Cant Afford Link Removal Charges - Thoughts?

[ErnestHemingway]

Hey Guys,

I have been sending link removal requests for one of our health sites and so far on average every directory wants $20 to remove our link.

Some even want $500 to remove the link.

Now we went over the links that want money to be removed and its close to $12210.

How can I work around this?

The amount is rather very significant. Anyone in similar situation and any work around?

[diberry]

I had two directory links to one of my sites, and they demanded payment to remove. I instead forbid them access via my htaccess file. Their CMSs periodically check the links - when they can't access your site, they assume the link is no longer good anymore. One actually notified me that I needed to fix my link or be deleted from the directory, LOL. I was deleted within a week.

So any method that blocks their bots from reaching your links should eliminate at least some of them (it worked on both the ones I had, but I have no idea if it works on most or all).

Then I would consider disavowing them, although there's mixed opinion on that. But when the form asks what you've done to remove them, you can describe the forbidden access trick and the fact that you can't afford to pay them for removal (and I expect Google will be sympathetic to that, since you've clearly done what you could for free).

[McMohan]

I run a fairly popular directory myself (established in 2003). It is not a good practice asking for money to remove links. The only thing we ask for is that the removal request be sent from an email that belongs to the website to be removed, to establish ownership.

Some directories would perhaps see the light if you mention the inevitability of including their URL in the disavowal request.

[piatkow]

As a newbie I was caught by a couple of "free" directories that started charging for updates after they had been active for a year or two.

[martinibuster]

...if you mention the inevitability of including their URL in the disavowal request.

Right. I've been saying that privately since the link disavowal tool came out and at conference presentations since the beginning of this year.

[Jez123]

I run a fairly popular directory myself (established in 2003). It is not a good practice asking for money to remove links. The only thing we ask for is that the removal request be sent from an email that belongs to the website to be removed, to establish ownership.

Same here. I also send them an email back saying it's removed and wishing them luck in their return to decent rankings! I hate that some will charge.

[ErnestHemingway]

@diberry

Thank you so very much.

I could probably pay a few of them and get the links removed but I do not want to support these guys in their blackmail system.

If I support them then they will gain on us and charge money another webmaster. Google has created such a dirty business for some of these people.

[rish3]

[fair warning, a bit of devil's advocate]

I can see the other side of this...many website owners are using automated services to send out thousands of link removal requests.

Do the math, and you are potentially generating a lot of work on the other end of those emails. Why should it be free?

[wheel]

I could probably pay a few of them and get the links removed but I do not want to support these guys in their blackmail system.

Blackmail? Google's blackmailing you, not some company you paid to be listed forever.

And here's a newsflash for you. If you ask me to do work, then I demand to be paid. If the work's not worth anything to you, then screw off and quit emailing me asking me to do it for free.

Find your link, remove it, confirm it's removed, email you a confirmation, that's 5 minutes. And that's $29US. Don't like it? Then don't email me. I have no obligation to work for you for free, not even for a minute.

THe irony is, the kind of entitlement to my time that you're demanding also results in me receiving emails where I'm being threatened (clearly) that they'll use the disavow tool to basically demote my site in Google. Turns out I don't care about that. The other demand I get - got one today - is that I MUST do it for free. Turns out, I actually don't have to. I think the best email I got was someone telling me that $29 was extortion. I then had to explain that $29 wasn't extortion - but his new price of $109 to have the link removed, see, now THAT'S extortion.

if it makes you sleep at night, you might realize that you paid to get in the directory to screw with your Google rankings, now you get to pay to get out of the directory, again to screw your Google rankings. That's your decision, quit complaining about it like it's someone else's fault. Not everyone has to run around in circles because you're cleaning up the very mess that you made.

And if you really want my opinion(!), I'd say it's good on you. All the people that made money by ranking in the easy days of directory listings are now paying the price. Poetic justice. You know how many directory links I have to clean up? None.

And if you're still reading, the real lesson here is, a domain costs $10. If you're going to place any more value on it than that, then don't do things that'll get you burned later. Do that kind of stuff on a $10 domain that you can throw away when it gets burned.

[Montresor]

Pick which kind of person you wish to be, what mark you want to leave on the world after you die and how you wish to be remembered, then run with it.

Ethics
1. Moral principles that govern a person's behavior.

Empathy
The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Psychopathy
A personality disorder identified by characteristics such as a lack of empathy and remorse, antisocial behavior, egocentricity, and a parasitic lifestyle.

