Unnatural links warning and steps to fix it
-
Hi there,
Firstly our website is - imrubbish.co.uk
Basically we were unintentionally using a rogue seo company for about 5 months who charged a lot of money and built absolute rubbish quality links.
When i saw the type of links being built i immediately stopped them as i knew they were bad news but the damage had been done.
I have since moved to a completely ethical seo company who for the past 6 months have tried with me to remove this penalty without success.
Here are the steps we have taken.
Unnatural links warning.
- Submitted a file with all the links we know are bad and resubmitted.
Not good enough
- We then used disavow tool as there were so many links we had no control of. Along with a detailed write up of what has happened and who had done it.
Not good enough
Now the problem my seo guy thinks is because there are more and more links appearing almost daily that are still left over rubbish from the old seo company.
I think there might also be other problems - maybe my anchor test distribution is spammy etc, i dont know and i am hoping someone can maybe help with a couple more pointers.
I have asked a similar question before where there was a discussion about even just leaving it and concentrating on building more ethical links with brand anchor text but that was not working so we used the disavow tool.
We have been stuck in this rut for over a year now and could really do with some extra help/guidance from anyone who has experience or knowledge of what we should do.
I saw the post yesterday about this very subject and hope someone could help drill done specifically what could be the problem in our case.
We would also look at hiring someone if they could help.
Thank you
Jon
-
Hi Jon,
You mentioned that you submitted a file with your known bad backlinks and that you also disavowed those links, but did you actually make attempts to get those links manually removed? Google wants to see that you have tried to remove as many of your unnatural links as possible. You also need to document this well in a Google Doc so that they can see your efforts.
If you have indeed tried to remove backlinks then the next most common reason for sites to fail at reconsideration is because you haven't identified enough of your links as unnatural. Sometimes what looks natural to you actually may be a link that goes against the quality guidelines.
Don't give up on this domain! I've yet to see one that couldn't be saved.
-
Hi Jon
Sorry I didn't see this earlier - tried to private message you but I don't believe I can at the moment. If you'd like, feel free to drop an email at tom [at] sowhatmedia.co.uk
Obviously replace the [at] with @. Hopefully I can help you out a bit more there.
-
Hi im rubbish,
I would generally agree with Tom on the need to be completely honest with yourself when assessing links.
It is also a good idea to make sure that you have carefully read the finer detail of Google's quality guidelines. Make sure you know what qualifies as a link scheme in Google's eyes. This page provides some specific examples that might be eye opening if you have not read them recently.
If you think that the ongoing issue is caused by the appearance of more links, then there are a couple of things you should do:
- Make sure that you disavow entire domains as Tom suggested, so that any other links in existence at that domain will also be disavowed.
- Carefully monitor and identify new links as they appear. If it seems that unnatural links are still accumulating without explanation, highlight the issue in a reconsideration request and make sure that you provide scrupulous detail for the Webspam team to follow up. Be very clear - "these links have not been initiated by us".
Since you're in the UK it might be useful to know there are a couple of Search conferences coming up in the next couple of weeks that include sessions and workshops on link removal and penalty recovery.
BrightonSEO in the South - 11 & 12 April. I believe individual conference tickets are all gone, but there are still places in the Link Removal workshop with Tim Grice (which comes with a full day conference ticket included)
ionSearch in the North (Leeds) - 18 & 19 April. The conference includes both an Expert Panel on Link Removal and workshop sessions. Tim Grice will also be speaking here, as well as Christoph Cemper (owner of the company that develops Link Detox) and myself (rmoov.com).
A final note on starting again with a new domain: This absolutely has to be purely a business decision. With the obvious amount of time, money and effort put into your site's branding to date, even stripping back the entire link profile and "rebooting" your domain is likely to be a better business proposition than having to recreate an entire brand.
Hope that helps,
Sha
-
Hi,
It was a manual penalty the site received. I dont want to give up hope on it yet, our domain is very brandable and has been established for 5 years with a good proportion of repeat business. We also have 5 or 6 very high quality almost impossible to get links.
I would like to get this manual penalty removed that has and is the number one objective. Because of the penalty we setup recyclingbins.co.uk and wheeliebins.co.uk the former is doing very well so in that sense it may be a blessing - a deep hard to fathom blessing as it meant we had to improve other areas of business.
Would you be available to talk about this? I am in a contract with seo company i have, but i would like to look at getting someone with specific expertise in this to help? I could get the existing seo company on creating good links with natural brand anchor text then.
