Link removals: the most valuable SEO activity for 2014

Link removals: the most valuable SEO

activity for 2014 An iCrossing POV

06/02/2014

Prepared by: Modestos Siotos

© iCrossing 2014

Link removals: the most valuable SEO activity for 2014 © 2014 │ Page 2 of 10

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 3 1.1. Background................................................................................................................... 3

1.2. The end justifies the means ........................................................................................... 3

2. Why links are still very important .......................................................... 4

2.1. Is it worthwhile spending time on link removals?........................................................... 5 2.2. Lifting a manual penalty ............................................................................................... 5

2.3. Recovering from algorithmic devaluations................................................................... 6

2.4. Proactive link removals.................................................................................................. 6

3. Why backlink audits are more important than ever........................ 8

3.1. When might it be worth moving to a new domain? ..................................................... 8

3.2. How many links should you remove/disavow? ............................................................. 8

3.3. Should you build new links whilst removing? ................................................................. 9 3.4. When it is worth requesting a review?........................................................................... 9


1. Introduction

Companies now need to commit to removing inorganic backlinks as vigorously as they once

focused on building them. Why? Because if a great part of the site’s link strength relies on

unnatural and manipulative links the site’s rankings and overall traffic would be at very high risk.

Companies need to become aware of these links now, BEFORE they experience traffic drops

which will almost certainly occur when Google re-evaluates their site’s backlinks either through

an algorithm update or a manual review. Once penalised it can take months, if not years , to

claw back the position they once held on Google’s search results pages.

1.1. Background

For a very long time link-building was the core activity in pretty much any SEO campaign. In

many cases, links with keyword-rich anchor text would result in higher rankings, especially if they

were placed on authoritative and trusted domains. Google attempted to address this

manipulative approach with the release of the first Penguin update back in April 2012. This

completely changed the way most SEO savvy people think about link building strategies.

1.2. The end justifies the means

Up until 2012 Google was positively evaluating the vast majority of links on the web no matter

how useful, relevant, or trustworthy the sites they were sitting on were. With Google striving to

deliver the best possible organic results to searchers, they came up with a rather controversial

idea in order to clear the link graph of all unnatural, paid and manipulative links that were

slipping undetected through their algorithms.

They decided that the responsibility of links pointing at a website would sit with the site owners

rather than with Google’s algorithm.

Of course this decision did not come without any collateral damage (AKA negative SEO) and

Google had clearly declared a war against anyone who had tried to manipulate their rankings,

in a similar fashion to “the end justifies the means” doctrine.


2. Why links are still very important

Understandably, Google wants the link graph as clean as possible. Disavowing links (asking

Google not to take certain links into account when assessing your site) does not help as the

disavowed links are still visible to both users and search engines. They can certainly help

improving Google’s search results but by no means do they solve the problem.

It’s not surprising that Google’s representatives always advise web masters to try to remove

rather than just disavow the unnatural links.

However, if the value of links as an important ranking factor was really going to diminish then:

Why would Google have taken such drastic action against so many sites with unnatural links?

Why would Google keep sending website owners thousands of unnatural link warnings or take

manual actions against websites?

Why would Google build the disavow links tool?

Google’s recent actions in fact verify that links are still a massive ranking factor, whether passing

positive or negative value. According to Moz’s 2013 ranking factors survey links are still the most

important part of the algorithm.

So on one hand links are still the main influencer of rankings but on the other the line between

success and failure is thinner than ever before. Risks associated with links have lately

http://moz.com/blog/ranking-factors-2013


exponentially increased and pretty much any kind of strategy that aims to gain links in order to

improve (or according to Google “manipulate”) rankings may be violating Google’s quality

guidelines:

2.1. Is it worthwhile spending time on link removals?

There are two main situations where link removals would be beneficial:

1. Your site has received a manual penalty

2. Your site has been algorithmically hit by Google

However these are both reactive and proactively removing inorganic links to avoid being hit by

the next update is recommended.

2.2. Lifting a manual penalty

Recovering the dropped rankings for a few manually penalised keywords is usually easier than

trying to recover an entire site that has been hit algorithmically across the board (i.e. Penguin).

Is it worth the effort? The answer largely depends on:

1. The reasons that the penalty was invoked

2. How many links need to be removed

3. How many links can realistically be removed

4. The time and effort required to remove them

5. The costs associated with the link removal process

6. How long you can afford to have poor search visibility

First and foremost you need to make sure that there is a good reason to spend time and effort

on link removals and that this activity justifies the investment.

Manually identifying the unnatural links and removing them is challenging, yet necessary, in

order to recover from a manual penalty. This is because:

Unlike disavow, a removed link 100% guarantees that the risk the link was posing no longer exists.

There is a lot of evidence to share with Google about all the hard work that has taken place

before requesting a manual review.

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en


2.3. Recovering from algorithmic devaluations

Link removals can also help in cases of traffic drops caused by algorithmic devaluations.

However, in these cases according to Google’s engineer John Mueller you could try using the

disavow tool right away bearing in mind that:

1. It is a hint and not a directive so Google may or may not discount each disavowed link or domain.

2. There is no transparency on which links/domains Google will actually discount.

3. You will not get notified when the disavowed file gets processed.

4. In some cases Google has cited disavowed links as bad link examples of unnatural links.

All these reasons clearly show that just disavowing may not be enough and link removals may

be worth the effort.