[wheel]

I agree. It's like these people feel entitled to send me 10 emails a day, demanding I spend an hour of my day fixing their business problems - business problems they created. And then they complain when I expect to be paid for it, even in light of the fact that they're asking me to do the exact opposite of what they'd originally paid for. Web designers expect to be paid for a change in specs, so do I. What gives them the right to abrasively demand I work for nothing? Quit acting so entitled. If it's not even worth $29, then why are we even having a conversation?

Of course, I suspect you're actual point was just the opposite of that. And to that, all I've got to say is, go sell your hippie-s*** down the road. I've got work to do.

[taberstruths]

My solution was to break the links. You can ask the quality link guys if they mind changing to the new url.

[Montresor]

Since when did being an ethical person become characteristic of being a hippie? Is being ethical and upright worthy of scorn and derision?

Or does this suit you better?

I'm as cold a #*$! as you've ever put your #*$! eyes on. I don't give a #*$! about those people.

You built a lousy site. Made money off it. Then Google penalized the site and now you're trying to make money off a dead site by charging people to remove links from it. Walk away, the body is cold. No need to keep flogging it. Create something better. Charging people to remove a link is parasitic, indecent, and dishonorable.

A normal person with a sense of decency would allow the domain to expire.

[wheel]

Lol. Google didn't penalize me -they penalized them. And that doesn't make them more ethical. It makes them stupid. Because 5 years ago they bought into every $15 crappy directory and were either happy to take the risk with google (and cash the checks they got back then, from their rankings) or they were just to stupid to appraise themselves of the risk.

In fact, I'm still trying to get the part where website owners who bought into every $15 crappy directory farm links back in the day became the moral high ground. What a joke. These people built garbage websites with garbage link building - and I've got $5 that says probably garbage content and now they're complaining. Complain to google.

You built a lousy site.

No, the site's fine. Some of the people listed have some shady link building practices though.

Frankly, if you got penalized and you're business isn't worth a simple $12K fix to a problem you created of your own accord, then all you're doing is whining.

[rish3]

You built a lousy site. Made money off it. Then Google penalized the site and now you're trying to make money off a dead site by charging people to remove links from it. Walk away, the body is cold. No need to keep flogging it. Create something better. Charging people to remove a link is parasitic, indecent, and dishonorable.

That's one of many possibilities. However, there are also plenty of legit sites getting these requests.

Also plenty of sellers using 'toxic link removal' style automated services to send the emails. Input a url, click a button, and thousands of webmasters get a link removal request. All based on someone else's rough guesstimate of what Google might consider to be a "bad link".

Personally, I see both sides, and I don't find the "click and email thousands of people a link removal request" guy any less objectionable than the "I'm monetizing my crappy directory with removal fees" guy.

[diberry]

I could probably pay a few of them and get the links removed but I do not want to support these guys in their blackmail system.

I don't think you'll have to. I believe the htaccess trick will get rid of many of them - I'm hopeful it will be most of them, even. For the rest, you can use disavow, OR:

You can send them a Cease & Desist.

They'll probably dare you to sue them, but here's the thing: there's case law indicating that links CAN form copyright violations in some cases. Further, if you submitted content to a site in the form of a directory submission, you have copyright over that content, and the directory owner may be responsible for deleting your content if you request it.

Additionally, you could argue in the C&D that their refusal to remove the directory entry is harming your business.

Some directory owners forget that they built their business because people submitted free content to their directories. That content is not theirs alone.

For those who think this is silly, let's consider an analogous situation:

Your company buys airtime on my TV station, and then my station becomes associated with a public scandal. You want to pull your commercials, but I say, "That'll cost you more than you initially paid for them." Uh, no. At most I could charge you a reasonable cancellation fee IF I negotiated that into our contract to begin with.

[lucy24]

A search engine worth its salt would automatically discount any link from a directory that charged for removal. Yes, it takes a little extra work to remove a listing, just as it took a little extra work to add one. When you move out of your apartment, the landlord has to do additional work. Does that mean they can charge extra if you ever want to leave?

For comparison purposes: Long ago I lived in an area where cable TV companies charged a fee to cancel service. No, not to break a fixed-duration contract, or to stop before some minimum period of time. To cancel, ever. Obvious result: People who couldn't come up with $50 all at once were stuck paying $20 every month. The cable companies predictably kicked and screamed when the legislature stepped in.

