till now is "every link on a page behaves as internal link". Then why the widget links are not showing as internal links. Thanks, Mahesh Kumar
Link Building | | chaudhary04890 -
External links - link to third party sites
Greetings! Actually, got an doubt on linking to external site. The thing, i have working for roof marketers site. They have covered roof products. Each of the products have a page along with major keyword. Actually, i do link from other pages[internally]. Meaning,if i see any main keywords in different page then will link that to corresponding page/product[internally].This is what i am doing to get page rank. Now, my doubt. Some of the pages are having link with main keywords which directs to the third party site those who are really producing the products. But, i remove the third party-link which has with main keywords. Since already the site/my client site having pages for that main keywords. But client really want that link. meaning the links which they have given to direct to third party[product producer] site. So what should i do at this case. Can i just past RAW link like [http://www.thirdpartysite.com] or what do i do. But my client wants that link to be in content area. Hope you would understand my long explanation and case Please help us. Thank you
Link Building | | Webworld_Norway0 -
Adding a link section - good or bad?
Hi all, I am currently thinking about adding a link section to my site. In 2010 I released a new version of the site, where one of the main differences to the old site was that a link section was left out. Now i see in webmaster tools that a lot of old links are still indexed but has a 500 error. My question is: 1. Will my site in general benefit from having a link sections with relevant links for the users - in terms of SEO? 2. Will my site benefit from creating a link section and having all the old link section URLs in google redirected to the new section? Best regards, Rasmus
Link Building | | rasmusbang0 -
Neighborhood links
Hi, If my company offers carpet cleaning services, what neighborhood links partner I need to find. Can anybody list down the neighborhood. Thanks.
Link Building | | younus0 -
Do image links with no alt tags pass link value?
"... an image link with no alt tag is useless to search engines..." according to a Nov 2007 seomoz blog post. Is this still the case in 2011? I ask because I'm about to obtain a banner link on a high-traffic site (chiefly for the clickthrough value) but I notice the site uses neither "title" nor "alt" tags.
Link Building | | Jeepster0 -
Free link on a Paid Link Blog
Hi there, I have been doing some outreaching, and managed to have a blog post accepted on a authority blog. They included links to my website, and I was very pleased with the placement. However, having browsed through the site, I was worried to see that they openly admit they allow 'reviews' of websites, with backlinks included, for $50 per review. I am worried I might be penalised without actually doing anything wrong. I did not pay for my link, but the link has been placed on a site which openly admits they accept payment for links. Should I be worried? Should I ask them to take it down? To date I have been told countless times by bloggers I am outreaching that if I pay $10, $50, $100 etc I can write a blog post. I have never accepted because of the risk of penalization. Now, unwittingly, I am linked to from a paid link site with a blog post that would look like I have paid for it because of the placement and style of back link. What do you think? Thanks,
Link Building | | giveacar0