|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ashley||8/6/13 12:39 PM|
What is a "good-faith effort" in Google's eyes? 100% removed?
That's probably fluid and depends on how bad your backlink profile was.
Google suggests that we post on this forum to try and find help so, does anyone want to step up to the plate and help us?
Sure. Thanks for providing the spreadsheet. I'll take a quick glance now.
|(unknown)||8/6/13 12:24 PM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|(unknown)||8/6/13 12:48 PM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ben Griffiths||8/6/13 12:50 PM|
OK, seen spreadsheet - did you disavow even removed/nofollowed links? Thorough.
And you used the domain operator, as per Matt Cutts' "machete not scalpel' advice?
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ashley||8/6/13 12:56 PM|
Big spreadsheet so I had a little trouble sorting, so I just did my own check using ahrefs.com.
I still see about 9.9K links, though it's been going down.
Some of the sites you're reporting as removed - I still see plenty of active followed links on. Like:
Why are you not disavowing/removing stuff like this? http://www.comfortablejeans.com/images/picsngwd/change-ink-cartridge-hp-officejet-pro-8000
You've got an awful lot of pages that used to link to you that are now blank. That is somewhat problematic in that it may take Google longer to disassociate them with you rather than if they'd properly 404'd or 410'd the page rather than making it an empty 200 OK response. Here's one example of many: http://www.tiredofboss.com/toner-konica/
**NOTE - you can just disavow the whole domain and save yourself some heartache.
What was quickshipparts.com and http://www.qpartsdirect.com and www.quickship.com. How many websites do you have, my friend?
Boy.... you did do a lot of spamming. I bet it's harder than hell to clean up that mess....
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Michael DiLuzio||8/6/13 12:57 PM|
Yes, we have disavowed a lot of links, all by domain only per Matt Cut's advice.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ben Griffiths||8/6/13 1:04 PM|
I'd aim for 200 remaining links, maybe fewer, and see where you end up.
Alternatively, nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
That level of, hmm, history, you're probably talking strategic level decisions not tactical online ones. IE rebrand time!
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Michael DiLuzio||8/6/13 1:40 PM|
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me! The printerinkrefillkits.info back link that you pointed out, we did mark it as removed based off of a reply we got from the webmaster assuring us that they would be removed. It's a little disheartening to see that they're still up and I have just sent a follow up e-mail to that webmaster.
It seems like this is our problem in that there are just SO MANY of these back links that the logistics of removing & confirming removal are very complicated.
As far as the comfortablejeans.com back link I assume you retrieved that from ahrefs.com? I don't see a record of that in our lists. We're certainly open to also going through back links provided by them, but I do feel a bit hesitant to continue trying to save our domain based off of our progress so far. Read: None.
The blank pages. Ohhh, the blank pages! I noticed a lot of those too and all we could do was skip them. We tried submitting content removal requests for these pages as well to expedite the disassociation there, but no go. Is this something that we could bring up in a RR to let them know that some of our back links are no longer active? I feel like that is something they can see on their own, yet again.. maybe not.
Those other websites are also owned by our company, but operate separately..
Cleaning up this mess has been hard on me and my team and our boss. We feel like we've tried everything that we could do here with nothing to show for our work. It's a very discouraging process.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ashley||8/6/13 2:30 PM|
Sounds like you still have a lot of clean up to do if I found those naughty links in a matter of 10 min.
I understand. But, it looks like there has been rampant spamming for a long time and I bet you reaped rewards, however short term, for those shortcuts. Cleaning up is much harder than making the mess. But - it's up to you to do it.
Conversely, you could get rid of all of your domains - shut them down entirely - and create a single new domain and try to make an honest, awesome website that is focused on users.
Have you considered examining this setup as part of your problem/liability?