[rish3]

For comparison purposes: Long ago I lived in an area where cable TV companies charged a fee to cancel service. No, not to break a fixed-duration contract, or to stop before some minimum period of time. To cancel, ever. Obvious result: People who couldn't come up with $50 all at once were stuck paying $20 every month. The cable companies predictably kicked and screamed when the legislature stepped in.

Flawed analogy, which would only apply to a link you were paying for monthly. I imagine those get removed pretty reliably if you quit paying.

Probably harder to find a real life example of a one-time-payment service where there's an expectation that the provider would "remove it later" for free. I know the guy that we pay to hang vinyl banners on our business won't remove them for free (well, if we order a new one, he'll remove the old one).

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

...there's case law indicating that links CAN form copyright violations in some cases.

Yeah, it's when a site links in a way that constitutes contributory copyright infringement.

If Ford can't get a ruling against the owners of www.f*ckgeneralmotors.com for redirecting to their site, good luck with the "work for free or I'll sue" scare tactics. That's not any more "cool" or "right" than anything else being dogged on in this laughable thread that's only here because Google can't get their algo right and just ignore (meaning treat as nofollow) the links they don't like.

* Visitors to any site likely have no clue these links exist, so if a site was quality (a good experience for visitors) yesterday it's likely still the same quality from a visitor perspective today, so either Google's really had it wrong the entire time they didn't penalize for "unnatural links" and a site should not have ever ranked or they've got it wrong now, because "unnatural inbounds links" have no impact whatsoever wrt visitor onsite experience.

Further, if you submitted content to a site in the form of a directory submission, you have copyright over that content, and the directory owner may be responsible for deleting your content if you request it.

Additionally, you could argue in the C&D that their refusal to remove the directory entry is harming your business.

I'd probably link to someone who did this from every single page on every single site I had, just for fun, because you can't stop me from linking to you. There's no legal grounds or standings for it, except in the case of "trading on your name" (trademark infringement) or contributing to copyright infringement by sending people to a site other than yours to access your copyrighted material for free.

* Also, a directory owner could argue the converse by stating removing the link from the directory negatively impacts their business by not allowing them to provide as many options for visitors and therefore they should be compensated for the removal.

A search engine worth its salt would automatically discount any link from a directory that charged for removal.

FYP: A search engine worth it's salt would automatically discount links (meaning treat as nofollow) rather than allowing any negative impact on rankings, because they would realize it's asinine to penalize for inbound links since they have no bearing whatsoever on the experience a visitor has on website (AKA website quality from a visitor perspective).

When you move out of your apartment, the landlord has to do additional work. Does that mean they can charge extra if you ever want to leave?

For comparison purposes: Long ago I lived in an area where cable TV companies charged a fee to cancel service. No, not to break a fixed-duration contract, or to stop before some minimum period of time. To cancel, ever. Obvious result: People who couldn't come up with $50 all at once were stuck paying $20 every month. The cable companies predictably kicked and screamed when the legislature stepped in.

In the case of someone paying on a monthly basis, this is a great example, but if someone pays for a lifetime link initially they are getting exactly what they agreed to initially when the link is not removed by the directory owner.

If they would like to change that agreement, they are the ones breaking the agreement they initially entered in to and currently being upheld by the directory owner. The directory owner, by not removing the link, is providing exactly the service they initially agreed to.

In this case, imo, there's no way the directory owner is "wrong" to want compensation for providing a different service (updating the directory to remove the link) rather than continuing to provide the service they originally agreed to.

Seriously, get real people.
You can't stop linking on the Internet.

If [especially] you agreed to the service of a "lifetime link" initially and you're getting that service: STFU and quit whining about having to pay for someone to provide you with a service they didn't ever agree to provide you with. (Disavow the stinking links if you don't want to pay for their removal, but don't get upset because another site owner doesn't want to work for you for free.)

If the directory got penalized for the links and took yours down after you paid for it, but you thought that removal had a negative impact on your site would you get your panties in a wad? I'm sure you would, but since it's you and your site that's having the issue you're complaining because another site owner expects to be paid for providing you with a different service than they agreed to provide you with initially, really? Unreal.

