Link building my client into a penalty

[dertyfern]

Have a client that has a very well established business earning many millions per year.

While in the process of reviewing past link-building done by their previous SEO firm, I found that they'd basically added 1,000s of junk quality, three-way links to the client's well-established web site.

While I can see no current negative effect, I'm concerned that, having just taken this client on board, I'll have to answer for any future loss of rankings or even worse penalties.

Any experiences you can share would be great.

[johnnie]

How about clearly explaining the situation to your client? You might even want to set-up a contract not accepting any liability for losses incurred due to actions outside of your control.

Either the client accepts, or you eject.

[Shaddows]

Remove any outbounds immediately

You could remove the inbound links from WMT. But million-earning sites are quite robust in terms of "stupid SEO", as it can be undertaken malicious 3rd parties, not the site itself. Generally, it takes onpage manipulations, cloaking, dodgy redirects and the like to really damage an already-successful site.

Just one reason not to fall for the "Amazon does it so it must help me" fallacy

[dertyfern]

We've got a clause that protects us from the actions of the previous SEO firm and are assembling a document that shows all of the previous work--a real choir.

There are no outbounds to worry about that I know of but will double check.

Shaddows: is inbound link removal easy/obvious/apparent in WMT?

Thanks for the comments.

[Shaddows]

Sorry, I retyped that and left it wrong. It was orignally one sentence about removing outbounds and veiwing inbounds in WMT, and filing a reconsideration request.

But thats really unnecessary, given the site is already successful, and no harm is being done. If you have no outbounds, the inbounds are not likely to be a major problem, as long as the profile is otherwise healthy.

[dertyfern]

Good to hear. Thanks to you both.

[satoo]

If this was all in the past and the site is legitimate to begin with, I don't think you or the client have anything to worry about.

Not exactly sure how it could be proven one way or the other if they get penalized whose fault it was, but I assume they're not having any problems staying indexed and ranking you're in the clear anyway.

[tedster]

Welcome to the forums, satoo. I agree with your viewpoint, it lines up with my experience, too.

I've even taken over for sites that had some extremely shady past tricks pulled. In just one case a penalty came up within the first week, but a solid Reconsideration Request explaining the change in SEO company worked to remove the penalty (in a gradual way). But that was within a week, not after many months.

I don't know the time line in this case, but if it has been months, you're probably in the clear. Crappy links often just have no effect. Heavy duty link farms, complete with parasite hosting etc, -- that can get you a penalty that sticks around for a while!

[crobb305]

You could remove the inbound links from WMT.

How do you remove IBLs using WMT?

[Shaddows]

You could remove the inbound links from WMT.

How do you remove IBLs using WMT?

Sorry, I retyped that and left it [Remove any outbounds immediately ...You could remove the inbound links from WMT] wrong. It was orignally one sentence about removing outbounds and veiwing inbounds in WMT, and filing a reconsideration request.

I retyped my general advice several times, then read it. It scanned. I posted in haste. Relenting in leisure.

Would be an outstanding feature though

[crobb305]

sorry Shaddows, I did not see your correction. It would a nice feature though. I am new to WMT but I didn't think I had seen it in there.