2.4. Proactive link removals

Some of the clients I’ve worked with find it hard to believe that proactively removing links

without having received a penalty or having lost traffic is worthwhile. Unfortunately, the truth is

that when a site gets hit manually or algorithmically it’s too late and a full recovery in most cases

can take months. For most businesses it is much more sustainable to allocate some of the

available budget to proactive link removals rather than being under the pressure and

uncertainty of lifting a penalty.

Google’s tolerance of unnatural links is constantly diminishing, so unless you regularly audit and

remove any inorganic links which may be found pointing to your site, the day you may get hit

will be getting closer and closer. In addition, even if there were no manipulative link building

activities in your site’s entire backlink history, there are no guarantees that your backlink profile is

squeaky clean. As anyone can build links to your website, keeping an eye on the state of your

backlink profile is essential.

The following graph illustrates the percentage of manipulative links found on sites that were

penalised by Google at different times during 2012. It is clear that from an 80% tolerance of

manipulative links in April 2012, the threshold moved down to 50% in just six months.

http://www.seroundtable.com/google-disavow-example-urls-17615.html


Source: Portent

http://cdn.staticportent.com/images/2013/03/google-declining-spam-tolerance.pdf


3. Why backlink audits are more important

than ever

Conducting a backlink audit regularly will help you to understand the current state of your site’s

backlink profile and how it compares to that of the top-ranking competitors. This comparison will

give you a rough idea of how much work is required to keep your site’s backlink profile as

healthy as that of your best ranking competitors.

It is important to stress that different niches have different spam thresholds as they are part of

different ecosystems. Carrying out a thorough, niche-specific backlink audit will make it easier to

work out the potential risk as well as the percentage of links that may need to be removed.

Because no company has unlimited resources you have to be realistic as to whether spending

time on link removals would be worthwhile. In which case…

3.1. When might it be worth moving to a new domain?

In some cases it may be worth moving to another domain and starting from scratch rather than

spending 12 or more months removing links with no clear indication about when the penalty will

get lifted. Even if it does, traffic is highly unlikely to ever recover to the pre-penalty levels, unless

you spend more time compensating for the link equity loss by building new (and natural) links.

This is because in order to recover you need to lose those links that in the past used to help your

most important keywords rank well in Google’s search results. If your business heavily relies on

only a handful of keywords, which no longer rank in Google’s first page because of a penalty,

considering a domain change may deliver quicker results. Of course this isn’t possible for all

businesses and it’s less of an option for well-established brands.

Even though all types of penalties can be lifted, the question you need to answer is how long

you can afford to wait until a full recovery takes place. If your business isn’t an established brand

and largely depends on organic traffic from Google, rebranding or just moving to a slightly

different domain may be quicker and have a higher ROI.

3.2. How many links should you remove/disavow?

What matters is not the number of links you have successfully removed and/or disavowed but

the quality of the remaining ones. These are the ones Google still sees as pointing to your site

and the ones the web spam team are looking at when evaluating a reconsideration request.

Google’s link assessment, whether manual or algorithmic, will be carried out based on the

quality of all remaining links and not the ones which no longer exist.


If most of the remaining links are still unnatural you should try to remove more, otherwise the site’s

rankings and traffic levels will not have the chance to recover.

3.3. Should you build new links whilst removing?

Often, this is the first question that arises right after a decision to remove links has been made.

Building better quality but still unnatural links is not a good idea. What will Google’s reviewers

think when they look into your reconsideration request and they come across recently acquired

unnatural links?

To summarise, if Google’s red flag for unnatural links has already been raised, spending time on

generating more inorganic links isn’t going to help. And if you think that stopping link building

may look unnatural and cause further issues this is certainly not the case if your site has already

been flagged. When Google manually penalises a website due to manipulative links, they want

to see those links being taken down instead of more unnatural links being generated.

3.4. When it is worth requesting a review?

Review requests are only applicable when a manual action has been in place. However, those

can vary from site-wide actions (more severe) to partial-match actions (less severe). You should

request a review only when you are confident that you have carried out enough to please

Google’s reviewers e.g. have managed to remove a decent number of links and have well -

documented both your successful and unsuccessful link removal requests.

Requesting a review may not be the right thing to do if in the meantime you have engaged in

activities that violate Google’s guidelines e.g. building more inorganic links with the hope to

negate the impact of the previous unnatural ones.

Trying to solve a small problem can in theory result in a bigger one, if your actions have not been

in-line with Google’s quality guidelines. So, unless you have lost significant traffic and have

carried out the required actions without making further violations, you may need t o think again

before submitting your site for a manual review.


London, UK

22 Chapter Street, 2nd Floor

London,

SW1P 4NP

United Kingdom

Main: +44 2078 212 300

Fax: +44 2084 337 005

Brighton, UK

13 Black Lion Street

Brighton, East Sussex

BN1 1ND

United Kingdom

Main: +44 1273 827 700

Fax: +44 1273 827 701

www.icrossing.co.uk

[email protected]

Documents

Link removals: the most valuable SEO activity for 2014