Disavow Issues
-
Hi
We have a client who was hit by Penguin about 18 months ago.
We disavowed all the bad links about 10 months ago however this has not resulted in an uplift in traffic or rankings.
The client is asking me whether it would be better to dump the domain and move the website to a fresh domain.
Can you provide thoughts / experience on this please?
Thanks.
-
Just wanted to clarify (for the sake of others who may read this post) that the question was in regards to Penguin and I think in your situation, you're dealing with manual penalties. With Penguin, there is no reconsideration request. You've got to clean up the best you can and then hope that things improve when Google refreshes the Penguin algorithm.
It's still up for debate whether removing links (as opposed to disavowing) is important for Penguin. My current advice is that if a link is easy to remove then do it. But, otherwise I disavow. While you're right that it is important to show Google your efforts in regards to link removal for a manual penalty, no one is going to look at your work for an algorithmic issue.
I asked John Mueller in a hangout once whether disavowing was as good as removing for Penguin and he said, "essentially yes". However, because there are potential problems that could come up with the disavow tool (such as improper formatting or taking too long to recrawl to disavow), if you can remove the link that's not a bad thing to do.
-
Hi Paul,
I realise it's been a couple of weeks since this was submitted, but I wanted to follow up. At my former agency, we went through a few reconsideration procedures for new clients. We managed to be successful with all of them, but some took quite a long time (August - February being the longest).
We have found that disavowing alone is not nearly enough to make a difference - it is far preferable for the links to be removed. Unlike Claudio below, we have had a far higher rate than 5%, but it all depends on where the links come from. Sometimes it's hard to even find a live email address to contact webmasters, and some people want payment to remove links (worth doing if the payment is not too high). We crafted templates and _always _followed up within two weeks if we did not get a response from first emailing someone for a link removal with another specifically crafted email template.
It's true that if you cannot remove links, it is still worthwhile demonstrating to Google that you attempted to do so, with email screenshots or at least a list of the sites you contacted. They want to see effort. They want to see that you removed, or attempted to remove, the vast majority of the bad links. It's time consuming and tedious, but it's worth it if you get the penalty removed.
As I said, the longest process we went through was over six months, but the site in question had a TERRIBLE backlink profile that was the result of years of abuse by bad link builders. We're talking removing thousands of links. However, it came through - the penalty was removed and the client's rankings are on the rise.
I hope this helps. The short version is: remove remove remove. You won't maintain a penalty if there are no more bad links holding the site back, and those links aren't helping it rank anyway.
If you'd like some advice on how to decide which links to remove and which to keep, please let me know. In the meantime, check out this post from my former colleague Brandon at Ayima. It's a good resource for link analysis.
Cheers,
Jane
-
Does the site have a good base of truly natural links? There have been very few reported cases of Penguin recovery. But, the ones that I have seen recover are ones that have had some excellent links left once the bad ones were cleaned up.
-
Did you have a manual penalty? Did you get it revoked? or did you assume you had a Penguin issue and were proactive about it to avoid a manual penalty?
-
Recovery from Link Penalty (manual or algorithm) procedure:
1. Collect inboud links from Google Webmaster Tools + Moz link explorer + Link Majestic.
2. Include all domains in a Excel worksheet.
3. Contact site owners asking for link removal (usually 5% of sucess, but the effort counts for Google).
4. Wait several weeks for the removal of the links.
5. Fill a disavow file and upload it to Google https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/disavow-links-main?pli=1
6. Wait for 3 or 6 weeks and start a link building campain starting with a few links per week and increase it if you can (only natural links comming from authority sites related to your niche).
Recovers from Content problems.
1. Look for repetitive title and descriptions, use Google Webmaster Tools and Moz.
2. Look for pages with similar or identical content and fix it.
3. Look for pages with less than 200 words of convent and add content or simply remove them (404).
4. Add new fresh and original content.
Google will consider your effort and it will be increasing your rank step by step.
I hope it helps
Claudio
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
-
Unsolved URL dynamic structure issue for new global site where I will redirect multiple well-working sites.
Dear all, We are working on a new platform called [https://www.piktalent.com](link url), were basically we aim to redirect many smaller sites we have with quite a lot of SEO traffic related to internships. Our previous sites are some like www.spain-internship.com, www.europe-internship.com and other similars we have (around 9). Our idea is to smoothly redirect a bit by a bit many of the sites to this new platform which is a custom made site in python and node, much more scalable and willing to develop app, etc etc etc...to become a bigger platform. For the new site, we decided to create 3 areas for the main content: piktalent.com/opportunities (all the vacancies) , piktalent.com/internships and piktalent.com/jobs so we can categorize the different types of pages and things we have and under opportunities we have all the vacancies. The problem comes with the site when we generate the diferent static landings and dynamic searches. We have static landing pages generated like www.piktalent.com/internships/madrid but dynamically it also generates www.piktalent.com/opportunities?search=madrid. Also, most of the searches will generate that type of urls, not following the structure of Domain name / type of vacancy/ city / name of the vacancy following the dynamic search structure. I have been thinking 2 potential solutions for this, either applying canonicals, or adding the suffix in webmasters as non index.... but... What do you think is the right approach for this? I am worried about potential duplicate content and conflicts between static content dynamic one. My CTO insists that the dynamic has to be like that but.... I am not 100% sure. Someone can provide input on this? Is there a way to block the dynamic urls generated? Someone with a similar experience? Regards,
Technical SEO | | Jose_jimenez0 -
Help Center/Knowledgebase effects on SEO: Is it worth my time fixing technical issues on no-indexed subdomain pages?
