Site under negative SEO attack right now. Trying to keep G updated.

[trezcan]

I have a review site in a very competitive niche, and I am experiencing a negative SEO attack that looks to have started the end of July / early August. I finally noticed this week with the help of ahrefs.com and CognitiveSEO.

Ahrefs is finding between 50-100 new spam links every day. In the morning I add the new ones to the disavow list and upload to all 4 versions of my site in GWT:

http://domain.com
http://www.domain.com
https://domain.com
https://www.domain.com

I have scoured the web and read everything I can find, but its all such high level and generic content that it is hard to find definitive info on what to do. The site is relatively small, so the link profile was already little. These spam links are absolutely dwarfing the natural links. My fear is that Google is finding way more than ahrefs and cognitiveseo, but I could be wrong there.

So is uploading a new copy of disavow daily a good idea? If I waited even a week between updates, there could be close to a thousand new links.

Any advice on the best approach to mitigate this?

Thanks in advance.

[seoskunk]

Link Paranoid if you ask me!

[Robert Charlton]

Discount Mall - I've changed all of the specifics that you report, except for m.biz, as that's public information... and Marie Haynes has an article on SearchEngineWatch that bears directly on the question, which I think might be helpful. I'll quote some excepts, and I suggest you read the whole article...

What’s the Deal With Links From M.Biz? Should You Disavow?
Marie Haynes - Sept 11, 2014
[searchenginewatch.com...]

Several times a week I get an email from a site owner who is asking whether they should disavow links to their site that come from m.biz and m.biz clone sites.

Per Marie, the site appears to be a search engine with a huge number of subdomains.

Are Links From M.Biz Sites Negative SEO?
No, links from m.biz are not negative SEO. I can understand why someone might think that they are being attacked by a competitor when suddenly they see a whole bunch of new, potentially keyword-anchored links that are coming from many different sites. But these links are not a sign of a negative SEO attack.

She goes on to consider whether to disavow them anyway, and quotes, among others, Google's John Mueller...

"Usually we can recognize this kind of duplication, but if you want to be absolutely sure that they’re not counted...then adding them to a disavow file is generally relatively easy to do.

In general, this type link, and scraper links, are not the kind of links that Google is concerned about.

[Rob_Banks]

I thought the hammer might fall on those references.

The only one of those original links that I thought might have some benefit was the one that has been re-named trashyplace. That might have been the original site for a Florida city which now redirects to a different site which appears to the actual Florida city site. I don't think there is any residual value from the original possible link at this point.

I agree with Robert that Marie provides a good read, plus I agree with her viewpoints most of the time. :)
I somewhat disagree with Robert about how Google may look at links. Highpower site - Google won't be concerned about some "off" links. Not a highpower site - Make sure Google won't mis-interpret the "off" links pointing to your site by using Marie's suggestions.

We are all equal, some are just more equal than others. Apologies to George Orwell.

[Nutterum]

Thank you for the reply Rob - very neat trick! +1

[Robert Charlton]

I somewhat disagree with Robert about how Google may look at links. Highpower site - Google won't be concerned about some "off" links. Not a highpower site - Make sure Google won't mis-interpret the "off" links pointing to your site by using Marie's suggestions.

Going way, way, back, well before Penguin and Panda, many of us, myself included, have believed that Google had something we called a link 'quality profile'. This might even predate the historical data patent... I'm not sure. Clearly, the bigger the site, with the more obviously legit backlinks, the less affected it will be by questionable backlinks.

All that said, I've seen many clear examples that Google does have it right most of the time. I've seen (in areas like travel, eg) some sites that were assumed to be 800-lb gorillas, but which were really built on fake blog networks and quicksand, disappear from the serps.

Where it gets messy is when a relatively small site, partially legit, has used some questionable methods itself, and some of the footprints are even onsite or on related servers. Those are the areas where Google could well get the backlinks part of it wrong... eg, in telling which fiverr backlinks, or linkfarm links, or blogroll links, came with a cheap SEO package a site bought for itself a few years ago, or from overly helpful "friends"... and which ones might be part of a package a competitor bought, for whatever reason (or might just be part of the background noise).

