Does anyone have any suggestions on removing spammy links?
-
Your process seems sound. A bit of additional feedback:
-
I would complete a Reconsideration Request but then proceed without delay to removing the links. You know the site has spammy links and should be removed.
-
I have no familiarity with Netpeak Checker but I'll take a look at the tool. Otherwise I cannot comment on it.
-
The "resubmit to Google" is not necessary. If they confirm the site has been manually penalized, they are seeking for you to remove all the spammy links. I have talked with others in this situation and Google is quite firm on their desire for you to address 100% of the problem. I would not bother submitting another Reconsideration Request until you have either removed all the manipulative links, or can show solid documentation of your efforts to do so.
Good Luck.
-
-
Thanks Ryan you've given me a lot to work with. Hell if I get good at this I might just create a whole new service for my agency lol.
Oh one more question and then I'll leave you alone. What about sites that haven't been hit yet, but have used similar tactics? Would you start this process for them? Or cross fingers?
-
We are left working with educated guesses. I would recommend a cleanup of spammy links for any client. If the client is currently not penalized, my judgment would focus only on sites listed in WMT which also have over 100 links pointing to the site.
Once the links have been cleaned up, I would check all client sites again after 30 days. Any client who exceeds 90% spam links clearly required further effort. No one knows where the threshold lies, but it's a pretty good guess that if 90% of your links are spammy you are not in a good place.
-
I wouldn't bother doing anything based on PR, would chase all backlinks that may appear in-organic.
-
Ryan are you using the client's email address? Seems it may get a better response rate
-
Yes.
In the first case I shared, the client actually performed all the website contacts. I offered guidance on what was required and the client ran with it.
If my team was going to perform the work, I would request a mailbox be set up on the client's domain which we could use for this process.
-
I've been using http://www.outreachr.com/bulk-domain-checker/ to pull data out of batches of urls for this. It goes and grabs link data from SEOmoz and then has a go at getting contact details including twitter etc
(Hope I don't kill his server while hes on holiday by posting this here)
-
Thanks for sharing this tool Stephen. I watched the video but the site does not share any info about the mechanics of the tool. Some questions:
-
how is the contact info pulled? I am wondering if it sometimes misses info or pulls the wrong info
-
for the PR, does it always show the home page PR? Or does it calculate the PR for other pages by subtracting 1 for every click from the home page? I mainly ask so I can respond to client questions if they ever see the tool.
-
any idea of what Agency pricing is?
I am just asking in case you happen to know some of this info. Otherwise I will reach out to the author.
Thanks again Stephen!
-
-
I'm just using the free bit myself.
Its pretty new, but seems to work well enough. It may well pull some wrong info (or maybe pulls the info it gets to first)
- for the PR, does it always show the home page PR? Or does it calculate the PR for other pages by subtracting 1 for every click from the home page? I mainly ask so I can respond to client questions if they ever see the tool.
I doubt its that clever, its just aggregating data
S
-
My plan is to put all the root domains into http://netpeak.net/software/netpeak-checker/ check for PR main, status code, index, PA and DA. Then put them into Buzzstream which should go out and find the info for you. Then grab all the links from each spammy domain and provide them in the email to the webmaster to make them easier to remove. Hopefully this will make it a little more efficient.
-
Thanks for sharing your experience with this Ryan.
We had a similar scenario to contend with and after trying to contact all sites linking to our client's and providing detailed documentation to Google to no avail, we had to resort to 404ing the affected pages to kill all the bad links, changing the url of those pages without redirecting the links and re-point the good links.
Reconsideration has since been submitted and we are waiting to hear if this is now satisfactory.
On one hand I'm pleased this is happening but on the other hand, it's not the client's fault in many cases, it's the poor advice they received from agencies.
-
Hey Ryan,
Have you read this post by Dr. Pete http://www.seomoz.org/blog/penguins-pandas-and-panic-at-the-zoo#jtc180593? Wanted to get your thoughts on his suggestion not to submit for reconsideration.
-
Thanks Ryan - can you advise how you know if it's a manual or algo penalty ?
-
In December 2011 when I encountered this issue for the first time I suspected it was a manual penalty. I contacted Google via the Reconsideration Request tool and they confirmed the site was indeed manually penalized. After the initial wave of cleanup, Google confirmed the reason for the manual penalty was the "inorganic" links.
In our post-Penguin world, I would presume the issue is algorithmic but since we are all so new to Penguin I would still use the Reconsideration Request tool if the client approved.
-
I have tremendous respect for Pete and I can understand his thought process. I'll share a different viewpoint.
I am fully understanding of a client's past history. If they practiced black hat techniques in the past, that is not my concern. The past is the past. If I work with a client, they must agree that going forward they will not use any black hat SEO, and they will actively work to resolve any issues so their site complies with Google's Guidelines.
