Google Manual Penalties:Different Types of Unnatural Link Penalties?
-
Hello Guys,
I have a few questions regarding google manual penalties for unnatural link building. They are "partial site" penalties, not site wide.
I have two sites to discuss.
1. this site used black hat tactics and bought 1000's of unnatural backlinks. This site doesn't rank for the main focus keywords and traffic has dropped.
2. this site has the same penalty, but has been all white hat, never bought any links or hired any seo company. It's all organic. This sites organic traffic doesn't seem to have taken any hit or been affected by any google updates.
Based on the research we've done, Matt Cutts has stated that sometimes they know the links are organic so they don't penalize a website, but they still show us a penalty in the WMT.
"Google doesn't want to put any trust in links that are artificial or unnatural. However, because we realize that some links may be outside of your control, we are not taking action on your site's overall ranking. Instead, we have applied a targeted action to the unnatural links pointing to your site."
"If you don't control the links pointing to your site, no action is required on your part. From Google's perspective, the links already won't count in ranking. However, if possible, you may wish to remove any artificial links to your site and, if you're able to get the artificial links removed, submit areconsideration request. If we determine that the links to your site are no longer in violation of our guidelines, we’ll revoke the manual action."
Check that info above at this link: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604772?ctx=MAC
Recap: Does anyone have any experience like with site #2? We are worried that this site has this penalty but we don't know if google is stopping us from ranking or not, so we aren't sure what to do here. Since we know 100% the links are organic, do we need to remove them and submit a reconsideration request?
Is it possible that this penalty can expire on its own? Are they just telling us we have an issue but not hurting our site b/c they know it's organic?
-
Hey There
I would download all of your link data from;
- webmaster tools
- ose
- majestic
- maybe ahref too
And pull it together and comb through it for bad links. I think you'll really have to look through them to see what's going on. Maybe something was missed? First you need to confirm there actually are no spammy/bad links
In a removal / disavow situation the goal is to remove/disavow ONLY bad links - which there could only be 10 out of 100's - so you should sort through them.
-Dan
-
You say that all the links to the second site are "organic". What do you mean by that? Do you mean that the client never purchased links, did blog comments, did forum posts, engaged in article syndication, has followed links in guest blog posts... The list could go on and is pretty extensive. Are you saying that none of the links have been manipulated in anyway?
Also, have you analyzed the link profile for the site? Something is causing Google to think you are trying to manipulate things. Have you figured out what they may have an issue with?
Did you have question about the first site? I don't see one.
Kurt Steinbrueck
OurChurch.Com -
In my opinion if you get a warning about action to specific links and you have Basically a clean backlink profile and your rankings are not hurt you dont need to do anything. You should focus your energy instead on creating great links with natural anchor texts and providing a great web experience to your users.
-
Even if the penalty doesn't seem to be affecting things right now, I would definitely go through the "sustained effort" Matt talks about in the video and start contacting the webmasters to have them removed. Matt also mentioned that "we might take action on some of those anchors." Have you seen traffic to any individual pages that have these links pointing to them decrease at all? What if in a future update these links to start to affect traffic.
Even though overall traffic seems to be OK now, I'd say better safe than sorry, go through the effort to get those links removed and do the reconsideration request. That way, they won't become an issue in the future.
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
-
Google penalty was lifted when an SSL was added, only to come back. Have you seen this?
We took on a client who is under penalty (various reasons). The solution was a ground up new website with fresh content, domain, everything. This client has everything "right" in Google. Everything you would want a client to do, he's done. Great reviews, great offsite engagement, video, etc. Recently we updated his SSL and for about 1 week he came off penalty, only to come back on penalty (top three for every major term in a very competitive market back to around page three). Do you have any experience with this and if so, I'd love to hear your advice/rational of why this occurred and what it means?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mgordon0 -
Google webmaster reports non-existent links between syndicated sites
We have run into an issue with linking that we are completely puzzled by. We syndicate our content to various clients, taking care to ensure that we have followed all the best practices that Google recommends for syndicating content. But recently, we noticed Google Webmaster report links from ClientA to ClientB, and we cannot figure out why it thinks that way. We have never created, and we have never found the links that Google Webmaster claims are there. It is important for us to keep our clients isolated. Has anyone seen such behavior? Any ideas/pointers/hunches would be very much appreciated. Happy to provide more information. We even asked on the Google Webmaster Forum (https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/QkGF7-HZHTY;context-place=forum/webmasters), but thought this might be a better place to get expert advice. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | prakash.sikchi0 -
Dropped from Google?
My website www.weddingphotojournalist.co.uk appears to have been penalised by Google. I ranked fairly well for a number of venue related searches from my blog posts. Generally I'd find myself somewhere on page one or towards the top of page two. However recently I found I am nowhere to be seen for these venue searches. I still appear if I search for my name, business name and keywords in my domain name. A quick check of Yahoo and I found I am ranking very well, it is only Google who seem to have dropped me. I looked at Google webmaster tools and there are no messages or clues as to what has happened. However it does show my traffic dropping off a cliff edge on the 19th July from 850 impressions to around 60 to 70 per day. I haven't made any changes to my website recently and hadn't added any new content in July. I haven't added any new inbound links either, a search for inbound links does not show anything suspicious. Can anyone shed any light on why this might happen?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | weddingphotojournalist0 -
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 local pointing to Google plus page not homepage
Today my clients homepage dropped off the search results page (was #1 for months, in the top for years). I noticed in the places account everything is suddenly pointing at the Google plus page? The interior pages are still ranking. Any insight would be very helpful! Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stevenob0 -
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. http://legal.nu/kc68
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoagnostic0 -
Google Manual Action (manual-Penalty)- Unnatural inbound links
Dear friends, I just get from Google two "Unnatural inbound links" notifications via Google Webmaster Tools, the first is for our WWW version of the site and the second is for the NON-WWW version. My question, I should send two identical reconsideration request for WWW and NON-WWW or treat them as different sites? Thank you Claudio
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SharewarePros0 -
What is the difference between link rel="canonical" and meta name="canonical"?
Hi mozzers, I would like to know What is the difference between link rel="canonical" and meta name="canonical"? and is it dangerous to have both of these elements combined together? One of my client's page has the these two elements and kind of bothers me because I only know link rel="canonical" to be relevant to remove duplicates. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0