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Michael DiLuzio||8/6/13 3:03 PM|
I have no doubt there are even more back links that we have yet to identify that need to be contacted. At this point, I'm interested in an acknowledgement from Google that what we are doing is working and that we're on our way to a solution. So far, we have gotten nothing from them in terms of our progress. All we do is submit a reconsideration request and wait the 5 days for the same exact response from them as before. Are we just wasting our time? Have we already wasted several hundred man hours on this effort?
We were notified of the manual action taken against our domain and we are doing everything that we can to remedy any issues. The other websites that we own, while e-commerce websites, sell & market entirely different products. They are completely separate corporations. Do you think Google would penalize us for this? Is Amazon docked because they own both amazon.com AND zappos.com? And don't they even sell shoes on amazon.com?
We've refined our storefront over the past several years based off of interaction with and feedback from our users, adding several new features over the years. Heck, you can even see that we're a "Google Trusted Store" with over 20,000 transactions and rated as an A for reliable shipping and excellent service. So, should our entire site be brought down now because of inorganic back links that we have had removed by devoting hundreds of man hours to? I'm not saying that we have been perfect angels here, but I am saying that I think we have shown a "good-faith effort" to not only fixing this, but committing to keeping this fixed in the future.
I have only posted on here because we tried everything else. We're actually going to subscribe to ahrefs.com and begin to go through those back links now. sigh.. hopefully not all for naught...
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ben Griffiths||8/6/13 3:12 PM|
When people have got a more detailed response from Google than you (try searching this forum for text from your message) it generally says (in effect) "keep going". Sometimes it points out egregious paid links that still exist, as Ashley did. When the webspam team speaks through someone, they say "be thorough, show your working, then disavow everything else".
I think you're on the right track, you just have to honest with yourself about what is a quality link. There's plenty of discussion, some of it even informed, about that around too.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ashley||8/6/13 3:12 PM|
Google is an algorithm dealing with millions of sites. You are getting feedback from them (you still have too many unnatural links) - it's just not what you want to hear. I believe you're going in the right direction but you're definitely not being thorough or aggressive enough.
Maybe. But I don't believe most sites are beyond repair. You have options. You can keep cleaning or start fresh - that's up for you to decide. But if you start fresh I'd recommend getting rid of all of these various domains and focus on making a single good site. And don't 301 these domains to a new one or you'll pass on the penalty.
Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not saying this is your main problem, but I think it's an obvious issue that I'd fix if I were the webmaster. At a minimum I'd make sure there ALL links between my properties were nofollowed and no content was replicated across sites. You're not doing that!
Maybe. I don't know! Google is an opaque algorithm and they make the decisions. But don't act too innocent - you really spammed the hell out of the net with all your unnatural link building. You thought there would be no liability with that behavior? I think a bigger question is if you're working so hard on your site and your presence - why would you risk it with these dumb spammy behaviors?
I think you're moving in the right direction - but it's not easy!
If you want, post some links that you actually think are natural and worth keeping. I couldn't easily identify what you're keeping via your spreadsheet. Perhaps you're not being quite as honest as you need to be on what is truly natural.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Michael DiLuzio||8/6/13 3:20 PM|
Thanks Ben, We're going to keep chugging away at this based off of a fresh list of back links that we got from ahrefs.com. We have definitely disavowed every domain that we have thought would help our cause. Like I said, we can only keep moving forward from this point. Thanks for your replies!
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Michael DiLuzio||8/6/13 3:34 PM|
Thanks Ashley, I understand your points here in regards to google's stance.
We do have toner up on quickship.com (the only product type on multiple web sites), but it was my understanding that these products were "invisible" to search engine bots based off of the toner_lookup.php? in the URL. I didn't design the website here so I can't fully respond to this, sorry.
We subscribed to ahrefs.com and are going to continue this by going through that list and contacting webmasters again.