Based on the above, I complete the Reconsideration Request. I have nothing to fear from Google. I would have already reviewed the client's website. I would have identified and be actively working on any outstanding issues. I practice full transparency with Google. This approach is how I choose to operate, and I believe I am more successful because of it.
What's the alternative? Hide from Google? At best, it's only a matter of time until they catch up.
Perhaps I am naive. But if you do have a manual penalty then the fastest way to resolve it for the client is the Reconsideration Request tool. Google can actually help you identify the issue and they can tell you exactly what is required to resolve it. I'll share one example.
When I was reviewing the manipulative link issue mentioned above, I found many free directory sites and I initially classified those links as being ok. Based on the information shared from Google, I re-evaluated those links and removed them. I firmly believe if we are fully transparent with Google and sincerely try to resolve violations, they will be helpful. That is my experience. Many others share different experiences. When I question them and review their communications, I quickly determine they fall short of full transparency so I can understand why they are struggling.
-
Hi Everyone - and Ryan,
IRyan, thanks for all of your helpful info. I'm so desperate to understand this Penguin further...could you answer 2 questions for me please?
I got the "unnatural links pointing to my site" message in the google WMT last month and now my traffic is almost gone. Before I clean up, I need to udnerstand 2 things clearly.......
1 - What exactly are spammy links or "inorganic links"? Can you (or anyone) explain in simple terms what that means? How will I know which ones to remove?
Or is it safe to say that any link I built through article marketing is considered spammy or inorganic? For example, I hundreds of articles in places like Articlesnatch.com or Articlebase.com. These articles contain at least 2 links pointing to my site -- 1 to my home page and 1 to my T2 or T3 page. Should I try to remove them ALL?
2 - People say the other problem is having too many links with the "exact same anchor text". Does that mean having too many links pointing to the same page (like home page) using the same text in the URL - like MYHOMEPAGE.COM?
Thanks for any advice I can get.
-
What exactly are spammy links or "inorganic links"? Can you (or anyone) explain in simple terms what that means?
Organic links are links you earned. They are usually links which are editorially added. Inorganic links are ones which were created to manipulate Page Rank. There are various examples and details which can be offered to further clarify the distinction but at a high level, that is the distinction.
People say the other problem is having too many links with the "exact same anchor text". Does that mean having too many links pointing to the same page (like home page) using the same text in the URL - like MYHOMEPAGE.COM?
No. If you use a URL link then the concept of exact match anchor text does not apply. If you sell sports watches and then build 10 links to your page with the anchor text "sports watches" that would be an indicator the links are not organic.
-
Hi Ryan,
Great words. I am following the thread throughout. I need a help from your last post;
"If you use a URL link then the concept of exact match anchor text does not apply"
please correct me if I am wrong in understanding, this line means that if the anchor text is a URL then there is no issue of exact matching anchor text. Am I right?
What do you suggest that what ratios are Green, Yellow and Red signals for the exact match anchor texts in the back-links?
I am unable to find what back-link types are remaining after Penguin to be used? Do you think that if all the back link types like;
1- Forum Profile
2- Forum Posts
3- blog comments
4- Articles links
5- Author Bio
6- Directory Submission
are used in safe ratio of keyword mix, PR evaluated, Google Indexed sites then the site can gain a good ranking. what other back link types do you suggest and why?
I found three kind of links in the back link of my client site and mentioned them as paid links.
1-Link List
2-Advertisement
3-side bar
Am I right in my idea? what other links do you suggest are kind of paid links?
S
-
The concept of anchor text manipulation deals with replacing the URL with text which is more targeted to the keyword for which the site is trying to rank. Editorial links mostly do not use ideal anchor text. Many simply use the site link while others use text that is not ideal for SEO.
When the site owner or a SEO builds links to their own site, one of the many signals that point towards manipulation is when the anchor text is perfect. Try this...check OSE for Google.com. Look at the anchor text. Filter out the image alt text and just focus on the anchor text. Of course you will see "Google" a lot but you will see a nice variation of terms used to link to the same page. That is because those links are natural.
Look at your client's site. When you look at the top 20 links and 17 of them show "Best watch" for the anchor text, that is a clear sign of manipulation. Either the site owner or someone working on their behalf likely created those links. Another possibility is the site owner influenced the creation of those links. These links are not natural, or at the very least are less natural.
I hope that answers your question. I will also add the suggestion you are focusing on the wrong area. The best way for a site owner to build links is....to create amazing content which others find useful / helpful / amazing then let the world know about it. If you wish to build more links, then embed yourself as a member of the community related to the site's niche and sparingly mention the site.
-
Has anyone had any luck with contacting the hosting company; Specifically for 3 or more links from a "network" of sites from the same C class IP with absolutely NO contact information what so ever. If so, can you provide an example of the letter you sent? Thanks you guys
-
0236
-
031.8k
-
03190
-
03599
-
02522
-
06347
-
02313
-
032.2k