Replying to a Link Removal or nofollow Request

When an email asks you to take a link out of a published post or add nofollow to it, the best first move is to look at your own page, not to reply. Read the post, open the link, check what rel value it carries and compare it with what you promised at publication. Then answer in a way that fits the kind of request it is. A publisher who handles these emails consistently protects two things at once: the trust of contributors and the integrity of the outbound links on the site.

Nothing in Google's documentation sets a deadline for answering such an email, so timing advice is marked as a practical suggestion.

What the request really asks for

"Please remove the link" can mean at least four different things. The sender could be correcting a mistake, ending a commercial arrangement, protecting their name or worrying about how a link looks to search engines. If you treat all four the same way, you will be too strict with the first and too lenient with the last.

Why it matters to Google-facing hygiene

Google's Manual Actions report help page (Opens in a new tab) describes a case in which Google detects a pattern of unnatural, artificial, deceptive or manipulative outbound links on a site. For that case it advises finding the paid or rule-breaking links and either removing them or stopping them from passing PageRank, for example by adding rel="nofollow" or a more specific attribute. This does not make every request valid. It does mean that a request to change a link is sometimes a chance to fix a real problem on your own site.

Silence has a cost

An ignored request can come back, louder and through another channel. Practical suggestion: even when you cannot decide quickly, send a short acknowledgment saying that you received the request and when you will answer. It keeps the relationship intact and starts your own clock.

Triage in four questions

Before you write any reply, answer these four questions from your own records and the live page.

1. Who is asking, and do they match the contact recorded at publication?
2. What is the link today: does it open, and does it still lead to what the sentence says?
3. What relationship sits behind the link: editorial, free, paid or exchanged?
4. What exactly is being asked: removal, a changed attribute or a changed target?

The answers place the request in one of four lanes.

Confirming who is writing

Removing a link changes a published page, so make sure the sender is entitled to ask. Practical suggestion: match the request to the contact address saved with the submission. If it arrives from a different address, write back to the saved address with a short confirmation question. A reader's report about a misleading link needs no identity check, but it does need a factual check of the link itself.

Requests to accept quickly

Some requests deserve a fast yes. Write them into your policy as standing rules so that no editor has to rediscover them.

• The link no longer opens, or the target page now covers a different subject.
• The target no longer delivers what the sentence promised.
• A resource that was free at publication now sits behind payment.
• The link belongs to a paid arrangement and carries no qualifying attribute.
• An author has left the employer named in the bio and asks to drop the corporate profile link.

The fifth case depends on your publishing agreement. In the first four you should make the fix even if nobody asks. For the fourth, Google's page on qualifying outbound links (Opens in a new tab) is plain: mark advertisements and paid placements with rel="sponsored". The same page says nofollow was previously recommended for paid links and is still acceptable, but sponsored is preferred. It also describes ugc for user-generated content such as comments and forum posts, and nofollow for cases where the other values do not apply.

Attribute change versus removal

For an author, the two outcomes feel very different. With a nofollow or sponsored value the link stays in the text and readers can still click it. With removal both reader and author lose a pointer. Google's page notes that marked links are not followed as a rule, though the linked pages may still be crawled if they are discovered in other ways, such as through sitemaps or other sites. Changing the attribute is therefore a sensible first step before deleting the link outright.

Asking for reasons, and talking about money

You do not need a reason for every request. If the link is plainly dead, asking why wastes everyone's time. A reason becomes useful when the link still looks fine and you cannot see why anyone would want it changed.

Questions that keep the tone neutral

• Has the destination changed, and if so, what is the new address?
• Is the concern about the post itself or about the link?
• Is there a commercial relationship we were not told about at publication?
• Would a changed attribute resolve the concern, or do you need the link removed?

Ask them without suspicion and let one reply settle the facts. The answer may change your decision, which is exactly why you ask.

When someone mentions a fee

Some publishers charge for link removal. Practical suggestion: think carefully before doing so. If the work involved is a service (rewriting a post, writing a replacement), pricing that work separately is reasonable. Tying the survival of a link to a payment is different, because it turns an editorial decision into a transaction. Google's documentation does not address fees for link removal. Keep the decision about the link and the pricing of extra editorial work in two separate messages.

How fast should you reply

Nothing in Google's documentation states how many days a publisher has to answer a link removal request, so any number is your own policy. A fixed number gives senders a clear expectation but exposes you if you miss it. A flexible promise is safer, but it can feel evasive.

