Link removal... are you doing it?

[deepsand]

So with reference to the OP, even if we do follow Google's guidelines in removing "bad" links, they aren't able to keep up with our actions. In essence then, an algorithm can be run overnight which effectively decimates a site's rankings, and even if for argument's sake all the problems were identified and corrected the same day, it could be many months before recovery. It reminds me somewhat of the way disagreements I had with my ex-wife ran sometimes

Yep; that's pretty much it, on both counts.

That does, of course, work both ways; not only does one not necessarily see an immediate benefit from favorable changes, so too the case for the negative consequences of detrimental ones. The operational problem is that, given the unknowable time lag between cause and effect, one is hard pressed to identify the relevant correlations and/or effect timely remedial actions.

[kgun]

Try http://www.removeem.com/

1. Which company make that tool?
2. Which links does it remove?
3. Does it zero out links from the Google index?

[ozsubasi]

Yep; that's pretty much it, on both counts.
That does, of course, work both ways; not only does one not necessarily see an immediate benefit from favorable changes, so too the case for the negative consequences of detrimental ones. The operational problem is that, given the unknowable time lag between cause and effect, one is hard pressed to identify the relevant correlations and/or effect timely remedial actions.

I see your point. I could for example have had a very "good" link which for whatever reason has since been removed but I could continue to benefit from it.
I agree concerning the operational problem; I have made a number of changes to my site, but when nothing appears to have happened as a result, I start to tweak them, undo them or make new ones. I may simply not have allowed enough time for the original changes to take effect.

[ozsubasi]

1. Which company make that tool?
2. Which links does it remove?
3. Does it zero out links from the Google index?

I had a quick look at this site out of interest. From what I can gather, it first produces a list of your links then gives the option to filter them by anchor text.
You then use their database of contact information to email and request removal. I may have missed something, but it doesn't seem to offer anything much more than can be done freely using GWT, Excel etc and doesn't remove any links, rather it is just an expensive ($499) aid to manual removal.

[hcancelik]

I had a quick look at this site out of interest. From what I can gather, it first produces a list of your links then gives the option to filter them by anchor text.
You then use their database of contact information to email and request removal. I may have missed something, but it doesn't seem to offer anything much more than can be done freely using GWT, Excel etc and doesn't remove any links, rather it is just an expensive ($499) aid to manual removal.

- It's only $299 at this moment.
- Yes you can freely done as much as everything the tool does however; it does show the possible inorganic links, plus you don't spend time finding the emails (if they have it) which is a time(therefore money) saver.
- It uses Majestic SEO, SEOMoz (OpenSiteExplorer), Ahrefs and Strike Iron (for email verification)

I'm neither their affilate nor work for them. What I can tell is that the tool is very convenient as oppose to doing it manually.

[ozsubasi]

I remembered I'd tried something else that helps with manual link removal, and for what I wanted from it, it is free. It still means first identifying the unwanted links in GWT, but then copy and paste them into this and it tells you whether the link is still in place, and gives the contact information:
http://linkaudit.co.uk/
Drawbacks are that some of the links which it said were already removed were still there but the url had changed, but in fairness it is only checking the data from GWT. Also, for the contact information, it gives every email address it finds at that url so you may have to do some filtering. It produces an email to send to the site owner, but I didn't like the wording and used my own

[soquinn]

Do some research on using htaccess to block referrers. The trick is finding all the sites you want to block. It can be a real challenge since Google refuses to share everything they know about your site yet expect you to know as much about it as they do.

And yes, this is a viable solution. While "Google" has not come out and said this as official policy, John Mu (Google engineer) mentioned in a thread that he has never heard or seen of a link pointing to a 404 hurting a site. Like most things Google, reading between the lines tells you a lot. You can read the whole thread here for those that don't believe things I say when I say them.

Some argue with me that....

"issuing a 404 or 403 is not a viable option. There is a huge problem when a link from "Site A" goes to "Site B" and "Site B" serves special rules in .htaccess to redirect visitors from "Site A" to a 403 or 404 page. Google will think that "Site B" is a broken page. Even though they can get to "Site B" directly, Google will get mixed signals and no one in the SEO community is suggesting this method as a viable way to “disavow” backlinks."

Thoughts?

[SteveGerencser]

All I can tell you is that this specific tactic was a major part of getting a manual site penalty removed. These links were created years ago and the 403 redirect was in place long before Penguin rolled out.

I don't see it as a mixed signal, but a rather obvious signal that the site works and the referring site is untrusted. Whether Google sees it as such isn't really a concern at this point. This is more of a brand clean up issue for us and what Google chooses to do or not do isn't very high on the list of things we worry about. The fact that it was a component of the recovery though is great.

BTW, I am part of the SEO community and I am suggesting it in extreme cases

[soquinn]

I don't disagree, just sharing what other so called expert SEO's are telling their clients when we suggested made they try issuing a 404 or 403 instead of sending hundreds of threatening DCMA report and removal requests.

[hcancelik]

Some argue with me that....

"issuing a 404 or 403 is not a viable option. There is a huge problem when a link from "Site A" goes to "Site B" and "Site B" serves special rules in .htaccess to redirect visitors from "Site A" to a 403 or 404 page. Google will think that "Site B" is a broken page. Even though they can get to "Site B" directly, Google will get mixed signals and no one in the SEO community is suggesting this method as a viable way to “disavow” backlinks."

Thoughts?

You're right. 404 and 403 is not an option if you want to keep the page.