Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi,

So you did add a meta noindex tag? Great. Remember that Google needs to crawl the page to see the meta noindex, so blocking it in robots.txt will mean it's still indexed, but has about 0% chance to show up in search unless you search for that URL.

Also, I wouldn't spend any time worrying about obscure pages that are indexed. It's not going to hurt your rankings.

Hi there,

It sounds like you got hit by Panda - let's avoid the "over optimization" word, as it's fairly imprecise in light of recent algorithm updates. It actually referred to Penguin, but it is confusing. So let's continue with the assumption of Panda.

If you had high-quality pieces that real people liked, were particularly well written, still receive traffic, or received a lot of coverage, save those. If you have a lot of blog posts targeting random keywords that are of questionable value to a real person, delete those. Google's measuring things through readers' eyes and actions now, and so should we.

I would not launch the blog on a new domain. It might be a good idea to put the blog in a new folder (ideally /blog/ unless that's where it used to live). Make sure the old posts you don't want to keep either 410 (preferable) or 404, and either keep the good posts (if any) on the same URL or 301 redirect them to the new URL. Once you've cut the section of bad content, you should hopefully see progress after a Panda refresh or two.

Please also make sure that the rest of your site is easy to navigate with a credible design and feel. Panda isn't limited to blog posts.

Hi,

This is Matt Cutt's view on the subject:

"The other thing that happens is that people don’t always realize what they are linking to when they reprint these infographics. Often the link goes to a completely unrelated site, and one that they don’t mean to endorse. Conceptually, what happens is they really buy into publishing the infographic, and agree to include the link, but they don’t actually care about what it links to. From our perspective this is not what a link is meant to be."

...

"This is similar to what people do with widgets as you and I have talked about in the past. I would not be surprised if at some point in the future we did not start to discount these infographic-type links to a degree. The link is often embedded in the infographic in a way that people don’t realize, vs. a true endorsement of your site."

http://www.stonetemple.com/matt-cutts-and-eric-talk-about-what-makes-a-quality-site/

Google doesn't want to count links when people are posting them because it comes with the code - they want links to be an endorsement of the site. My recommendation is always to allow people to turn the links off in some fashion, whether we're talking about "powered by" links, widgets, or infographics.

In your case, you could have two different code snippets: one that includes a link back to your site, and another that is either missing a link or nofollowed. I'd think it's totally fair to get links by creating something people want, especially if they have the option to turn it off. You can encourage people to share your site or "ink to the source, but "forcing" them to do so might someday result in links being devalued.

I typically tell people not to worry about these types of sites. EVERYONE gets a little spam linkage, and it's rarely worth worrying about.

If you have been hit with a manual penalty or think you're being impacted by Penguin already, then yes, definitely include these domains in the disavow list. Technically Google wants you to try to have the links removed first.

The page in question has a bunch of links that are really hyper-targeted. http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/anchors?site=www.commercialmatsandrubber.com%2FAnti-Fatigue-Mats-c5.html

I wouldn't worry too much about internal links unless you really go overboard with them.

It's very possible that these links are being devalued. It's also possible that the the external links with anchor text are working against you. Disavow was probably the right move, but now you need legitimate external links. Without knowing more re: the questions I asked, I still don't know whether you're being impacted by Panda, Penguin, or both.

We haven't talked a lot about Panda in this thread, but you need to ask yourself if you are the best result for users, and whether Google's site quality judgments might be working against you. When people look for "anti-fatigue mats" do they want to see a bunch of text, or do they want to see products? How do the user metrics look for generic keywords? The https warning (some unsecure elements) may be putting some people off, too - it's worth testing.

Ultimately the answer is probably going to be the same: you need a new design, and you need legitimate popularity metrics to replace the artificial popularity metrics that worked in the past. Hope this helps.

No, don't nofollow internal links, especially for pages you want to rank. That doesn't work well anymore, and will ultimately hurt you.

I see about 190 links in the primary nav. Can those all really be equally important to users and search engines? I'd be really surprised if scrolling through a list of brands hunting for the right one is the best user experience. Don't take my word for it: run some tests and see how people respond to a simplified menus along the top or side. Generally we want to pick a few terms (e.g. brands or candies) to prioritize, and otherwise work on a hierarchy/nav that users intuitively understand.