Two promises, not one

Practical suggestion: split the commitment. The first promise is acknowledgment: confirm receipt soon after the request arrives. The second is the decision: tell the sender when to expect it, based on the lane. Simple corrections can be decided quickly. Requests that need identity confirmation or a review of commercial records will take longer.

The table deliberately gives no day counts. Fill them in with figures your team can actually meet, and publish them on your policy page only if you are confident you will keep them.

Three reply templates

Adapt the wording to your voice and always include the URL, the date and the sender's name.

Template one: broken link

Hello, and thank you for the note. We confirmed that the link you mention no longer opens. We will update it today, or correct the sentence if the destination is gone, and we will tell you when it is done.

Template two: relationship changed

Hello, thank you for letting us know. Under our editorial policy, links tied to a paid or commercial relationship carry the sponsored attribute. We will update the attribute and leave the link in place. If you were hoping for a different outcome, please tell us why in a sentence or two.

Template three: removal with no reason

Hello, thank you for writing. The link looks valid to us today. To decide fairly we would like to understand the reason: has the destination changed, is there a relationship we were not told about, or would a changed attribute solve the concern? We will decide under our policy once we hear back.

All three point to a policy rather than a person. The sender sees that the answer does not depend on mood. If you are on the other side of such an exchange, our toxic backlink cleanup checklist covers how the requester should write the message.

Logging every request

Each request becomes one row. The row keeps decisions consistent and gives you evidence if a disagreement comes up months later.

Fields for the row

• Request date, sender and channel
• Post URL and the link target in question
• Lane and the action requested
• Acknowledgment date
• Decision, the policy rule it rests on and the decision date
• Final state (removed, attribute changed, unchanged) and the date applied

Fix the cause, not only the request

After a few months the log tells you where your process leaks. A pile of broken-link requests points to a weak post-publication link check. Many relationship-change requests suggest you are not asking about commercial ties at submission. Many author concerns suggest your agreement is vague. Practical suggestion: add one question to the submission form, "Is this link connected to a commercial arrangement?", and note how the request mix changes.

Our checklist for publishers on rel labeling, rel labeling for publishers who sell backlinks, helps prevent many of these requests. For incoming offers, see replying to guest post and link offers.

Edge cases that strain the rules

Not every request fits a lane cleanly. Three situations strain the rules and deserve a plan.

The author wants the link gone and the brand wants it kept

When a post arrived through an agency, the author and the brand may disagree. Go back to the publishing agreement and ask whose consent the link required. If the agreement is silent, send both parties the same short message, ask for one joint answer and keep the thread in one place. Making the decision depend on written agreement between both sides prevents later objections.

The same request arrives twice

If you declined a request earlier, put the earlier decision and the rule behind it at the top of your reply. If there is no new information, the decision stands. If there is new information, update the log and review again. Relying on the record shortens the reply and keeps you consistent.

Pressure from a third party

Sometimes the request comes from a critic of the destination site rather than from its owner. The first thing to judge is the post itself: does it describe the destination accurately and in context? If so, a third party's objection is not on its own a reason to remove the link. If the destination is described misleadingly or an unsupported claim sits next to the link, the correction goes through the author and the source.

Moving through the process in order

From first email to closed record, the process fits in eight steps, and each step feeds the next.

1. Open a log row and write the arrival date.
2. Match the sender to the recorded contact.
3. Open the post and the link and note their state today.
4. Place the request in a lane.
5. If needed, send the reason question and set a waiting date.
6. Decide under a policy rule and adapt the template.
7. Apply the change on the live page and reload it to check.
8. Report the outcome to the sender and close the row.

Keep a copy of the paragraph as it was before the change. Being able to show the before and after helps in an internal review and in any later exchange with the sender.

When to say no

You are not obliged to accept every request. If a link is accurate, correctly labeled and useful to readers, declining is legitimate. The problem is declining badly.

A decline in three parts

1. Say that you reviewed the request.
2. Name the policy rule behind the decision in plain words.
3. Explain what would change your mind, such as new information about the destination.

Before sending a decline, check the rel value one more time. A request sometimes exposes a labeling gap that you should fix whatever your answer is. Also set a limit on second rounds: a repeat of the same request without new information does not need a new review.

Bulk requests from agencies

An agency may send a list of many URLs in one email. Treat each row as its own decision, because the right answer for one post can be wrong for the next.

