Does anyone have any suggestions on removing spammy links?
-
In my opinion, whether Google chooses to index a page or not is not a consideration. You should remove all spammy links. Google could choose to reindex the page at any time and either way, they can still see the page with your link on it.
If anyone else has any solid information on this topic I would love to hear it. Otherwise I vote to play it safe, especially in a penalty situation.
-
**So Ryan in your opinion if they saw some major drops in rankings you would think it would be a safe bet that the site was penalized? **
Not necessarily. There are numerous issues which can cause ranking changes. A page could accidentally be blocked via "noindex" or robots.txt.
Diagnoses of a problem normally requires the highest level of skill. When you go to see a doctor with a problem and he or she can't figure out the cause of the problem, you are stuck....until another doctor comes up with the correct diagnosis. The pharmacy has all the right meds, but a diagnosis is required. The same holds true for SEO. When your business or health is on the line, you don't want to play guessing games.
-
Wow! I just have to give an expanded thanks (we don't have much room in the Endorsement area) for this detailed response. It's great to get some solid information about what it took to get a partial lifting of this penalty. It's certainly one I'll be sending other people to as an example of what to do.
-
You can complete a Reconsideration Request. In the initial case, Google confirmed there was manual action taken. After the 100+ duplicate sites were taken down, Google then confirmed the remaining issue was due to the manipulative links.
With the recent Penguin update, Google may have automated part of this process into their algorithm.
-
Yeah this all came right around "Penguin" so I'm fairly certain it's related. They do have a lot of exact anchor text too, but for a wide variety of terms. They were also using blog networks, and have spammy links, so it's really hard to pinpoint which of these or if all of them are the problem.
At any rate should this be my process?
- Resubmit to Google
- See if they answer back and with what
- If no answer proceed with removal
- Get links from webmaster tools
- Parse out Root linking Domains
- Run through Netpeak Checker (awesome tool if you haven't used it) finds PR, SEOmoz stats, Google index, status code, etc.
- First remove all PR 0 and live pages
- Resubmit to Google
- Second remove all deindexed PR 0
- Resubmit to Google
- Get other link source data (Majestic SEO, Opensite Explorer)
- Remove PR 0 links
- Resubmit to Google
Hopefully that will do it. What do you think of this process? Oh and Thank you very much for your help You're awesome.
-
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.
-
0236
-
03188
-
04120
-
05120
-
02522
-
06347
-
06517
-
032.2k