Thank you
Jon
-
There was a great article by Pinpoint Designs on this exact topic.
I'm having the same issue as you with a bad domain trying to turn it into a good one. I have a client who seems to have gotten hit by Penguin and then a unnatural link penalty (manual) we did get the removal notice of the manual penalty but our rankings have not recovered yet. Jon's advice is great but I would also take a look at the article above posted on SEOmoz.
-
Yes Tom, I am also agreed with you to suggest taking new domain and it must be very beneficial to start market freshly.
-
Hi Jon
This is such a shame, as it looks a great website with a cool domain name. It always makes me angry when an SEO agency prays on the naivety of a webmaster, as your previous company did.
What I'd ask first is what sources have you used to identify your bad backlinks? In an ideal world, you should be using multiple. In the past, I've had success with removing penalties but only when using a combination of Google webmasters report, Open site explorer, MajesticSEO (historical index) and LinkDetox. I'd highly recommend majestic's historical index as it is the most complete crawl out there as far as I know, while LinkDetox can help you diagnose a number of links and see if they're toxic or suspicious.
The next question I'd have is how is your current SEO guy classifying the bad links? I've found that it is important to be as vigilant as possible with your classification - probably more so than you think you need to be. This means if you see any link with targeted anchor text, either partial or exact, get rid of it. Blogrolls/site-wide links: Gone. If at any point you can look at a link and think: "That looks like I asked for it to be there/it was placed there" consider it for removal.
Have you been explicit in your reconsideration request? Of course, this is only relevant if you get a message back confirming manual action has been taken. If you don't and no manual action has been taken, the penalty is not present and doesn't require a reconsideration.
You need to give a detailed account to Google of what steps you have taken to have the links removed. How you found the link (by source), where you found the contact details (on site, contact form, who.is data), when you contacted them, when you followed up etc. Anything you can't get removed after multiple requests should only then be disavowed, in Google's eyes. The Disavow tool is great but Google really wants you to be as thorough as you can and make every effort to have the links removed before you disavow.
In addition, don't be afraid to use the domain:example.com function liberally. You'll disavow any link on the entire domain with this, which can be a big help.
In some circumstances, I actually recommend starting with a fresh domain - it can actually be less work starting with a fresh, clean link profile and earning some high quality links this way. I'd consider this if I were you, but I can completely understand the attachment to your domain.
Hope this helps in some way and feel free to ask me anything else you may be wondering.
All the best!
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
-
Internal links from homepage and other pages
Hello, I'm curious what the difference is between internal links from the homepage and category pages. Make it sense to give some internal links from category pages (with a high PA) to an another page for a boost in the search results? Or is the link value too low in this case? Thanks in advance,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarcelMoz
Marcel1 -
Is a link inside a video player considered an inbound link from the domain the player is embedded in?
Good afternoon...We just added a link to our homepage inside the menu of our video player. In the link below, if you click on the menu icon in the bottom right corner of the video player, you'll see a "Powered by WellcomeMat" link at the bottom of the menu. http://www.wellcomemat.com/video/kt216e25172416n/-Rancho-Santa-Fe/Ca/92067/16596-Via-Lago-Azul/1234567890/ My question for the community is would that link be considered an inbound link from any site that has the video player embedded? So hypothetically, the video player is embedded into www.abcd.com. If a user would click on that link and go to our homepage, would search engines recognize that as an inbound link from abcd.com, even though it sits within our video player? And most of the time, the player sits within an iframe. So that's why I'm not 100% sure. Thanks for reading and for your help! It's much appreciated!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | brian7201 -