We're a SaaS company and have a pretty extensive help center resource on a subdomain (help.domain.com). This has been set up and managed over a few years by someone with no knowledge of SEO, meaning technical things like 404 links, bad redirects and http/https mixes have not been paid attention to. Every page on this subdomain is set to NOT be indexed in search engines, but we do sometimes link to help pages from indexable posts on the main domain. After spending time fixing problems on our main website, our site audits now flag almost solely errors and issues on these non-indexable help center pages every week. So my question is: is it worth my time fixing technical issues on a help center subdomain that has all its pages non-indexable in search engines? I don't manage this section of the site, and so getting fixes done is a laborious process that requires going through someone else - something I'd rather only do if necessary.
Technical SEO | | mglover19880 -
Redirect Chain Issue
I keep running into a redirect chain issue trying to get a non-https/non-www domain to forward directly to the https/www domain on an Apache server. For background, we are forcing https and forcing www, but it appears the non-https/non-www domain is first redirecting to https/non-www and then redirecting again to the desired final https/www version of the domain. (Hope I am making sense here) I am trying to find code to add to my .htaccess file that will perform the following... 301 Redirect
Technical SEO | | FitzSWC
http://example.com directly to https://www.example.com (without 1st redirecting to https://example.com)
http://www.example.com directly to https://www.example.com Any experts in this with any thoughts? Thanks,
Fitz0 -
How do I avoid this issue of duplicate content with Google?
I have an ecommerce website which sells a product that has many different variations based on a vehicle’s make, model, and year. Currently, we sell this product on one page “www.cargoliner.com/products.php?did=10001” and we show a modal to sort through each make, model, and year. This is important because based on the make, model, and year, we have different prices/configurations for each. For example, for the Jeep Wrangler and Jeep Cherokee, we might have different products: Ultimate Pet Liner - Jeep Wrangler 2011-2013 - $350 Ultimate Pet Liner - Jeep Wrangler 2014 - 2015 - $350 Utlimate Pet Liner - Jeep Cherokee 2011-2015 - $400 Although the typical consumer might think we have 1 product (the Ultimate Pet Liner), we look at these as many different types of products, each with a different configuration and different variants. We do NOT have unique content for each make, model, and year. We have the same content and images for each. When the customer selects their make, model, and year, we just search and replace the text to make it look like the make, model, and year. For example, when a custom selects 2015 Jeep Wrangler from the modal, we do a search and replace so the page will have the same url (www.cargoliner.com/products.php?did=10001) but the product title will say “2015 Jeep Wrangler”. Here’s my problem: We want all of these individual products to have their own unique urls (cargoliner.com/products/2015-jeep-wrangler) so we can reference them in emails to customers and ideally we start creating unique content for them. Our only problem is that there will be hundreds of them and they don’t have unique content other than us switching in the product title and change of variants. Also, we don’t want our url www.cargoliner.com/products.php?did=10001 to lose its link juice. Here’s my question(s): My assumption is that I should just keep my url: www.cargoliner.com/products.php?did=10001 and be able to sort through the products on that page. Then I should go ahead and make individual urls for each of these products (i.e. cargoliner.com/products/2015-jeep-wrangler) but just add a “nofollow noindex” to the page. Is this what I should do? How secure is a “no-follow noindex” on a webpage? Does Google still index? Am I at risk for duplicate content penalties? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | kirbyfike0 -
Is Pagination & thin text issue affecting our traffic?
We at Pricebaba, have different price lists for different brands of phones for which we have done pagination. We are worried if we're suffering from the thin text issue. Could you help us check if it's done correctly? Pricelist page link: http://pricebaba.com/mobile/pricelist/samsung-price-list
Technical SEO | | RuchitaMahimkar0 -
Google Webmasters Quality Issue Message
I am a consultant who works for a website www.skift.com. Today we received an automated message from Google Webmasters saying our site has quality issues. Since the message is very vague and obviously automated I was hoping to get some insight into whether this message is something to be very concerned about and what can be done to correct the issue.From reviewing the Webmasters Quality Guidelines, the site is not in violation of any of the guidelines. I am wondering if this message is generated as a results of licensing content from Newscred, as I have other clients who are licensing content from Newscred and getting the same message from Google Webmasters.Thanks in advance for any assistance.
Technical SEO | | electricpulp0 -
Rel=canonical issue
Re. http://www.appetise.com. We have been alerted that we are "not making appropriate use of the rel=canonical tag". Please could someone just clarify this for us and let us know the recommended remedial action we need to take to rectify the issue? Many Thanks, RB
Technical SEO | | E-resistible0 -
Issue with .uk.com domain
hi i have rockshore.uk.com which is not indexing properly. the internal pages do not show up for the text they have on them, or the title tags. the site is on aekmps shops platform. I understand that a .uk.com is not a proper TLD but i think i have a subdomain of .uk.com Can anyone help? thanks
Technical SEO | | Turkey0