Is it worthwhile requesting directory listing removals for sites with low DR scores?

[KieranThomas]

In particular, one of our clients has recently moved and whilst updating citations we've noticed that over time they have acquired directory listings on sites with very low (DR0) scores.

Is it worthwhile reaching out to these directories (especially the ones which aren't industry related) to request removal, or could it be argued they form part of a "natural" link profile?

And if removal is worthwhile, is there a DR score you'd normally aim to do this for (eg. all sites with a DR of <10* for example)

*excluding sites which may be industry relevant/up-and-coming

 

[Justin Mosebach]

No. DR isn't a Google metric. I think it'd be a big waste of time.

 

[KieranThomas]

Thanks

 

[dgrunited]

In particular, one of our clients has recently moved and whilst updating citations we've noticed that over time they have acquired directory listings on sites with very low (DR0) scores.

Is it worthwhile reaching out to these directories (especially the ones which aren't industry related) to request removal, or could it be argued they form part of a "natural" link profile?

And if removal is worthwhile, is there a DR score you'd normally aim to do this for (eg. all sites with a DR of <10* for example)

*excluding sites which may be industry relevant/up-and-coming

I'd keep a close watch on the Moz Spam Score of your site. If the percentage is "unusually" high, I'd recommend a cleanup of your spammy backlinks.

 

[KieranThomas]

Thanks dgrunited. Unfortunately we don't use Moz (we use Ahrefs which sadly doesn't have a spam score equivalent as far as I'm aware), but the links don't look spammy as such... just low quality

 

[KieranThomas]

Update: You post actually inspired me to see if there was a way to check their Moz spam score for free, and it turns out their free plugin provides that data - thanks!

What would you regard as being "unusually high"?
(Most of our sites seem to sit at around 1% although one appears to be at 5%)

Edit:
I decided not to be lazy and Google it! (sorry lol) - sharing this link in case it's helpful for anyone wondering the same: Spam Score Checker: What is Spam Score? - Help Hub

A score of 1%-30% is considered a Low Spam Score.

A score of 31%-60% is considered a Medium Spam Score.

A score of 61%-100% is considered a High Spam Score.

So looks like the site itself doesn't have a poor spam score.

Thanks

 

[Justin Mosebach]

Keep in mind that the Moz spam score is proprietary and also not anything Google uses

 

[dgrunited]

Update: You post actually inspired me to see if there was a way to check their Moz spam score for free, and it turns out their free plugin provides that data - thanks!

What would you regard as being "unusually high"?
(Most of our sites seem to sit at around 1% although one appears to be at 5%)

Edit:
I decided not to be lazy and Google it! (sorry lol) - sharing this link in case it's helpful for anyone wondering the same: Spam Score Checker: What is Spam Score? - Help Hub



So looks like the site itself doesn't have a poor spam score.

Thanks

It's good to know that you discovered the free Chrome extension for MOZ.

With regards to the scoring range that you've published, I would say (based on my personal experience), that spammy business directories (like the ones offering GBP citations) would have a Spam Score of 15% and above. "Free-for-all" guestposting sites would also have similar Spam Scores. I will avoid such directories & guestposting sites like a plague.

For "normal" businesses, the Spam Score should not exceed 5%. Anything more than 5% is a tell-tale sign of trouble brewing.

While MOZ's Spam Score has got nothing to do with Google, it is a highly reliable metric to give an SEO professional an early warning of trouble.

 

[KieranThomas]

Fab, great insights; thanks dgrunted

 

[keyserholiday]

I'd keep a close watch on the Moz Spam Score of your site. If the percentage is "unusually" high, I'd recommend a cleanup of your spammy backlinks.

John Mu has debunked this myth time and time again. There is no need to monitor backlinks or remove low-scored backlinks. Forget about DA, DR, TF, and or CF links. There is no need to disavow backlinks, especially because they are low scores by some 3rd party tool.

 

[KieranThomas]

Wow, I love the bluntness & clarity of that tweet! Thanks Keyserholiday. That totally answers the question - thanks!

(I've included a screenshot of that tweet just in case the original source ever gets deleted )

 

[dgrunited]

John Mu has debunked this myth time and time again. There is no need to monitor backlinks or remove low-scored backlinks. Forget about DA, DR, TF, and or CF links. There is no need to disavow backlinks, especially because they are low scores by some 3rd party tool.

Your opinion is based merely on someone's (John Mu) statement. It is not based on hands-on experience. May you continue to believe in John Mu, if you like.

Hint: Moz's Spam Score is not calculated based on spammy backlinks only.

 

[keyserholiday]

Your opinion is based merely on someone's (John Mu) statement. It is not based on hands-on experience. May you continue to believe in John Mu, if you like.

Hint: Moz's Spam Score is not calculated based on spammy backlinks only.

This is not my opinion, this is based on my experiences. Moz's DA is not used by Google at all. It was Moz's attempt to replace Page Rage that Google stopped updating and publishing. When Google launched Penguin in April 2012, Google penalized websites with bad backlinks, aka paid spam links. Google has since come out and said that they ignore low-quality links. I have seen people hurt their ranking and traffic when they improperly used the disavow tool. John Mu has stated that people don't need to use the disavow tool unless they get hit with a manual action. There is no value in focusing on or reporting links to improve the SEO efforts or to increase rankings. Here is John Mu again discussing how DA and low spam scores are not enough to rank.