When it comes to links, the advice you've received is pretty good: it's all about the ratios. If many of your links are spammy with exact-match anchor text, it's possible that they're hurting you. A warning in Google's Webmaster Tools would confirm it, but I think it's fairly likely that you're being affected by Penguin. I see an awfully high number of links with anchor text that is overly-targeted.

I'd start by trying to remove the worst site-wide anchor text links, and then disavow if that doesn't work. At the same time, it will probably help more to think of ways to generate legitimate visibility and interest.

I don't see tons of legitimate links pointing to the site right now. Even if Google is just ignoring the links now and not counting them against you, I wouldn't expect the site to do amazingly well. There are a ton of links on each page, so the link equity you do have is being split many ways.

It's extremely unlikely that you're being penalized for internal links, but it might be best to focus link equity on key pages rather than spreading it so thin. With something like 168 links in the menu, you probably want to downsize. Does Christmas candy really need a link in May? Is there a better way to organize brands? You can't rank for every term - prioritize some pages that you rank moderately well for with high search interest.

And finally, watch out for keyword cannibalization. I don't think this is a huge issue on your site, but you should probably link to http://www.candygalaxy.com/blue-candy/ from within the content on http://www.candygalaxy.com/blue-candy-buffets/ as an example.

Google says that you should use the disavow tool as a last resort after asking the webmasters to remove the links, and even then only if you think it's hurting your rankings.

I obviously can't tell without looking at your links, but I see a lot of people worrying about spam links when they probably shouldn't be. It's normal to get some less-than-perfect links in your profile, and they're probably not going to hurt you if you aren't building them yourself.

Cool, nice find. Is that a company you have circled?

That doesn't look exactly like a G+ profile in SERPs - at least not how they're typically displayed. Is the link to a G+ profile?

There's a chance this might be related to a browser extension or plugin that you've given access, and is now serving you ads. Adware used to do this sort of thing all the time. Do you see the link come up when you're signed out in a clean browser with no extensions?

I agree with Chris that changing the redirect to a 302 redirect is unlikely to have the desired impact. These days Google is pretty good about awarding credit for homepage links, even if the configuration isn't ideal (i.e. there is both a non-www and a www that resolves.) If they award credit for such non-ideal configurations, they probably also transfer the negative stuff.

Let me ask, though: are you sure that you're suffering from a link-based penalty caused by negative SEO? Did you receive a warning in Webmaster Tools, or did you see traffic drop on the date of a Penguin refresh?

I'm also a little confused about your configuration. You said, "after the redirect, they will land on an external webpage". If I understand you, you're saying your homepage redirects people to a different domain? If so, that really sounds like a sneaky redirect at worst, or a doorway page at best. Google doesn't want to send people to your domain if you suddenly redirect users to a new domain with something "not related to your domain."

Google doesn't always send out messages for penalties. They're getting better, but they still have a ways to go.

If the site is experience large drops in traffic (vs. slow declines) it's almost definitely a penalty of some sort. Steep declines are unlikely to be caused by navigation and architecture unless pages are completely unreachable or something large is altered. If there are large drops, try to line those up with the algorithm change history.

Generally, don't worry about a little spam. If you're not building bad links, you can expect some small percentage of bad links to find you anyway. I've seen a lot of people obsessing over bad links lately - that's almost never necessary unless it really gets out of hand, and the person building links knows what their doing.

Even most concentrated link spam attacks (with tens of thousands of links) fail. Google is pretty good at determining whether it's a spam attack or a ranking play.

Do check to make sure your site hasn't been compromised. Where are the links pointing? Is there UGC on the page where someone has inserted an iframe to use your site as a doorway? Do you see your site referring people out to sites you don't recognize? These are things to worry about. Some bad links will not be a big deal.

It's possible that these links have something to do with it.  At least I think it's premature for us to be ruling it out. Has there been a warning about unnatural links or paid links in Google Webmaster Tools?

The "businesses for sale" links are fairly widespread and styled in a way that could be considered hidden. Exact-match anchors styled to look like text are never a good combo.

