Blocking spammy links
-
i have a client that that google has said in a reconsideration request has spmmy links.
My question is can i simply block those request at the server, make the server drop the responce rather then go though the imposible process of getting them removed?
Does anyone have any expirence with this?
Thanks
-
Hey Alan -
Great question here. I honestly do not know if that htaccess trick will work. I've heard it postulated that it will, but have not seen anything conclusive on it! Unfortunately reinclusion requests take some time. If you think that you have been targeted unfairly, I'd recommend making as much noise publicly as possible. Get in front of Google and plead your case.
As far as I see it, here are your options for the spammy links -
-
If it's a KEYWORD-SPECIFIC penalty to that page, 404 the page to disavow the links and build a new page on your domain targeting that term. Build good links to this.
-
If it's a sitewide drop in traffic, then you need to remove as many of the links as possible. There are tools out there to help with this, but generally you need to find low-PA/DA, exact anchors. These are going to be the ones that are hurting you most. Also look for sitewides with exact anchors that can be seen as manipulative.
-
Google wants to see "good faith" in getting links removed. So document all sites that you contact, the sites that get back to you, the links you get removed, and the links you know about that you have not been able to get removed, including reasons for why (ie 4 emails sent, no reply, cannot find an email on WhoIs, etc). You have to be completely transparent.
One tip for you is to share all of these links in a Google Doc, which you link to from the reinclusion request. Then, shorten the link within the reinclusion using a bit.ly link so that you can see if/when they look at the links.
Good luck man. I know how hard it is to wait on hearing back, having gone through it a few times myself.
John
-
-
will do
-
Alan - I haven't seen any postings by anyone who has tried this but several people have suggested this tactic in various forums. If you try this, please share whether it works. Given the lack of success in response to deletion requests, a more direct route would be much more effective and preferred if G wants to favor it.
-
I am doing so as we speak, but i am a impatient SEO, i want to know if i am wasting my time, a reconsideration takes weeks
but i will let all know the results
-
Ok, I can see how something like that might work... it all depends how Google's crawlers look at links when it comes to penalties like this. I haven't heard of anyone who has tried this, so you might just have to test it to see if it works. It would make a very interesting case study.
-
It is not just trafic that is blocked link juce would also be blocked. Search engines would get 64 - Host not available.
In the article Matt states that if you remove the page that will work, this is simular.
i am not saying it will work, just that this would not just stop trafic it would stop any request.
i think google when finding a link will test to see that the link exists.so in that way I think it would work, but a thought just hit me, what if they say ok, this page does ot exist and remoe it from index?
But then the next time they found it it would be added again.
It would be the best approch rather then contact evey web site, and as Ryan Kent stated, he had a 14% sucess rate.
-
I don't think it will work, Google isn't looking at whether traffic from the spam sites is blocked or not. Just the fact that the spammy links exist is enough for Google to penalize you for link manipulation.
Matt Cutt's did say yesterday that they are considering adding a "disavow link" feature in Webmaster Tools, but you won't see it for another few months, if at all:
http://searchengineland.com/live-blog-you-a-with-matt-cutts-at-smx-advanced-123513
The best thing to do in the meantime is to just attempt to remove the links and file a request.
-
Thanks,
I plan to put it in my recon request, but to wait weeks for an answer, is a bit of a problem.
i would have thought the idea would have more mentions on the net, but i cant find anyone with expirence
-
If nothing else you can use it as proof in a reconsideration request.
I don't have clients, and never been involved with black hat tricks so I have personally never been in the position to have to deal with it, but I am for nothing else curious.
-
Thats what i have done, but i dont want to sit and wait, I would like to know if it works.
Cant seem to find much on the internet about it.
My fgirst thoughts were that it would work, but maybe google worries you will just remove the rules after penalty is lifted.
-
HTTP_REFERER matching maybe a possibility, but I don't know if Google will see you're dropping them or not
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} stupidsite.com [NC]
RewriteRule .* - [F]I would be curious to see a case study on this.
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
-
Am I better off with ten links from one site or one link from ten sites?
I am writing a series of linked-back articles for a highly-ranked web publisher, but wonder if I'd be better off sharing the articles across different sites. My goal is to grow our domain authority and SEO rankings.
