Webmaster woes - should I re-direct or re-structure?
-
Hey guys,
I'll get straight to the point - a small (growing) website I'm working on has a number links pointing to it from totally irrelevant sites (66, to be precise). These were built by an SEO company prior to me working on the site, and lead to an over-optimisation penalty for one keyword.
This number doesn't sound large, but proportionally (to all other links), it is. It didn't used to be, but a lot of the links coming in have now 'died', and the domains they came from are now just parked.
Anyway, I have managed to contact pretty much all the webmasters, and 27 of these links have been removed. Unfortunately - as I'm sure many people know all too well - a good handful of the contacted webmasters haven't replied, and the bad links still remain on their websites (either in-content or on links pages).
I have decided to 'refresh' the website with some new (and better) content - providing much more information and a valuable resource.
My question is - what should I do?
-
Should I just replace the content on the existing pages (slightly altering the URL structure to match the topic more) and 301 the old URLs to the new ones?
-
Or should I delete the pages and create new ones - thus making sure this particular section of the site isn't affected by any bad in-bound links?
I'm more inclined to opt for the latter option, and 'start fresh' with the pages - so I know I've got total control over them, but wanted to get the opinion of the community before I made a decision.
Thanks in advance for your responses!
Nick
-
-
That's one thing I hadn't considered thus far - thanks for the tip, Anthony! I'll make sure the URLs are removed properly.
I just think creating 'new' pages would be easier than working through the mess the old SEO company left behind.
With decent content on-site and a few relevant in-content links, it shouldn't (hopefully) take too long to get back up the rankings!
-
Hi Nick,
I agree with you, deleting the pages and starting fresh is probably the best bet. Once they've been deleted and return a 404 code, I'd go ahead and have Google remove them from the index via the GWT URL removal tool.
I'd say the risk of having those in-bound links sticking around outweighs the reward that 301s might yield.
Good luck.
-Anthony
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
-
Blocking in Robots.txt and the re-indexing - DA effects?
I have two good high level DA sites that target the US (.com) and UK (.co.uk). The .com ranks well but is dormant from a commercial aspect - the .co.uk is the commercial focus and gets great traffic. Issue is the .com ranks for brand in the UK - I want the .co.uk to rank for brand in the UK. I can't 301 the .com as it will be used again in the near future. I want to block the .com in Robots.txt with a view to un-block it again when I need it. I don't think the DA would be affected as the links stay and the sites live (just not indexed) so when I unblock it should be fine - HOWEVER - my query is things like organic CTR data that Google records and other factors won't contribute to its value. Has anyone ever blocked and un-blocked and whats the affects pls? All answers greatly received - cheers GB
Technical SEO | | Bush_JSM0 -
Changes to 'links to your site' in WebMaster Tools?
We're writing more out of curiosity... Clicking on "Download latest links" within 'Links to your site' in Google's WebMaster Tools would usually bring back links discovered recently. However, the last few times (for numerous accounts) it has brought back a lot of legacy links - some from 2011 - and includes nothing recent. We would usually expect to see a dozen at least each month. ...Has anyone else noticed this? Or, do you have any advice? Thanks in advance, Ant!
Technical SEO | | AbsoluteDesign0 -
How do I direct users to site page when they search vanity URL?
My company runs a contest via a landing page on our website. The full URL to the landing page is rather long so we have a vanity URL that we use for advertising purposes. I have a 301 on the vanity URL to the landing page URL so people visiting it directly end up where they should just fine. But if a user goes to Google and types the vanity URL into the search bar, the landing page is nowhere to be found in the results. What do I need to do to get the landing page to show in results when people search the vanity URL?
Technical SEO | | jarjarjarvis0 -
My sites just disappeared from google last night. there is no manual action in webmaster.
can it the penalty if so how do i find out if i was hit with a penalty i keep checking my webmasters but there is no alert for penalty. this is very sad but once i make sure it was a penalty i can move on for a safer seo. Sites are indexed i checked. there is no other indexing issue or robots issue either. Please help
Technical SEO | | samafaq0 -
Trackback URLs & temporary re-directs
Hi Community, I have receiving an increasing number of temporary re-direct status codes via MOZ crawl diagnostics. I have taken a look more closely and these URLs are 'trackback urls' from blog posts, the website is Wordpress integrated. What is best practice for these 302 temporary redirects? I have read that best practice for a 302 is to 301 re-direct a URL, but is this the case for a trackback URL?
Technical SEO | | SO_UK0 -
Duplicate content warning for a hierarchy structure?
I have a series of pages on my website organized in a hierarchy, let's simplify it to say parent pages and child pages. Each of the child pages has product listings, and an introduction at the top (along with an image) explaining their importance, why they're grouped together, providing related information, etc.
Technical SEO | | westsaddle
The parent page has a list of all of its child pages and a copy of their introductions next to the child page's title and image thumbnail. Moz is throwing up duplicate content warnings for all of these pages. Is this an actual SEO issue, or is the warning being overzealous?
Each child page has tons of its own content, and each parent page has the introductions from a bunch of child pages, so any single introduction is never the only content on the page. Thanks in advance!0 -
Google’s Latest Manual Action Penalty: Spammy Structured Markup
Anyone out there begin receiving this and or know when it started? Google has recently began sending a new manual action spam notification to webmasters for “spammy structured markup” also known as rich snippet spam. Your pal, Chenzo
Technical SEO | | Chenzo0 -
Google Webmaster Tools: Keywords
Hi SEOmozzers! I'm the Dr./owner/in-house SEO for my eye care practice. The URL is www.ofallonfamilyeyecare.com. Our practice is in O'Fallon, MO. Since I'm an optometrist, my main keywords are "optometrist o'fallon" and "o'fallon optometrist". As I get more familiarity with SEO, Google Analytics and Webmaster Tools, I've discovered the Keywords that Google feels best represent my website. About a week ago I noted Google counted 21 instances of "optometrist" on the 28-30 pages of my website, which ranks as #32 in the most common keywords. #1 is "eye" with 506 instances. Even though 21 occurrences seemed low, I went though every page adding "optometrist" a couple times in the body where it would naturally be appropriate. I also added it to the address shown on the footer of every page. I changed the top navigation option of "meet Dr. Hegyi" to "our optometrist". I must have added at least 4 occurrences to every page on my site, and submitted for a re-crawl. I even tried to scale back the "eye" occurrences on a few pages. Today I see that Google has re-crawled the site and the keywords have been updated. "Optometrist has DROPPED from #32 to #33. Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions why I'm not seeing increased occurrence in Googles eyes? I realize this may not be a big factor in SERPs, but every bit of on-page optimization helps. Or is this too minor of an issue to sweat? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | JosephHegyi0