* Disclosure: I do not own a link directory. I would not likely link to any of you from any site I do own. I do not use directories for link building. I think this entire BS created by Google is beyond ridiculous, because inbound links have no impact on visitor experience and spending time on their removal takes time away from other things, like creating a better visitor experience, or providing visitors with better content, which they say is important and does actually have an impact on visitor experience AKA the quality of a website.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

<SlightlyOffTopic>

Does anyone else think there's something a bit "off" with the reasoning/mentality of a company that thinks penalizing for inbound links (not under a site owner's direct control) is a good way to do things, yet at the same time not only refuses to penalize for duplicated content (which is under the direct control of the duplicator) but at times promotes that duplication over the original in the search results?

</SlightlyOffTopic>

[Leosghost]

The concept of "original sin"..those promoting it, do not, themselves, have to believe in it, it is enough that you, and others, do so..or can be convinced that it is "important"..and that you must, atone, and by doing penance, be seen to atone..( in short.. FUD )..control..control by self administered FUD..efficacy proven..obedience..

I quote from elsewhere ( a recent post in the comments of elreg [theregister.co.uk]explore..it is not a link directly to the comment.. )

Bananas and Monkeys

Start with a cage containing five monkeys.

Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water.

After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him.

After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked.

Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been done round here.

some may consider this relevant..some may not..

hi wheel :)

[lucy24]

Further thought:

Can everyone please agree that a directory has no value unless it's actively maintained? Otherwise it's simply a list of sites that were useful in 1998. Users don't see the contract that says "You are responsible for keeping your information up to date". They only see the bad links.

This is assuming for the sake of discussion that the directory has human users. If it doesn't, it's obviously worthless anyway.

Once you've got the requirement for active ongoing maintenance, a one-time inclusion fee simply makes no sense as a business model. Who does this? It's initial inclusion fee maybe, plus periodic maintenance fee definitely. I was trying to think of real-life businesses that provide permanent service in exchange for a one-time fee. The only thing I could come up with was gravesite maintenance. Urk. There must be a few others, but that's not a terrific analogy is it?

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

FUD

And what's more, especially wrt this topic, is so many "SEOs" have to maintain their "level of importance" to continue getting paid for their "expert services" in some cases it seems they've turned to spreading the FUD for Google.

Case-in-point: The disavow tool.

Not currently (and no stated plans to be) used in any way except as a tool to "remotely nofollow" links.

No harm to the site disavowing.
No harm to the site being disavowed.

But if the people knew that then they wouldn't have much need for any "expert link removal services", because they could just login to their WMT account and use the tool, but since there's no money in that it's more profitable for those need to maintain their "level of importance" to site owners who don't know better to FUD things up a bit by asking leading questions and then answering those same questions with all the things Google could possibly use the tool for and allow people to convince themselves they need an expert to help with link removal, rather than just using the free tool provided by Google.

Google's FUD is bad enough.

When those in the SEO/webmaster community contribute to it rather than dispelling it starts happening it's nothing more or less than sad in my opinion.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

Once you've got the requirement for active ongoing maintenance, a one-time inclusion fee simply makes no sense as a business model. Who does this?

Search for [paid directory list] in Bing and click on result number 3. You'll find a list of plenty with the pricing, length of agreement (including permanent), etc. on the landing page.

[rish3]

Once you've got the requirement for active ongoing maintenance, a one-time inclusion fee simply makes no sense as a business model. Who does this?

Well, Big G apparently likes DMOZ, which while not paid, is certainly not updated regularly :)

[lucy24]

Search for [paid directory list] in Bing and click on

Sorry. I meant business-in-general.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

Sorry. I meant business-in-general.

Ah, gotcha! Sorry I didn't understand.

I wondered how you hadn't seen at least a few of those type directories since I know you've been online more than a week or two and they were a dime a dozen for years. (They're still fairly prevalent, but since Google's started penalizing unnatural links they're closer to 2 bits for 13 lol)

[tommytx]

One sure fire way to get cleaned off every single directory out there is to use htaccess to forward them to a heavy #*$! site... then using another ip send 3 or 4 complaint emails that you 2 year old got on there and was sent to #*$!... when they call to see what is going on jsut tell them you have gone #*$!... No law against hat... LOL..
Just be sure to send only the directory visitors to the #*$! site..

[martinibuster]

Isn't there a danger of the search engines confusing your site with now being a pron site by redirecting so many directories? Maybe not a good idea?

[Play_Bach]

+1 Leosghost

Monkey see, monkey do.

Very funny (except for the poor monkeys involved of course!)