Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Firstly, a lot of sites have a majority of keyword-targeted anchor text deep inside the site. This is primarily due to the fact that most links are internal anchor text links - don't worry about those. Further, deeper links often serve a very specific purpose rather than just talking about your site or company, and are expected to be a little more targeted. If you're not telling people what anchor text to use, it's usually not worth the time to worry about those.

I'd strongly advise against disavowing links that you didn't build manually. The disavow tool is supposed to be used as a last recourse, and only if you think the links are negatively impacting your rankings.

Without seeing the site I can't say for sure, but based on your description it's almost definitely better to focus on improving content and visibility going forward.

Firstly, I wouldn't worry about your customers creating "low-quality links" unless your customers are exclusively spammers. Low authority links and spam links are two very different things in Google's eyes.

If the links point to pages that a user could not see without logging in, simply use a meta robots noindex to ensure the pages won't appear in search results. This isn't especially critical, since the page would be unlikely to appear in results anyway, but you can follow the best practice of blocking content behind a wall if you're worried about it.

If you do have a lot of customers running sites Google might consider spammy, let me know and we'll talk about it from there. Otherwise you don't need to worry.

As another user (Crusader) said, the disavow tool was kind of built as a last step, and usually for penalties. I wouldn't use it just because someone has a lot of bad links pointing to your site.

Really, Google is quite good at figuring out the difference between a negative SEO attempt and an attempt to manipulate rankings. It shouldn't be your job to police your links like this, and I sincerely doubt you need to. I've fielded a lot of questions and concerns about negative SEO, and I can say it's usually not worth the time spent worrying about it.

It's also worth noting that disavow seems to work as a single-use filter rather than a growing database, though we're still running tests on that. What I mean is that disavowing 10 links may overwrite the previous links you've submitted.

There's an SEO debate going on right now about whether Panda is less likely to hit established brands. My position is that yes, it is more likely to impact small/new brands and sites. Perhaps once your brand is more established and you have a lot of comments on more of these pages you can try removing the noindex.

Without a full audit I may be missing something, but I hope this helps!

The easy questions first: no, I don't think meta descriptions have anything to do with it. Google just crawls in spikes, especially if it detects a higher rate of change than usual. It's generally nothing to be concerned about.

As for thin pages, I think it's fine that you make the distinction between deals and codes. As a user, it just feels like "codes" are more valuable. It's a good idea. You have pages for each large brand, which is hugely important. Categories are also fine, as long as you don't multiply them endlessly.

I'm mostly concerned with pages like this:

http://www.happier.co.uk/deals/marks-and-spencer/3-pack-cotton-pyjamas-10-ms

I'd handle all of these as dropdowns like you seem to be doing on the home page, and make it like these pages never existed. I don't think this will hurt you much, either. I doubt anyone Googles, "deals on 3 packs of cotton pyjamas," and even if they do Google will pull up the text on brand pages.

As for the comments on these deals, see how Facebook does them. Load the first 3 most recent, then have an option for "show all comments."

I would personally put all NSFW content, or anything close to it, behind an authorization wall, then store the authorization in a cookie. This might hurt your rankings for these types of deals, but I feel like it would be well worth it to avoid being classified as someone dealing in adult content. It's unlikely to happen, but it's totally not worth the risk.

Again, I think your site will be fine if you keep at it, even in it's current shape. You know your industry better than I do, but from an SEO perspective I'd make these changes. Think about them and let me know if you see a flaw in them.

How does your traffic look around the 24th of last July? When did it really start to fall? Were there any noticeable or sharp declines or rises in traffic in the last year or so? We can take these figures and correlate them with Google updates for a hint about what's going on. I wouldn't be surprised if Google's Panda update has something to do with it.

I'd agree that the site looks a little dated and could use a refresh. Have you considered switching to a CMS like Magento?

Hi there,

I'm sorry that your site isn't doing as well as you'd like. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of this!

First, I've dealt with a LOT of link penalty questions, and I don't think that's what's happening. Consider, for example, that you have a ton of links for your Frugal 100 program. If you were slapped by Penguin, you would almost definitely not be ranking for "Frugal 100."

If your traffic is down - and SearchMetrics doesn't see it that way - please remember that it could just be fluctuation and SERP volatility that newer sites are prone to. Google tests, gives, takes away, and then gives back.

If you've been penalized (and I'm kinda doubting it), it's probably because of Panda. You have a LOT of really thin pages with little or no content on them and a heavy template. Can you add more content per page or scale back on the template space for individual deals? Do each of these deals need their very own page? I'm not sure, but a lot of deal sites don't do that.

I also noted that you have some adult deals on your site. Do keep in mind that Google might choose not to show the site for SFW deal-related terms if it thinks your content has a lot of NSFW stuff on it.

I hope this helps. Your site doesn't feel like most sites that get penalized - it seems useful to the people it serves. I think you'll be just fine in the end

It's not true that you will "never recover," no. I've seen sites go from being manually penalized to being the most heavily organic trafficked site in their respective industries.

