An Easy Question - Backlinks
-
Hi guys,
I know this is an easy question and I'm already quite sure of the answer for it but it would be good to get some other views.
This website - http://www.collapso.net/ have 261,923 backlinks to our website according to Ahrefs.
They have 1000's of pages like this - http://www.collapso.net/countiesnew/Cork.html which link to our site.
43.95% of the backlinks to our site are from these guys but we've been fortunate enough to never receive any warnings via WMT or ever experienced drop offs in traffic.
My question is - Do we have this site remove all the links to our site or leave them alone?
Given there's such a large quantity of links, I'm not exactly sure what the impact would be on us.
My instinct says get rid of them. Although part of me questions what such a massive drop in our link profile would look like to Google.
-
I really wouldn't worry about these links, I don't think these are going to harm your backlink profile.
Instead of spending time getting these removed I'd spend the time looking for good quality, relevant links. No point wasting your time on these or incurring the risk changing your backlink profile...
<object id="plugin0" style="position: absolute; z-index: 1000;" width="0" height="0" type="application/x-dgnria"><param name="tabId" value="ff-tab-0"> <param name="counter" value="13"></object>
-
Hi Doug,
Great points.
These links were never manually built by us. To-date, we haven't done any form of link building. Any links which point to our site have occurred naturally.
In the case of this website linking to us, they are scraping content to inform users of their site about price drops in the property sector.
All of the links they have are pointing to individual property pages on our site.
To me it seems like they're just using the meta-descriptions as anchor text.
Mark
-
I'm not sure how much link equity you're earning from those links (even given the vast number). With so many links on each page and the relatively low page authority of the linking page I'd be surprise that these links make much of a difference.
Questions to ask yourself though:
Is the site linking to you a legitimate/authentic site. Does it exist for a reason other than "to provide links"
Why do these links exist? Do they exist for a legitimate reason? (Without knowing your site it's hard to be specific).
How long have these links existed and what's the anchor text.
How is the linking site ranking for it's own target keywords - you can use this as an indicator for the authority/reputation google believe that site has. (The site you mention seems to be raking well for Irish property price tracker" etc.
My gut feeling (without too much digging) is not to worry about it.
<object id="plugin0" style="position: absolute; z-index: 1000;" width="0" height="0" type="application/x-dgnria"><param name="tabId" value="ff-tab-0"> <param name="counter" value="113"></object>
-
If they haven't affected you this far, i'd say just leave them alone, they don't seem to be doing any harm.
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
-
Subdomain Question
Having a difficult time on our site and looking for some advice. Our site pages are indexed perfectly, however, we have a subdomain where we have all of our images and PDF's. We only have the main domain set-up in Search Console with our sitemap. We can't seem to get any of our images indexed by Google that are in the subdomain however all the PDF's are indexed. My thought is to add the subdomain to SC and create a new sitemap that is just for the subdomain. Assuming we are not blocking any folders or files with our robots.txt can anyone think of any other reasons why the images wouldn't get indexed.