In those cases, I'd actively disavow... but you might also have to disavow your own garbage to look clean.

[Rob_Banks]

In the context of the OP, I believe we are discussing the problems faced by small site owners, not if Google gets it right most of the time over a wide spectrum of large and small sites.

Where it gets messy is when a relatively small site, partially legit, has used some questionable methods itself, and some of the footprints are even onsite or on related servers.

I didn't see anything where the OP said they did some less than optimal practices, they stated they were having what they considered "negative seo" issues. I certainly wouldn't imply they were spammers from that, but that's what I'm reading.

Personally, I obviously know enough to not keep the garbage can in the pantry.

[Robert Charlton]

Rob_Banks, nothing personal in this. I was simply trying to present a continuum of situations, and to comment on how the inequalities might occur. I can say that in all Penguin examples that I've seen there were clear indications that the problems were self-inflicted, and often the site owners knew, but sometimes they were completely unaware of this.

This sidetrack has nothing to do with the OP. You brought George Orwell into it... he didn't. The Orwell analogy sounds catchy, and I love the quote, but it may or may not apply. In truth I don't know, except that I'm sure Google does its best to eliminate what I'd call "institutional favoritism". I also remember Google distinctly saying that they'd held back on the update because it might make things worse for some sites that didn't deserve to suffer.

If it were my site and I perceived some weakness in my linking history, I might be disavowing, and I'd be doing all I could to let Google know those junk links weren't mine, and I'd be pissed at being put in the situation.

I should add that in the latest Marie Haynes article on Penguin, symbolically still on Sept 11, but in 2015, not 2014, she makes a great comment, worth quoting here, which I think fits the situation.

The Current Status of Google’s Penguin Algorithm
By Marie Haynes - Sept 11, 2015
[searchenginewatch.com...]

Marie says, toward the bottom of the article,...

It's a mess. In my opinion, there are two big challenges that are hindering the process:

1. It's hard to run a punitive algorithm that doesn't allow for negative SEO. Google claims to be good at distinguishing negative SEO from self-made links, but I imagine that Google possibly tried to refresh Penguin and found that sites were being unfairly hit by negative SEO during pre-launch tests.

...Perhaps I am naive, but I do believe that the webspam team is working to make Penguin fair and ultimately better overall. I think we will see a good number of spectacular recoveries with the next update. If you have been waiting for a recovery, then hang in there.

I also believe they're working hard. Worth adding that John Mueller distinctly noted a while back... and I assume this was for both Panda and Penguin recovery... that Google is sympathetic to sites that are improving, and they may well see recovery before Penguin is rerun.

Again, Rob... none of this necessarily has to do with the OP... he may have an exemplary site and this flood of backlinks is understandably worrisome. I'm simply presenting an overview.

We live in a world where such attacks can happen even without Google, and life isn't perfect. I do believe, from the Googlers I've known, that Google busts its ass to do its best regarding search results. It's not a one-on-one situation, though... they're dealing with millions and billions of sites... so they handle it statistically. Yes, I've seen them make mistakes, though I can't say I've seen them goof on Penguin.

When John Mueller sounds really sure that "Google doesn't worry about certain kinds of crap links, I choose to believe him when I can... which is, if the site has a reasonably decent set of backlinks and not much prior history that's questionable. That may mean dealing with garbage that's accumulated or it may not. Again, no reflection on you, I hope, in this rambling discourse.

[trezcan]

I didn't see anything where the OP said they did some less than optimal practices, they stated they were having what they considered "negative seo" issues. I certainly wouldn't imply they were spammers from that, but that's what I'm reading.

We are a niche site, with 100 or so legit backlinks. Now there are thousands, with 95% of them coming in the last 2 months. Every new one (sans two or three) are spam links as part of a coordinated attack.

My hope is that Google has thought of these scenarios. Sure a site with thousands of good backlinks can absorb this type of thing, but that certainly does not apply to the vast majority of websites out there.