I don't know whether the links are the source of the problem. It could be manual, it could be a search quality update like Panda. Without more info and a full audit, it's hard to tell. The letter of the law is pretty clear that one should nofollow links if money is changing hands for the link. Personally, if I was constantly getting slapped by Google, I would follow the letter of the law.

This is probably the extent of the answer I can give you in Q&A. I would look at when your traffic dropped, and attempt to line that up the Algorithm History. If the date of your traffic drop lines up with a Penguin or Panda date, that's a pretty clear sign. There are some great resources linked to on that same algorithm history to help you.

If you HAVE been hit by Penguin (for the links), it sounds like you're doing all the right things. The process is usually disavow then reconsider, but where you haven't received a message that's probably not necessary. Just keep cleaning and keep working on gaining more legitimate visibility. Do have a look, though, and make sure it's not Panda.

Are you sure it's the links that got you in trouble and not Google Panda?

The more I hear, the more it sounds like you might not be losing rankings based on links at all. Did you actually build/buy the links yourself, or were these natural links that webmasters added on their own? If the links are natural, there's probably no reason to be asking for removal despite what some tool tells you about their toxicity.

It's up to Google to decide which result is the best when it comes to duplicate content. If their signals indicate that your distributor's pages are better for users, they will be more likely to show the distributor. By the way, it's fairly common for sellers to out-rank manufacturers. Unless you sell direct to the consumer, there's no reason you should out-rank the seller for product keywords.

Those manufacturers that do sell direct to consumers often create a product description for themselves, and another that they provide to distributors. I wouldn't expect any success in asking a seller to make their own descriptions.

I'm not sure what you mean by "can Google confuse our sites?" but the answer is probably "no." Being first to publish is one factor, but it's certainly not the only one.

First off, make sure your site has not been compromised. Are there sections on your site where users generate their own content? Are the links pointing to spam comments or pages you didn't create? Spammers whose sites Google has already banned will often hack or otherwise compromise a site and use it as a gateway to their site. More on that from Google here:

http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=163634

Next, if you're not dealing in anything like the anchor text indicates, don't worry about it. Spam attacks are generally ineffective, and this is especially true when they're completely different from the terms on the page or the terms you seem to want to rank for.

Really, this is probably not worth worrying about. I wouldn't disavow unless you think it's negatively impacting your site, or unless you have had a warning from Google Webmaster Tools.

You have some great responses here. To summarize some of the advice and add a little new advice, this is what I would do:

• Display a text warning at the top of the site that the site has moved. I'd not worry about the text somehow contaminating the new domain.
• Keep the old site running, and try to get the penalties removed on the side.
• Noindex (or delete, if it's not important to the user) all the content that you want to keep but has few links, then move it to the new site.
• If the penalty is lifted, redirect the old site over to the new site's counterpart. Still, don't 301 redirect pages with low-quality content or spammy links. (You can just kill the pages that are "all bad" now.)

The only question left is what to do with the content you want to keep and has with clean external links. You could probably redirect and cut the internal links without too much risk, which is what I'd do. The completely safe thing to do would be to avoid linking altogether, leaving it out there to gather what traffic it can.

Good luck!

Hi,

What was Google's response to your reconsideration request? Did you hear back in WMT? Did you use the disavow tool on links you'd tried to have removed?

Sometimes it can take time to get back in the rankings, even when no longer penalized, because your prior rankings were based on bad links.

I wouldn't re-write old posts. If they can be refreshed or added to with recent updates go ahead and redirect (if it can be redirected without losing any additional info) or link to the new version.

Things get tricky if there's nothing new that can be written about the post. First, kill the really bad stuff, as Mike suggested, and keep the good stuff. The stuff on the borderline is probably not worth keeping unless it was still receiving traffic. In my experience with Panda, using 410s on bad pages is better than redirecting, but you will probably want to 301 redirect to the next-best page if you have good links.

If it was still receiving organic traffic, think about what you can do to make it better or provide additional resources and reading. Try to save traffic-generating pieces by improving them and making them useful to the people who were landing on them. For high-traffic pieces, you will want to look at the organic keywords and make sure the page somehow answers the query.

As always with Panda, make sure your design doesn't turn people off and that you're not filling the template with too many ads.