Do you have any suggestions on what we can do for URLs like http://www.tiredofboss.com/toner-konica/ or http://www.quicktimesite.com/identity-stronghold-secure-sleeve-case-for-id-credit-card/ beyond just waiting for google to recognize that these no longer exist? It was my understanding that we could use the tool I mentioned previously (https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals) to submit a request to have this content removed from Google's results, but for pages like this, there is no cached version of the page that we can use to show Google there has been an update :(
Beyond all of this, thanks for taking the time to reply to me today beyond just saying, "You are guilty... now SUFFER."
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ashley||8/6/13 3:52 PM|
You can't use the URL removal tool for sites that you don't own unless the site responds with a 404 or 410, I believe. But that's not an area I'm an expert in.
I'd be prepared for this to take a while. I'm not trying to mean - just realistic. I just come off as mean because you know, I'm naturally jerkish. Can't help. Comes from my dad's side.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Michael DiLuzio||8/6/13 4:36 PM|
Believe me, we have thought about doing the nuclear option. I can't see us getting the number of back links down to anywhere close to 200 because that would be contingent on almost every web master that we contact to remove the page successfully and I simply don't see that happening. Of course, google does say that they understand not EVERY page can be contacted, but down all the way to 200? I just don't see that happening..
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Michael DiLuzio||8/6/13 4:48 PM|
:\ We were able to submit thousands of these requests and never saw any documentation saying that we had to own the pages. I would say that 95% of these requests were approved, which only happens if the site is definitely taken down..
Again, thanks for the advice. You didn't come off too bad. I think that most interactions on online messages boards get heated pretty quickly due to the anonymity provided by sitting here at my computer and not right next to you. Plus, most web masters who end up posting here with this problem are only doing so to try and finally get a clearer answer to an incredibly annoying situation that has dragged on for weeks or months. Cnimosity can fester pretty quickly with something like that. Thanks again!
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Michael DiLuzio||8/6/13 5:02 PM|
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ben Griffiths||8/7/13 5:13 AM|
In my statement about getting to a really low number I was including disvowed but still live links, too. 200 might be extreme though.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Michael DiLuzio||8/7/13 10:24 AM|
Understood Ben. I've kind of lost a little faith in the disavow process only because we have disavowed sooo many domains (both from pages that we've gotten removed and pages where the web master has not responded or removed the articles) and it doesn't seem to be making a difference.
From ahrefs.com I can see that in the last few months we've dropped from 19,000 back links to 9,500 so at least I know they are dropping.. That's a start. We're preparing to contact even more sites right right now and hopefully we get somewhere with this.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ben Griffiths||8/7/13 10:28 AM|
I read earlier some 3rd-hand gossip saying that the review team looks at 10% of your links when assessing a RR. So that'd be 950 they look at if you did one now, and they'd expect probably 90%+ of those to be not in any way paid for or suspicious I'd imagine. So the numbers aren't on your side, if that's true.
Even if it's not true it's a good way of looking at it, iteratively through the cleanse rather than struggling with the scale of the task. If I picked 10% of your live backlinks how close to 90% quality would I get?
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Michael DiLuzio||8/7/13 10:53 AM|
I remember reading some where they would be satisfied with 70-80%, but who knows (besides the web spam team), right? Regardless, we're striving for 100% removal, but so far have only gotten around 70% removed out of all the domains that we have contacted.
|(unknown)||8/7/13 11:02 AM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|(unknown)||8/7/13 11:04 AM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Jack Cline||8/7/13 11:05 AM|
I get the general impression that most people think we were trying to SPAM the world. When we posted these articles/reviews on articles directories back in 2010, we thought we were doing good. It was what everyone else did, and was common knowledge of a good way to put out good content and get backlinks. We were not aware of any policies from google telling us we shouldn't be writing printer reviews. We wrote printer reviews because at the time, all we heard from google was "content is king, content content". Which we have also done for our own site. We pay close attention to the user experience as well, is important to us. We created printer reviews and put them on articles directories sites. These articles directories sites allow the general public to take these articles/reviews we wrote as free content, which other people post on their sites. We have had a hard time getting these links down. We are not completely innocent, we didnt think we were white warriors, we knew it was a gray area. Seems like all of these is gray area until it has been identified as "black hat". Our current SEO plan is to do absolutely nothing. I guess we've listened to too many SEO companies along the way who all sell us that we need to "do something", when the correct answer was to do nothing.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ben Griffiths||8/7/13 11:13 AM|
Is perception your biggest problem right now?