Working through a list

1. Paste all URLs into a sheet and classify each row separately.
2. Open each link and note its state today.
3. Group rows with the same outcome and write one reply per group.
4. Send one combined question for rows that need a reason.
5. When the work is done, send back the sheet as a summary.

The summary protects you from later claims that a link was left untouched, and it shows the agency which rows changed and which did not. Confirm the agency speaks for the author or brand, using the contact recorded at publication or a short confirmation from the author.

Example scenario: a six-post request

Example scenario: an agency asks for links to be removed from six posts published months ago and gives no reason. The editor opens all six. Two links are valid and unchanged. Two lead to pages whose subject changed. Two appear to be part of a paid arrangement and carry no qualifying attribute.

The editor updates the two changed targets, adds the sponsored value to the last two and tells the agency in writing, and sends template three about the two valid links. If the agency replies with a reason, the decision on those two is reviewed. If not, the log shows a reasoned outcome and the matter closes. The agency asked for one thing and received six separate, recorded decisions.

Decision rule and checklist

Decision rule: if the problem sits in the link itself (broken, misleading, wrongly labeled), fix the link. If the cause is a commercial relationship, fix the attribute and keep the link. If the cause is the author's wish, check your agreement. If the cause is unclear, ask for it and decide under your policy.

1. Did I classify the request?
2. Did I match the sender to the recorded contact?
3. Did I open the link myself?
4. Is the rel value right for the relationship?
5. Did I send an acknowledgment?
6. Did I record the decision and the rule behind it?
7. Did I recheck the live page after the change?

Phrases that sour a reply

Your reply sets the tone for everything that follows a request. A few habits do damage even when the decision itself is right.

• Opening with a question about motive, such as why the sender wants the link gone, before you have confirmed who they are.
• Stating a fee in the first message when the sender never asked about money.
• Promising a result for search visibility. Nothing in Google's documentation supports that promise, so leave it out.
• Copying the sender's whole message back with a point-by-point rebuttal.
• Leaving out the date by which they can expect a decision.

Practical suggestion: read your reply once as if you were the sender and had no context. If any sentence could be read as a threat or a bargain, rewrite it.

An escalation path for awkward cases

Some requests do not fit a template. Decide in advance who takes them, so no one improvises under pressure.

1. The person who received the request logs it and sends the acknowledgement.
2. If the request involves a dispute, money or a third party, it goes to the publishing lead the same day.
3. The publishing lead decides whether to answer alone, bring in whoever signed the original agreement, or hold the reply until facts are confirmed.
4. Whoever sends the final answer records the decision and the reason in the log.

The path matters most when two people on your team would answer differently. Writing it down makes the difference visible before a sender sees it.

Closing the loop

When the change is live, send a short closing note: what changed, on which date, and what the link looks like now. If something requested was not done, give the reason in one sentence.

Hello, we have updated the link in the post as you asked. The link is now [removed or marked with the new attribute] as of [date]. If anything looks different from what you expected, reply to this message and we will look again.

File the closing note with the request. If the same sender returns later, you can show what was done and when, without searching your inbox.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I have to answer a link removal request?

Google documentation says nothing about a publisher duty to answer. Practical suggestion: send at least a short acknowledgment, because it protects the relationship and your reputation.

Is it better to remove the link or add nofollow?

It depends on the reason. For a paid placement, Google's page prefers sponsored and still accepts nofollow. For a broken or misleading link, update or remove it.

How do I know the sender is the author?

Match the request to the contact recorded at publication. If it comes from another address, send a short confirmation question to the recorded one.

Can I charge for removing a link?

Google documentation does not address this. Practical suggestion: keep the decision about the link and the price of extra editorial work in separate messages.

Should I promise a fixed number of days?

It is not required. If you do, choose a number you can meet, and consider separate promises for acknowledgment and for the decision.

What if a site with a manual action asks me to remove a link?

Google's Manual Actions help page suggests removing such links or stopping them from passing PageRank, for example with nofollow. Check your own records to see whether the link is paid or manipulative.

Conclusion

A link removal or nofollow request is a routine test of a publisher's reliability. Classify it, confirm the sender, check the live link yourself, and base the reply on your policy. Practical suggestion: consider an attribute change before removal, and keep any talk of fees separate from the link decision. Turn every request into a log row, then use the log to fix the process behind the requests.

If you are looking for a publisher with clear editorial terms and tracked link attributes, take a look at our guest post service.