Technical SEO | | cbathd
Thanks0 -
Specific question about pagination prompted by Adam Audette's Presentation at RKG Summit
This question is prompted by something Adam Audette said in this excellent presentation: http://www.rimmkaufman.com/blog/top-5-seo-conundrums/08062012/ First, I will lay out the issues: 1. All of our paginated pages have the same URL. To view this in action, go here: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/audio-technica , scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "Next" - look at the URL. The URL is: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/IAFDispatcher, and for every page after it, the same URL. 2. All of the paginated pages with non-unique URLs have canonical tags referencing the first page of the paginated series. 3. http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/IAFDispatcher has been instructed to be neither crawled nor indexed by Google. Now, on to what Adam said in his presentation: At about minute 24 Adam begins talking about pagination. At about 27:48 in the video, he is discussing the first of three ways to properly deal with pagination issues. He says [I am somewhat paraphrasing]: "Pages 2-N should have self-referencing canonical tags - Pages 2-N should all have their own unique URLs, titles and meta descriptions...The key is, with this is you want deeper pages to get crawled and all the products on there to get crawled too. The problem that we see a lot is, say you have ten pages, each one using rel canonical pointing back to page 1, and when that happens, the products or items on those deep pages don't get get crawled...because the rel canonical tag is sort of like a 301 and basically says 'Okay, this page is actually that page.' All the items and products on this deeper page don't get the love." Before I get to my question, I'll just throw out there that we are planning to fix the pagination issue by opting for the "View All" method, which Adam suggests as the second of three options in this video, so that fix is coming. My question is this: It seems based on what Adam said (and our current abysmal state for pagination) that the products on our paginated pages aren't being crawled or indexed. However, our products are all indexed in Google. Is this because we are submitting a sitemap? Even so, are we missing out on internal linking (authority flow) and Google love because Googlebot is finding way more products in our sitemap that what it is seeing on the site? (or missing out in other ways?) We experience a lot of volatility in our rankings where we rank extremely well for a set of products for a long time, and then disappear. Then something else will rank well for a while, and disappear. I am wondering if this issue is a major contributing factor. Oh, and did I mention that our sort feature sorts the products and imposes that new order for all subsequent visitors? it works like this: If I go to that same Audio-Technica page, and sort the 125+ resulting products by price, they will sort by price...but not just for me, for anyone who subsequently visits that page...until someone else re-sorts it some other way. So if we merchandise the order to be XYZ, and a visitor comes and sorts it ZYX and then googlebot crawls, google would potentially see entirely different products on the first page of the series than the default order marketing intended to be presented there....sigh. Additional thoughts, comments, sympathy cards and flowers most welcome. 🙂 Thanks all!
Technical SEO | | danatanseo0 -
Controlling PageRank Flow Question
One of my competitors rose above me drastically, above everyone actually. His website has a sidebar on the homepage, but when you click a post it leads to a full width page of his content - with no sidebar at all. The only button on page is HOME. My site has the sidebar on all pages, meaning juice is flowing around in all directions. Would it be smarter for me to remove my sidebar as well? In theory, this would create a boost in rankings correct?
Technical SEO | | PrivatePartners0 -
Removing thousands of shady backlinks?
Hey guys, We've been hired to redesign a website that has thousands of backlinks created by a (possibly) shady offshore company, and I'm wondering if anyone out there has experience dealing with a deletion of this size and type. Is it as simple as just disavowing the whole lot? Thanks, Jason
Technical SEO | | JKorolenko0 -
Summarize your question.Crawl Diagnostics Summary
Hi, Crawl Diagnostics Summary pointed on some mistakes I've done, I fixed them, but Crawl Diagnostics Summary still shows same errors, how often does ithe data refreshes?
Technical SEO | | AndreyStotsky0 -
Another Penalty Question - Should I Start from Scratch?
I've seen many questions on google penalties recently. Not really sure where to go from here. I realised a year or so we would be living on borrowed time with our link building methods. We have been really successful in the past and are keen to build a site that has a bit more longevity. We have not received a warning from google but have lost pretty much all of our ranking for everything. My question is with our backlink profile as it is. Building links from various blog networks for the past 3 years. Is it just worth rebranding and starting from scratch rather than trying to get over a million links removed? We have a lot of content that I guess could be classed as spam. Should I really remove all of the content? or leave it running as we are still getting some traffic from other marketing activities. Or should I just get a new domain and transfer all the decent content?
Technical SEO | | DaveDawson2 -
301 Redirect Question
I'm working on a site that has a lot of indexed pages and backlinks to both domain.com and www.domain.com. Will using a 301 redirect to send domain.com to www.domain.com merge all of the indexed pages and links over to www.domain.com, thereby strengthening the www?
Technical SEO | | Yo_Adrian0 -
Weird Indexing Question
Google has indexed mysite.com/ and mysitem.com/\/ (no idea why). If you click on the /%5C? URL it takes you to mysite.com//. I have a rel=canonical tag on it that goes to mysite.com/ but I was wondering if there was another way to correct the issue.
Technical SEO | | BryanPhelps-BigLeapWeb0