I don't think anyone's been judgmental here.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Jack Cline||8/7/13 11:16 AM|
I think it's just frustrating. We've been doing everything we can for 2 months now. No real direction, only some guesses...is all gray.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ben Griffiths||8/7/13 11:21 AM|
Yup, it is that - Google aren't very transparent when it comes to their algorithm, and that follows through into this.
They're not guesses though, if you mean "keep going and you'll probably be OK" - there is a point at which you'll have cleaned up your backlink profile (which lets not forget google essentially considers pollution) sufficiently and Google will allow you back into their index.
FWIW I think the bigger sin is not a) diversifying traffic sources at the earliest opportunity and b) not having a response planned to a sudden change, if you know that you are operating in any grey area. But that is judgmental/subjective.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||StevieD_Web||8/7/13 11:41 AM|
>I remember reading some where they would be satisfied with 70-80%, but who knows (besides the web spam team), right? Regardless, we're striving for 100% removal, but so far have only gotten around 70% removed out of all the domains that we have contacted.
85% was the number cited. My gut says that was a site specific value but I could be wrong as 99% was jokingly mentioned for another site. I really believe that all of this is relative (to competition/vertical, number of links, duration etc).
> 70% removed out of all the domains that we have contacted.
Great. OF THE ONES YOU HAVE CONTACTED.
Therein lies the problem.... most people tackle the low hanging fruit and avoid the depth of removal that is really necessary.
Think of it this way.... you got 1000 hypothetical links. 500 of them are Fungus that we all have in our backlinks. Sure, go ahead and remove the fungus, but the fungus don't hurt you. 250 of the links are neutral. No harm / No benefit.... Think Yellowpage listings and the such. 100 are bad, but not causative to the current issue but should be removed never less. 100 are super bad and must be removed. And 50 are acceptable. In this hypothetical example, unless the super bad 100 are addressed, nothing is going to be resolved.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||StevieD_Web||8/7/13 11:45 AM|
oh... and to follow up.... you could tackle ONLY the super bad 100 and resolve the problem without much effort.
Might explain why some claim to be effective with recovery while only addressing a small %.... they hit the right small % and didn't get lost in chasing harmless links.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Michael DiLuzio||8/7/13 12:01 PM|
The problem with SEO like this is it's all theory. You read somewhere it was 85%, I read a different blog post saying it's 70-80% and Ben read that's it's 90%. All theory. All we can do is strive for perfection as the most sure-fire way to be successful.
I'm not sure if you looked at the google doc I linked to in my original post, but we don't have a small % of links that are "super bad," yet our technique has been what you are describing: focus on our bad back links. For us, this means visiting every back link and determining if it is healthy or not. We've also focused more on links that we know are bad based off of anchor text. We've tried to err on the side of caution here and not just wipe out everything, obviously. I'm not claiming that we have gotten every bad back link removed, but I THINK that we have gotten a majority removed. Again, I can only assume because there is no official word from Google on this to us. I can see that our number of back links have dropped from 19k to 9500 in the last few months, though.. so I know we're headed in the right direction. If we need to remove 9,000 more back links and get down to only 500 remaining.. we can try to do that, but I can guarantee you that not all of those 9,000 will be removed.. 30% of web masters simply don't care and won't reply to our inquiries for content removal. From our original 19,000 back links, let's say we keep the theoretical 500 good links.. plus the ones that we're not able to get removed.. that's still 5,500 back links active that we have tried everything we can in a "good faith effort" to get removed. And yes, that includes disavowing those domains completely. Something tells me, with that many links left over we'll still get the same "We've reviewed your site and we still see links to your site that violate our quality guidelines" response.. Feeling a little hopeless over here..
