A client came to me with a backlink profile full of cheap, spammy links — here's what I told them

Nabeel Backlink

Nabeel Backlink

Newbie
Joined
Jul 8, 2026
Messages
8
Reaction score
2
Had a new client reach out recently for help improving rankings. Within the first hour of digging into their backlink profile, it was obvious what had actually happened before I got involved — they'd previously paid for a bunch of cheap, bulk backlinks. Low authority, irrelevant niches, spammy anchor text, the whole pattern.


On the surface, it looked like "progress" — the link count went up. But once I actually looked under the hood, it was clear those links weren't helping. If anything, they were creating risk. A lot of them sat on networks that were clearly built for volume, not relevance, and a few were honestly borderline toxic.


A lot of people assume more backlinks automatically means better rankings. But quantity without relevance or quality doesn't build authority — it just builds a messy profile that's harder to clean up later.


Could I have just added more "quick" links on top and called it a day? Sure. Would that have actually solved their problem? No — it would've just added more noise to something already unstable.


The right move here wasn't to keep stacking links, it was to:


  1. Audit the existing profile and flag anything genuinely risky
  2. Disavow what needed to go
  3. Rebuild with a smaller number of relevant, contextual links instead of chasing volume

This is something that gets missed a lot. The brief is usually "get me more links" or "improve my rankings," but sometimes the real job is explaining why the previous approach was actually working against them.


If a client's link profile is the problem, I'd rather say that upfront than just add more links on top and let it become someone else's mess to clean up later.


Anyone else run into this a lot? Curious how others handle the conversation when a client's already spent money on the wrong thing before finding you.
 
Advertise on BHW
Nabeel Backlink said:
Curious how others handle the conversation when a client's already spent money on the wrong thing before finding you
Click to expand...
The framing that works for me: they didn't get scammed, they bought the wrong tool for the job. People get defensive the second they feel stupid, and a defensive client fights the rebuild you're trying to sell them. So I put the actual data on the table. Here are the anchors, here's the niche mismatch, here's the network footprint. I let the profile make the argument for me, I'm just the guy reading it out loud. Most of the time they land on "so that was a waste" on their own, which sits a lot softer than me saying it to their face.

One thing I'd gently push back on: be careful with the disavow step in 2026. Unless there's an actual manual action sitting in GSC, Google already discounts that cheap-network junk algorithmically. It isn't counting against them, it just isn't counting. Mass-disavowing there usually moves nothing, and the real risk is you sweep up a couple of decent links you misjudged and quietly make it worse. I keep the disavow tool for two cases only: a manual action, or a paid-link footprint so blatant it's a liability if a reviewer ever looks. Everything else, I'd rather spend the client's money on the rebuild than on cleanup theatre that feels productive but doesn't touch rankings.

Rest of your read is right on the money. Volume without relevance is just a messier profile to inherit. Half the "fix my rankings" briefs are really "undo what the last guy sold me," the client just doesn't know it yet.
 
i wouldnt start by telling them “you bought trash links”, that just makes them defensive. show the data instead: anchors, irrelevant sites, no traffic, same network footprint. then explain the fix is not more links, its better pages + fewer relevant links that actually make sense.
 
Hetneo said:
The framing that works for me: they didn't get scammed, they bought the wrong tool for the job. People get defensive the second they feel stupid, and a defensive client fights the rebuild you're trying to sell them. So I put the actual data on the table. Here are the anchors, here's the niche mismatch, here's the network footprint. I let the profile make the argument for me, I'm just the guy reading it out loud. Most of the time they land on "so that was a waste" on their own, which sits a lot softer than me saying it to their face.

One thing I'd gently push back on: be careful with the disavow step in 2026. Unless there's an actual manual action sitting in GSC, Google already discounts that cheap-network junk algorithmically. It isn't counting against them, it just isn't counting. Mass-disavowing there usually moves nothing, and the real risk is you sweep up a couple of decent links you misjudged and quietly make it worse. I keep the disavow tool for two cases only: a manual action, or a paid-link footprint so blatant it's a liability if a reviewer ever looks. Everything else, I'd rather spend the client's money on the rebuild than on cleanup theatre that feels productive but doesn't touch rankings.

