Should I ask third pages to erase their links pointing at my site?
-
Good Morning Seomoz Fans, let me explain what is going on:
A surfing site has included a link to my Site in their Footer. apparently, this could be good for my site, but as It has nothing to do with my site, I ask myself if I should tell them to erase it.
Site A (Surfing Site) is pointing at Site B (Marketing Site) on their Footer. So Site B is receiving backlinks from every single page on Site A. But Site B has nothing to do with Site A: Different Markets.
Should I ask them to erase the link on their footer as Surfing people will not find my Marketing Site interesting?
Thanks in advance.
-
A thumbs up for Martin! I'd do what he suggests Christian and get rid of the footer links and replace them with a link from a relevant page, preferably within the body content. There may already be a relevant page on the site that can pass a little authority, but if not follows Martin's advice again and get writing!
Enjoy the weekend guys! Lee.
-
My actual conclusion then would be to maybe do a guest post for your friend's site talking about how surf school could benefit from considering their marketing and get a valid in-context link rather than just a link in a footer, which Lee above quite rightly points out could be seen as spammy.
That way you're contributing positively to the development of your friends site and the in-context link appears just on one page (not site-wide) and actually means the page is a relevant, but highly targeted/specialist page which validly links to your site.
Should get you a bit more targeted referrals, rather than you 100% bouncing ones too
-
Hi Martin and Lee, thanks for answering this question, I'll just answer your points Martin:
1.- Because the owner of the site is a friend of mine and he thought it would be a good idea.
2.- I think it does give my domain some value, because it is a link coming from a Non Spammy site that has a Page Authrotiy of 39 and a Domain authority of 28 according to Open Site Explorer, which I think is not bad at all. But the thing is that it is not relevant although the anchor text that he put might be relevant.
3.- I get some visitors but very few. And they all have a Bounce Rate of 100%, so they really dont like or are not looking for any possible service that I offer.
Conclusion: I think that it is passing me some Link Juice, because the domain has a better Domain Authority than mine ! But, it has nothing to do with surfing, my site is about marketing online and translations..
But, his anchor text was "Marketing Online for your Surfschool" (In Spanish), so in that way, it does have some relevance, but it is not producing anything.
I hope I have answered your doubts so you can tell me your opinion. Thanks in advance. And Thanks Lee Jackson as well, I marked both your answers as Good Answers! Cheers.
-
Yes Christian, I would definitely request removal of the links.
The Google Penguin update on April 24th targeted sites that were using spammy backlink tactics, and site wide footer links came under that bracket, particularly those that didn't seem natural (i.e. non-relevant). Other backlinks that came under attack were site-wide blog roll links, and links from spammy networks.
No one knows for sure if the backlinks you mention will harm your site, but my guess is that they will.
Would love to hear other people’s opinions!
Lee
-
My first three questions would be
- Why did they put the link there in the first place?
- Does that link have any 'value' to your SEO campaign (maybe do a quick analysis of the URL in Open Site Explorer)
- Are you getting any visitors through the link?
If the world was free of SEO's I think a 'natural web' would have links between unrelated resources as different people find things relevant or interesting. If the site linking is not generally spammy, and you get the odd visitor through then so long as you are checking it's not doing you any harm then leave it (especially as it seems to have occurred without you asking).
If the surfing site is poor quality then that could reflect badly on you - then get them to remove it.
If the surfing site has little link value and/or you're not getting any visitors through it and/or those that are do not stick around for long, then again get them to remove it.
So do a bit of digging on the page linking up first and see what you find and make your decision based on the data available
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
-
Sitemap: Linking horizontal pages on a sitemap that has a vertical hierarchy structure
I'm currently in the process of revamping a website and creating a sitemap for it so that all pages get indexed by search engines. The site is divided into two websites that share the same root domain. The marketing site is on example.com and the application is on go.example.com. To get to go.example.com from example.com, you need to go through one of three “action pages”. The action pages are accessed from every page on example.com where we have a CTA button on the site (that’s pretty much every page). These action pages do not link back to any other page on the site though, nor are they a necessary step to navigate to other webpages. These action pages are only viewed when a user is ready to be taken to the application site. My question is, how should these pages be set up in a vertical sitemap since these three pages have a horizontal structure? Any insight would be much appreciated!