[Planet13]

Sure a site with thousands of good backlinks can absorb this type of thing, but that certainly does not apply to the vast majority of websites out there.

While I would agree that the majority of smaller sites out there would be more susceptible to a spam link attack, I would kindly suggest that the algo is probably much more sophisticate than simply weighing the number of good backlinks versus spammy backlinks.

[Planet13]

@ Robert Charlton:

Thanks for the link to the Marie Haynes penguin article.

I think the (obvious) takeaway from all this is:

Links / Page Rank is still extremely important to ranking in google.

Otherwise, why try to PUNISH sites that participate in link schemes as opposed to just devaluing spam links?

Google must spends millions on it's Penguin algo. Why spend all that money on Penguin if you could just discount the links.

The answer seems to me that they really want to punish link spam since their algo STILL STRUGGLES with determining legitimate links from spam links.

Somewhere down the line they made a financial decision that it was cheaper to pay a bunch of engineers to develop and implement Penguin than so as to discourage link spam than it was to tweak the algo to just ignore suspect links.

Am I wrong here?

[seoskunk]

Ok the disavow tool is just a thing to occupy webmasters and doesn't actually work at all. So what's the point of this conversation. You can not change anything if you've been link spammed. Wouldn't you better spend your time on improving your website overall ? Rather than pouring over something you can't change. Negative seo should just be looked at as just another stage of development.

[dipper]

if the link spam (and it mostly is due to how easy it is to buy on fiverr) is nofollow then there is very little to worry about.

BUT .. Of course if you have a high number of dofollow spam links, AND you are concerned:
1. get a majestic verified account for that domain (free) and download you links
2. get a link list from GWT/Google Search Console for the domain
3. roll on over to LinkResearchTools and pony up some cash, and get a 1 month account
3.1 Run a DTOX check on the domain, uploading all of the links and your current disavow file
3.2. sort out the high and above average DTOXRISK domains, and export
4. upload the modified disavow domains list to Google

[Rob_Banks]

@Robert
If you quote me, then include as part of your closing line "your own garbage", it's likely I'll take it as personal every time. I realize you probably have friends at Google and believe they are trying to build a better world. That's fine, I'm not implying preferential treatment or anything.

My George Orwell misquote is accurate, but not for the reasons some might think about brands.

That's two posts you've now made me waste.

[Robert Charlton]

If you quote me, then include as part of your closing line "your own garbage", it's likely I'll take it as personal every time.

Rob... I'm sorry for the inadvertent slight. It hadn't entered my mind that one might assume I was addressing you personally at that point, but you present a clear and forceful statement of how you did, and you have my apologies.

My intended usage was the generic you (intended to help a lot of future readers), with grammatical construction as in 'indeterminate person' in the quote below [en.wikipedia.org...]

You is usually a second person pronoun. In formal English, the indefinite pronoun one can be used in the third person to refer to an indeterminate person. However, in informal usage, English speakers usually replace one with you.

Example: "One cannot learn English in a day" becomes "You cannot learn English in a day"

I trust it's clear in this post, btw, that by quoting you at the beginning and ending with a reference to limitations in learning English that includes a form of "you", I'm not diminishing your personal ability to learn English or anything like that. That was in fact Wikipedia's only example of the usage, and it truly did just happen to get structured that way. Again, my apologies.

PS: I note that the Wikpedia example also includes "citation needed", so we're not out of the woods yet.

[fathom]

The anchor text doesn't target anything of real value for me, but there are certainly different patterns. The site has hundreds of content pieces, and does a lot of long-tail traffic.

Sorry but: Negative SEO refers to the practice of using black hat and unethical techniques to sabotage a competitor's rankings in search engines. Negative SEO attacks can take a number of different forms: Hacking your website. Building hundreds or thousands of spammy links to your website.

If the anchors don't match anything important to you... What good does an attack like that do?

IMHO this is a RED HERRING! Nothing more than an over-zealous webmaster!