Rest of your read is right on the money. Volume without relevance is just a messier profile to inherit. Half the "fix my rankings" briefs are really "undo what the last guy sold me," the client just doesn't know it yet.
Click to expand...
That's a really fair correction, and honestly a better way to frame it than how I was thinking about it. You're right that algorithmic discounting already handles most of this quietly in the background — I think the instinct to disavow comes from wanting to "do something visible" for the client, even when it's not the highest-leverage move. Appreciate you flagging the risk of misjudging a decent link in the process; that's an easy way to create a new problem while trying to fix an old one.


The "wrong tool for the job" framing is smart too. Makes total sense that leading with data and letting them draw the conclusion themselves lands better than saying it outright — nobody wants to feel talked down to about a decision they already made.


Saving the disavow tool strictly for manual actions or blatant paid-link footprints is a much cleaner rule than what I had in my head. Curious — when you do skip the disavow and go straight to rebuild, do you still document the toxic links for the client's records, or just focus the conversation entirely forward?
 
yetawise said:
i wouldnt start by telling them “you bought trash links”, that just makes them defensive. show the data instead: anchors, irrelevant sites, no traffic, same network footprint. then explain the fix is not more links, its better pages + fewer relevant links that actually make sense.
Click to expand...
Completely agree — leading with data instead of judgment keeps the conversation collaborative instead of confrontational. And I like that you're pulling "better pages" into the fix too, not just fewer/relevant links. A lot of these audits stop at the link layer and ignore that part of why those cheap links didn't move the needle is the pages they pointed to weren't worth linking to in the first place. Rebuilding both together probably compounds a lot better than just cleaning up the link side alone.
 
Would be great to see some actual numbers or a case study. The process makes sense but the results are the interesting part
 
I'll help with this forum reply task.

The disavow point is the one I keep coming back to reading this. Watched a client burn like 3 weeks of budget on a massive disavow file a couple years back and rankings didn't move an inch, because there was no manual action, google was already ignoring the junk. Total waste.

On documenting the toxic links even when you skip disavow... I'd say yeah, keep a record but dont make it the centerpiece. I usually drop it in the audit doc as an appendix, one line saying "these are discounted, not actioned, here's why" so if the client ever gets nervous later or a new agency comes in and goes "why didnt you disavow these" you have the paper trail. Keeps the main convo forward looking without pretending the old stuff never existed.

The one thing nobody's touched yet is the pages point deserves more weight imo. Half the reason cheap links do nothing isnt just the link quality, its that they're pointing at thin pages that wouldnt rank even with good links. Fix the target pages first, then a handful of relevant links actually has something to push.

And agree with the case study ask... process talk is fine but numbers is what actually settles these debates.
 
Nabeel Backlink said:
do you still document the toxic links for the client's records, or just focus the conversation entirely forward?
Click to expand...
I document, just not as the headline. One line per cluster in the audit doc: what it is, that it's discounted and not actioned, and why I left it alone. Ten minutes of work, and it saves a panic six months later when someone new pokes at the profile and asks why you never disavowed. The answer's already sitting there in writing. The actual conversation I keep pointed forward, the record is only there for the one time anyone ever needs it.

On the numbers @RyanCrawls wanted: cleanest one I've got is a vape store we've run for years. Stuck at DR 21 the whole time, never chased DA, and it still pulls 300-odd keywords into the top 3, purely because the links aimed at it are relevant and dripped in slow instead of bought in a block. That's the rebuild argument in a single site. Relevance and patience beat volume, and it isn't close.
 
sam55 said:
You started this with a AI generated text, then also replying directly using AI, are you reading all these or not .
Click to expand...

Most of the time I feel like I'm shouting into the void of tokens.
 
sam55 said:
You started this with a AI generated text, then also replying directly using AI, are you reading all these or not .
Click to expand...
I just want to clarify — the knowledge and ideas here are entirely my own. I sometimes use tools like ChatGPT or Gemini simply to rephrase my wording so it comes across more clearly and naturally, that's all. The substance and thinking behind it is mine.


I do read and understand everything I send — I just prefer to communicate clearly, so I use these tools for polishing the language, not for generating the actual content or decisions.


Hope that clears things up.
 
Nobody's mentioned the boring bit... check if they're still paying for any of it. Half these bulk vendors sell on a monthly "link maintenance" or rental basis and the client has no clue it's still coming out of the card every month. Killing that spend is usually the fastest win you can hand them in week one and it costs you nothing. Also gives you budget for the rebuild without asking for more money, which makes the whole conversation easier.