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ben Griffiths||8/7/13 12:08 PM|
FYI I didn't read that it was 90 - I read that the sample size for the webspam team's review is 10% of backlinks.
What their internal threshold for %age bad links is is probably relative to many factors, as Stevie said.
I think the good faith demonstrated in the RR might be one of those factors though. A subjective assessment of whether you're in confession mode or spin/bare minimum mode.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Michael DiLuzio||8/7/13 12:42 PM|
Thanks for clarifying, Ben. We have sent several RRs all with different tones. Desperation, confessional, short & blunt. All still the same response. I wrote one up admitting to past actions, laying out the work we have done so far and what our plan is to continue this into the future. Nothing. I understand that a real person reviews our RR, but it doesn't sound like they have the option to type up a response tailored for us. Maybe there are just 4-5 different buttons on their screen and they just click which one is the most appropriate response. Matt Cutts has said in a video that they do have an option to "revoke the manual action" there on the screen so that's the one I'm hoping they choose to click ;-) ...one day. They have an algorithm to protect and I get that, but we have been doing exactly what they've directed us to do.. right down to posting on this forum with all of you fine people and nothing seems to be getting us anywhere.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Daniel Dilkes||8/9/13 5:37 AM|
It seems like you're trying your hardest here but maybe following the guidelines a little too closely.
We've had a few sites with bad links and instead of contacting domains and spending a lot of time achieving very little, get the proverbial Matt Cutts 'machete' out.
If you've got bad links, don't waste time going through each one and contacting them. Get a disavow file on the go and make it as big as you dare. At this point in time, it seems like there's little you can do to make things worse so disavow any link you feel isn't beneficial to you and see what happens.
Remember, it doesn't necessarily have to be a 'bad link' - just one that doesn't provide value to your site.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ben Griffiths||8/9/13 5:45 AM|
While it's en vogue could you nip into your Webmaster Tools and go to Search Traffic > Manual Actions, and paste in what you see? Just for confirmation - this is a new feature and we might as well use it on outstanding RR threads.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ashley||8/9/13 8:16 AM|
I do agree with the machete approach, however, Google has said said in soft terms that they're looking for effort. So just disavowing everything is not likely to pass muster. I truly believe that they want to see a decent number (who knows what percentage) actually removed. Otherwise it's far too easy to scrub spammy behavior (thus encouraging it).
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Michael DiLuzio||8/19/13 8:08 AM|
Here is an update on where we're at with this. We have disavowed more domains and have successfully removed even more URLs with offending back links by contacting the webmasters.
We sent in another reconsideration request to Google and they replied with 3 sample URLs. Google has replied like this in the past, providing sample URLs for us so we can see what is viewed as "outside of quality guidelines." All sample URLs provided have been articles containing back links to our domain. Problem is, the last 3 sample URLs they sent are domains that have all been disavowed AND we have contacted each website owner by any means possible. AND we have also contacted the hosting companies. All of that work is recorded on the google doc that we include with our reconsideration request.
Any thoughts on this?
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ashley||8/19/13 8:30 AM|
Samples are just samples - they're just telling you what types of links should be removed. So - are you sure you've scrubbed all of those types of links?
Are you documenting all of your efforts carefully? Like all of your attempts to contact webmasters, and how?