Technical SEO | | RallyUp0 -
Lots of links from a Wiki pointing at main site
Hi everyone This may seem a bit obvious but I am getting conflicting answers on this, we have a client that has a wiki that is basically an online manual of their software. They do it like this because the manual is so big and is constantly developing, there are thousands of pages with loads of links that are pointing to various sections of relevance on the main site as well, the majority of these are No Follow but I have noticed that they have a single link on the navigation that is a direct link to their main site that is a follow link, obviously this is a sitewide. Would this be seen as being detrimental to the main site, should I have this set as No Follow as well. Thanks in Advance
Technical SEO | | Andrew_Birkitt0 -
Do links that point to an old URL retain value if we have the correct redirects?
I've recently taken over SEO for my company. There are a lot of old links that point to our old URL (www.examplecountry.com changed to (www.examplewhatwedo.com). We have the correct redirects in place and Open Site Explorer shows many of the links pointing to the old site even though I'm inputting the new URL. I just want to put my mind at rest that any value these links have doesn't got lost due to the URL change. Unfortunately a lot of them have the old URL as the anchor text....which I guess will decrease their quality? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | MarbellaSurferDude0 -
Are site wide links bad for web developers?
Like many web dev companies, we put an anchor text credit (varying the anchor text) in the footer of clients' sites. As it's a footer link, it's site wide. This strategy's been troubling me for a while and I've been anticipating a drop in our rankings ... especially in light of Penguin. But it hasn't happened. Any other developers our there taken a hit by having site wide links? anyone have any views on this? Anyone want to comment on the spurious and unlikely scenario that Google may recognise that web dev companies have always used site wide credits and may therefore be overlooking / not penalising them?
Technical SEO | | 2Stroke0 -
Paging Links Code - Best Way?
Currently we are using previous 1 2 3 next for our link to other inventory pages, with some variation of this javascript code javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$phMain$dlPagesTop$ctl01$lnkPageTop','') . Can search engines even index the other pages with this javascript? Is there a better way to do this?
Technical SEO | | CFSSEO0 -
Question Concerning Pages With Too Many Links:
I have run SEO moz software for a clients site, Its showing that virtually every single page has too many links. For instance this url: http://www.golfthere.com/AboutUs Am I missing something? I do not see 157 links on this page.
Technical SEO | | ToddKing0 -
External Links on a Front Page
Does anyone have any links to information about external links on a front page ? I am advising a client that this is not the best idea and that they could be put in a different place but can't find any proof of this.
Technical SEO | | marcelo-2753980 -
Which version of pages should I build links to?
I'm working on the site www.qualityauditor.co.uk which is built in Moonfruit. Moonfruit renders pages in Flash. Not ideal, I know, but it also automatically produces an HTML version of every page for those without Flash, Javascript and search engines. This HTML version is fairly well optimised for search engines, but sits on different URLs. For example, the page you're likely to see if browsing the site is at http://www.qualityauditor.co.uk/#/iso-9001-lead-auditor-course/4528742734 However, if you turn Javascript off you can see the HTML version of the page here <cite>http://www.qualityauditor.co.uk/page/4528742734</cite> Mostly, it's the last version of the URL which appears in the Google search results for a relevant query. But not always. Plus, in Google Webmaster Tools fetching as Googlebot only shows page content for the first version of the URL. For the second version it returns HTTP status code and a 302 redirect to the first version. I have two questions, really: Will these two versions of the page cause my duplicate content issues? I suspect not as the first version renders only in Flash. But will Google think the 302 redirect for people is cloaking? Which version of the URL should I be pointing new links to (bearing in mind the 302 redirect which doesn't pass link juice). The URL's which I see in my browser and which Google likes the look at when I 'fetch as Googlebot'. Or those Google shows in the search results? Thanks folks, much appreciated! Eamon
Technical SEO | | driftnetmedia0