2015 Disavow Links on Bing?
In years past I was told not to disavow links in Bing unless the site had an issue. This was driven home when a site we were working on disavowed the links in google and saw the site recover after a few months, then when they disavowed the same links in Bing and the rankings dropped 20% over the next few months. The reasoning was that Bing was looking more at the qty of links, and didn't analyze links the way Google does. So even though you might disavow links in Google you might not want to disavow those same links in Bing. Does this still hold true in 2015? I want to get the community's opinion on this topic, should the same links be disavowed in Bing that are disavowed in Google? Why or why not?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | K-WINTER1 -
Disavow Links Notification
No manual actions on our sites, just Penguin related. I put in a disavow for one site in October and Webmaster Tools kept a message up for some time saying the disavow links file for that site had been updated. I put in a disavow for another site of ours last week and I've had no such message. I checked and the file is there. Was this an intentional change on Google's part? Just want to make sure something's not messed up here.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingof50 -
Unnatural Inbound Links Warning in GWT
Hi all, A bit of a long questions so apologies in advance but please bear with me... My client has received an 'Unnatural Inbound Links' warning and it is now my task to try and resolve through a process of; Highlighting the unnatural links Requesting that the links be removed (via webmaster requests) Possibly using the Disavow Tool Submitting a Reconsideration Request So I downloaded my clients link profile from both OSE and GWT in CSV format and compared - the amount of links returned was considerably more in GWT than it was in OSE...? So I set about going through the links, first filtering into order so that I could see blocks of links from the same URL - I highlighted in colours; Red - Definitely need to be removed Orange - Suspect, need to investigate further Yellow - Seem to be ok but may revisit Green - Happy with the link, no further action So to my question which relates to, is it 'black & white' - is it a case of 'good link v 'bad link' or could there be some middle ground? (am I making this process even more confusing than it actually is?) As an example, here are some 'Orange' URL's; http://www.24searchengines.com/ (not exact URL as it goes to the travel section which is my clients niche) - this to me looks spammy and I would normally 'paint it red' and look to remove, however, when I go to the 'contact us' page; (http://www.24searchengines.com/texis/open/allthru?area=contactus) and follow the link to remove from directory, it takes me here; http://www.dmoz.org/docs/en/help/update.html DMOZ??? My clients has a 'whole heap' of these type of links; http://www.25searchengines.com/ http://www.26searchengines.com/ http://www.27searchengines.com/ http://www.28searchengines.com/ ...and many many more!! Here is another example; http://foodys.eu/ http://foodys.eu/2007/01/04/the-smoke-ring-bbq-community/ ...plus many more... My client is in the 'cruise niche' and as there is a 'cruise' section on the site I'm not sure whether this constitutes a good, bad or indifferent link! Finally, prior to me working with this client (1 month) they moved their site from a .co.uk to a .com domain and redirected all links from the .co.uk to the .com (according to GWT, over 16k have been redirected) - a lot of these 'spammy' links were to the .co.uk and have thus been redirected, should I even consider removing the redirection or will that have severe consequences? Apologies for the long (long) post, I know I'm heading in the right direction but some assurance wouldn't go amiss! 🙂 Many thanks Andy <colgroup><col width="1317"></colgroup>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TomKing
| |0 -
Warning about a 302 redirect
Hello everyone, I'm testing the pro software and recently I installed an SSL Certificate on one of the websites I'm monitoring, I put in place an .htaccess directive to force all traffic to the secure version of the site (https) and I noticed how this raised a warning because my directive is forcing the traffic with a 302 redirect. These are the lines: _RewriteCond %{SERVER_PORT} 80 _ RewriteRule ^(.*)$ https://example.com/$1 [R,L] I understand that this is not good so I figured since I'm already redirecting all www to -www I can force traffic that arrives trying to use www to the secure version like so: RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^example.com$ RewriteRule (.*) https://example.com/$1 [R=301,L] But this is not 100% effective because if someone visits the site directly on the -www version this person wont get redirected hence it wont be forced to see the https. So my question is: does anybody know of an alternate way to force traffic to the secure socket using a 301 instead of a 302? Oh boy, just by writing the question I think I may have figured it out, I'll post it anyways because (1) I could be wrong and (2) It could help someone else. It just hit me but the directive that is forcing www to -www specifies what type of redirect to do here [R=301,L]. So to try to answer my own question before even posting it this could probably do the trick: _RewriteCond %{SERVER_PORT} 80 _ _RewriteRule ^(.*)$ https://example.com/$1 [_R=301,R,L] I'll be testing it out ASAP and again I'll post the question anyways just in case it doesn't work, in case someone has a good suggestion or to help someone that could be in the same situation. If this is turns out right I will need someone to slap me in the face 😐
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stevenpicado0 -
Dynamic Links vs Static Links
There are under 100 pages that we are trying to rank for and we'd like to flatten our site architecture to give them more link juice. One of the methods that is currently in place now is a widget that dynamically links to these pages based on page popularity...the list of links could change day to day. We are thinking of redesigning the page to become more static, as we believe it's better for link juice to flow to those pages reliably than dynamically. Before we do so, we need a second opinion.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RBA0