You probably lost credit for some links that were helping in the past, and there are possibly still some bad links dragging you down algorithmically. The best solution is just to continue generating awareness and build up your trust with Google. You can absolutely recover completely and reach new heights.

It really shouldn't matter in this case whether you're using the www or not. Consider wordpress.com, which is not using the www. The subdomains (used by bloggers and spammers) are often penalized with no impact on WP.

This probably has more to do with the way that the subdomain and main domain link to each other. If they exist in "silos" and rarely link to one another, it's more likely that Google will treat them differently. The more they link to each other, the more more likely they'll to be treated as a whole part of one site.

That's the best answer I can give without seeing the site. Hope that helps!

Hi Ewan,

This is a question that probably deserves a blog post at some point, along with a number of related questions about link-based penalties. I've been gathering info for some time, and have seem many instances of redirecting sites that have been penalized. I wish I could collect data on penalized sites more scientifically, but we work with what's available.

Manual Penalties

Manual penalties appear to carry through to new domains almost instantly when redirected to pages housing the same content. Google appears to use a number of signals to make sure that the redirect is to the same site and not to a competitor.

Some Googlers have claimed that if you received an "unnatural link" warning in WMT, it's manual. I'm not entirely convinced of this, but it's now harder than ever to differentiate between manual link-based penalties and Penguin algorithmic adjustment. That brings us to...

Refreshing Adjustments (Penalties)

Panda, Penguin, and a few other updates are a little different. We've seen instances where a user makes a big change (a complete redesign for Panda, or redirecting the entire site); the trend seems to be a brief recovery followed by a drop once the algorithm refreshes.

The obvious up-side here is that if you were going to recover from the penalty anyway, you may start to recover a bit sooner and don't have to wait for the next refresh. The downside is that it's a lot of work to do correctly, and it might be a very short-lived change.

--

Generally, I'd say it's best to clean up the site and keep going on the same domain. If you have a lot of bad links pointing to a specific page, you may want to 410 that page and start a new one, then mention this in your reconsideration request. Otherwise, it's the old process of removal (keeping notes) and using disavow if reconsideration and clean up prove insufficient.

Link networks have been slammed time and time again. Here's one I wrote specifically about one of the larger private blog networks:

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/unnatural-link-warnings-blog-networks-advice

The problem with these sites is the either don't have any link equity - and thus their links count for nothing - or they get link equity from spammy sites. It only takes one site to get the entire web of sites caught. Google might move slowly on link spam, but they have shown they take strong and unforgiving action, as witnessed by Penguin and similar updates.

Just think about the opportunity cost of using these link networks rather than pursuing a legitimate means of promotion. If you get caught, all your work is gone. Worse, you're in a far worse position than when you started.

I have personally been approached by large brands using link networks who were then penalized. One online company people know came to us having invested heavily into link networks. They lost all that work, they were losing hundreds of thousands each week in sales due to penalty, and it cost them tens of thousands to fix.

I would only try link networks for brand new sites in certain highly-competitive industries  - casinos, adult, etc. For anyone else, it's not worth the risk and opportunity cost.

Hi there,

First of all, penalties are eventually passed along with redirects, so you won't do yourself any favors by setting up a new domain and redirecting the old site.

Second, I highly highly doubt that categories are your problem here. It's far more likely that one of the following occurred:

• You lost some good, authoritative links
• Google devalued some of the links you had
• Penguin update
• Panda update
• Low-quality EMD update

Take a look at the date that traffic dropped and see if it coincides with one of the updates we know about. It looks like the link profile could justify Penguin, but my guess would be Panda/EMD, both of which are referred to as "page quality' updates. If I'm right, you need to keep people from bouncing back to Google.

Hi Sean,

If these are just domains they bought that never had any content, there's nothing to worry about here. Lots of brands buy their .net/.co/.etc versions, spelling variations, and any branded/product terms to prevent squatters from moving in. Redirects of any sort are fine in this case.

If they're buying companies along with their domains, also don't worry about it. In fact, I'd say use a 301 redirect in those cases. Google does a decent job of understanding formal purchases and looking for official proof, and they're not going to penalize someone who redirects the site of a company they've purchased to their own.

Finally, if they're buying domains based on the link profile, i/.e. just for the sake of links, then you need to start worrying. It's less problematic with 302 redirects, but I would recommend against this type of domain buying altogether. Some people use expired domains as a method of indirect link buying.

Here's a still-relevant piece from Danny:

http://searchengineland.com/do-links-from-expired-domains-count-with-google-17811

Unless you're trying to rank for something with an apostrophe in the query, it won't really matter.

If you are trying to rank for something with an apostrophe in the query, some searches with and without the apostrophe show that it matters a bit. You can just use the text ' , as both search engines have shown that they understand it. As long as it renders that way in your CMS (you can turn off images to check) you're fine.