Link Building | | Lysarden0 -
Inbound link is follow link but we put no follow link back - is it beneficial for rankings?
Dear Moz Community, We are operating in a niche market, where there are not so many content marketing options. What we are left with are link exchanging with relevant sites that are on the same topic but to not directly compete with us. Now we know that if we link back to site A and site a links back to us - for google this is not a very good link. But, some of the sites we are exchanging links with, do not know the term follow vs no follow links. My question - if your link is to site A is a no follow link but they give us a follow link - does it mean thats a better option than a follow vs follow. Thanks for help!
Link Building | | advertisingcloud0 -
Internal Linking - Post links vs Side Bar Links behaving differently
Hi, I have a question regarding the internal linking behavior. My website is www.hindimeaning.com which is approx 3 years old. I have approx 450 posts. Now i have a widget on right sidebar "Popular posts". A widget below my posts "Related Posts". And a simple html CSS menu above the posts (I removed menu around 6 month before so currently it will not show.) I crawled my site with moz crawler (same are the result from google crawler as well) and it shows menus links as internal links. While sidebar widget "Popular posts" and "Related Posts" are not showing as internal links. If we talk theoretically what i learn till now is "every link on a page behaves as internal link". Then why the widget links are not showing as internal links. Thanks, Mahesh Kumar
Link Building | | chaudhary04890 -
Why am I getting links in my link report from sites that no longer exist?
So, I have a link report from Link Detox. And I'm going through all of them and considering what sites need to be removed. and trying to find emails and contact webmasters. There is just one odd thing i'm starting to see more of. A lot of links are on websites or webpages that no longer exist. The link no longer exists. Some of the domains are even available for purchase. Why are these links showing on the backlink report and are they really harming my website? Also, do I need to add these links into the disavow document that I will submit to Google?
Link Building | | lightwurx0 -
Is it a reciprocal Link ?
Hi, I found a great website and tought its content would be extremely interesting for our clients. I wrote about it on my blog (which has an URL with our website URL in it) , Facebook Page and even in Twitter. Meanwhile, I contacted them and offered to write an article about an interesting subject for them. They accepted and liked it so much that they decided to put 2 links for us on two of their pages. My questions are : Will this be a reciprocal link for Google? Did I make a mistake talking about them on my blog ? Did I «devaluate» the links they gave us?
Link Building | | Caru0 -
Are These Types of Links Tracked
I have a client that is looking to be listed on a group of directory sites for the service that they offer. After reviewing the site I found that they have a unique way of listing their links, check out one example at http://www.lakidsguide.com/Summer_Camps.php#educational where each title is a link that goes to the client website. IF you look at the first listing for Adventure Treks the link actually goes to http://www.lakidsguide.com/linktrack.php?type=listing®ionid=33&bid=9391&listingid=10176 and then is redirected to their true website at http://adventuretreks.com/. Would this link be picked up by Google and the other engines as a link from lakidsguide.com to adventuretreks.com with the way they are directing the link to their own tracking page first? To me it seems that the engines would not see any outgoing link and therefor the listing would not give the client any benefit as far as SEO is concerned. Any input?
Link Building | | Netmark0 -
Link Spamming or Not? Block Internal Search Results From Indexing?
We are looking at providing our customers with the best experience when performing a site search for a product. Would it be bad SEO practice to have our internal search results show results for all 4 Brands linking to different domains? This would mean multiple outgoing links to other owned sites from the same IP. Is it a best practice to block internal search results using robots.txt?
Link Building | | SEO-Team0 -
Panda Update: Isn't a link still a link?
I was doing some link building and some SEO's said that the Panda update affected many websites. I am going to use eZineArticles.com as my example. EzineArticles was affected by the Panda update and does not show up in the SERPs as much as before. But they still have doFollow Links coming from the articles I am submitting. QUESTION: Regardless if EzineArticles was affected by the Panda Update, isn't a "Follow Link" still a "Follow Link" OR am I completely wasting my time on this devalued website? Edit: Yes I know a PR 0 page is not as valuable as a PR 9 page. I am asking from the standpoint of the affected Panda Update domains overall.
Link Building | | Francisco_Meza0