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Michael DiLuzio||8/19/13 9:26 AM|
They are Google and we did submit a disavow list to them with these domains included. Them still acknowledging the mere existence of these specific links just makes me lose faith in the whole process. Why even submit a disavow list? If we are still offending their rules can't they easily find other examples that we haven't yet disavowed or included in the Google DocThey have made it clear with every sample URL they have provided that pages containing articles are what they see as against their quality guidelines so that is what we have been focusing on. It is impossible to remove 100% of these links so I'm not sure about "scrubbing all of these links." We have certainly contacted every site owner that we could find. Including researching back links beyond what webmaster tools can provide us. Yes, we are documenting every attempt and recording it in Google Docs. We try to e-mail the whois registrant, search the site for a contact us form and submit that (a lot of times site's do not have contact us forms, which we note) and we have also researched hosting companies and contacted their whois registrant and submitted any legal contact form or contact us through their site.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||JohnMu||8/26/13 6:36 AM|
I forwarded your information to the team here to check out (thanks for pinging, Ashley & Steve!), and I think they're happy with what you've done so far (keep an eye on the manual action feature :)). Thanks for holding out & for starting this thread with the details. One of the things we noticed was that your last reconsideration request was a bit short & basic, which when taken on its own, gave the team a wrong impression about the steps you've taken to resolve this issue on the web. Earlier ones were much better in that regard.
My general recommendation for reconsideration requests would be to make sure that you're really submitting the right & relevant information there, so that it's clear to those processing the request what steps you've taken to resolve this issue: linking to the doc you mentioned is great, linking to a forum discussion is great, providing more context in the message directly is also very useful. In this case, that's not necessary anymore, but for others, it's probably worth keeping this in mind.
Hope it helps!
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Michael DiLuzio||8/26/13 9:12 AM|
Thanks for the guidance on the reconsideration request process. We are continuing our efforts to remove offending URLs via multiple avenues and have actually been very successful at getting many removed just in the past several days. I hope that this recent decrease in inorganic back links appears in our back link profile! Thanks again for the reply!
|(unknown)||8/26/13 9:26 AM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Ben Griffiths||8/26/13 9:50 AM|
Feel free to start your own thread to get specific responses to your problem
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||PCIT||9/10/13 5:19 AM|
I am hoping you can give me some good advice. My site is holidayhomenation.com and we have a some manual actions against some pages.
I feel I have identified the domains and have contacted them via the contact form on their sites but I am only seeing a limited response and to date have seen only around 50 links removed.
I have tried whois but the domains are all Privacy Protected, I have contacted the domain registrars but have had no response.
I have detailed everything I have done in a spreadsheet and provided screenshots of my email requests to have the links removed and submitted them to the google search team.
I have disavowed all the domains and feel I have shown a good faith effort.
After my last reconsideration request the email response that I got from the google search team made no mention of the documents I had submitted and quite simply said,
"There are still many inorganic links pointing to your site. At this point, we believe we’ve evaluated these links appropriately, and no further action from us is required. In order for your site to have a successful reconsideration request, we will need to see a substantial, good-faith effort to remove the links, and this effort should result in a significant decrease in the number of bad links that we see. We do not recommend that you submit another reconsideration request until you have been able to make a good amount of progress. Once you’ve been able to get the links removed, please file a new reconsideration request with details of your cleanup effort."
I reckon there are around 35 domains with around 900 links pointing to my site that I am having a problem getting removed.
Hope you can help.
|(unknown)||9/10/13 5:38 AM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Simon-Mc||9/10/13 5:40 AM|
@PCIT You should start your own thread if you want to get detailed help.
This shows you have over 3.5K backlinks. The majority are do follow links.
Using sites like this to build fresh links is only going to hurt you more too:
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Suzanneh||9/10/13 5:41 AM|
@PCIT, please start your own thread. Big red "Post a Question" button at the top of the page.
|Re: Our Experience with Removing Inorganic Links & Submitting Reconsideration Requests||Sergey Danchenko||9/10/13 9:36 PM|
I am not the expert, but looking at the amount of MANUAL work you have done during many days in a row, that might be easier to conduct complete rebranding of your business and create a totallynew and clean web site. Don't you think so?
I don't believe Google will hear your voice.