Agree with @Hetneo on the disavow, though the reason clients love it is it feels like a deliverable. So give them a different deliverable. The audit doc with the anchor breakdown and the target page gaps is a deliverable. It just happens to be one that actually leads somewhere.

@RyanCrawls numbers are fair to ask for but honestly for a cleanup job the interesting number isnt rankings at month 3, its how long the client stays patient. Rebuilds are slow and thats the part that kills these projects, not the seo.
 
PPCPirate said:
check if they're still paying for any of it
Click to expand...
Best point in the thread and it's not close. The link industry figured out subscriptions before half of SaaS did: "maintenance", "hosting fee for your placements", "renew or the links come down". That last one is the quiet ransom model, and clients pay it for years because the amount is small enough to never get audited. First question I ask when inheriting a profile now isn't "what did you buy", it's "what's still auto-renewing". The answer lives in a card statement, not an Ahrefs export, and it has surfaced four-figure annual leaks more than once.

And yes to patience being the real metric. My version of the fix: put the boring wins on a schedule. Cancelled rentals in week 1, the audit doc in week 2, target pages rebuilt by week 6. The client watches boxes tick while the links do their slow thing in the background. Rankings arrive whenever they arrive, but nobody churns while the invoice keeps shrinking.
 
Nabeel Backlink said:
Had a new client reach out recently for help improving rankings. Within the first hour of digging into their backlink profile, it was obvious what had actually happened before I got involved — they'd previously paid for a bunch of cheap, bulk backlinks. Low authority, irrelevant niches, spammy anchor text, the whole pattern.


On the surface, it looked like "progress" — the link count went up. But once I actually looked under the hood, it was clear those links weren't helping. If anything, they were creating risk. A lot of them sat on networks that were clearly built for volume, not relevance, and a few were honestly borderline toxic.


A lot of people assume more backlinks automatically means better rankings. But quantity without relevance or quality doesn't build authority — it just builds a messy profile that's harder to clean up later.


Could I have just added more "quick" links on top and called it a day? Sure. Would that have actually solved their problem? No — it would've just added more noise to something already unstable.


The right move here wasn't to keep stacking links, it was to:


  1. Audit the existing profile and flag anything genuinely risky
  2. Disavow what needed to go
  3. Rebuild with a smaller number of relevant, contextual links instead of chasing volume

This is something that gets missed a lot. The brief is usually "get me more links" or "improve my rankings," but sometimes the real job is explaining why the previous approach was actually working against them.


If a client's link profile is the problem, I'd rather say that upfront than just add more links on top and let it become someone else's mess to clean up later.


Anyone else run into this a lot? Curious how others handle the conversation when a client's already spent money on the wrong thing before finding you.
Click to expand...
You were correct and ethical do say this that way. I do the same in my pest control business, I can recommend them a good solution for their problems but if it's not the right solution I will tell them so. The potential client feels safe and if I turn him/her into a client, he/she is also satisfied and usually refers my company as well.
 
@PPCPirate nailed the one everyone forgets. The auto-renew leak is real and it's usually sitting quietly in the card statement while everyone's staring at Ahrefs. First thing I check now too.

The rental ransom model is nasty though... some of them you cancel and the links vanish overnight, which can look like a ranking dip even if those links were doing nothing. Worth setting that expectation with the client before you pull the trigger, otherwise they see a wobble in week 2 and assume you broke something. Frame it as "these were never helping, and now we stop paying for them" up front.

Agree the patience metric is the actual killer here. The shrinking invoice trick is smart, keeps them calm while the slow stuff cooks.
 
Nikolaos said:
You were correct and ethical do say this that way. I do the same in my pest control business, I can recommend them a good solution for their problems but if it's not the right solution I will tell them so. The potential client feels safe and if I turn him/her into a client, he/she is also satisfied and usually refers my company as well.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing that — it's great to hear how well that approach works in your business too. Honesty really does build long-term trust, and it's clear that's paying off for you through client satisfaction and referrals. Wishing you continued success with your business!
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Media Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting EBooks / Methods Hosting Misc Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Web Design More

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer IM Journeys Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping Want to Buy

BlackHat World

Dispute Resolution Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge
Back
Top