WebProNews

Tag: Disavow Links

  • Matt Cutts Gives SEO Tip For Disavow Links Tool

    Google’s Matt Cutts randomly tweeted a tip about the Disavow Links tool. Don’t delete your old file if you upload a new one because it “confuses folks,” and the last thing you’d want to do is confuse Google if you’re trying to fix problematic links.

    Here’s what he said exactly:

    The Disavow Links tool has come up in the SEO conversation several times this month. In early March, we heard about Google’s “completely clear” stance on disavowing “irrelevant” links.

    Then, a couple weeks ago, Cutts said that you should go ahead and disavow links even if you haven’t been penalized in some cases.

    Later still, Google’s John Mueller said that Google doesn’t use data from the tool against the sites whose URLs are being disavowed.

    Image via YouTube

  • ‘Disavow Links’ Data Not A Google Ranking Signal…Yet

    Google is not using data from its Disavow Links tool to hurt sites that are being disavowed in search results. That is according to Google’s John Mueller.

    Do you think data from the Disavow Links tool should be used as a ranking signal? Let us know in the comments.

    The topic came up in the Google Webmaster Central product forum (via Search Engine Roundtable). One webmaster started the thread, saying that they received an email from a site with the subject line of “Link Removal Request” which said:

    Dear Web master,

    We recently received a notice from Google stating that they have levied a penalty on our website as they “detected unnatural links” redirecting to our website.

    The only way we can remove this penalty and help Google reconsider putting our website back in their index is by removing these links and we need your help for the same. We request you to consider this request on high priority.

    Following are the details of the links:
    they have given me list of Links of my website with majority comments links .

    We would like to bring your notice that failure to remove these links would require us to file a “Disavow Links” report with Google. Once we submit this report to Google, they may “flag” your site as”spammy” or otherwise if anything is not in compliance with their guidelines. The last thing we want is to have another web master go through this grief!

    Your cooperation in this process would be deeply appreciated. We kindly request you to send us an acknowledgement of this mail along with a confirmation that these links have been removed.
    Thanks a lot for your help.

    If you want to reach out to us mail us on ‘webmaster’s copany email id’

    Regards,
    name of person
    website name

    So no, Google will not “flag your site as spammy” if it’s disavowed.

    Mueller says flat out, “They are wrong. Having URLs from your website submitted in their disavow file will not cause any problems for your website. One might assume that they are just trying to pressure you. If the comment links they pointed to you are comment-spam that was left by them (or by someone working in their name) on your website, perhaps they are willing to help cover the work involved in cleaning their spam up?”

    Maybe they are “pressuring the webmaster,” but still, Google has actually hinted in the past that data from the tool could become a ranking signal.

    In a discussion with Google’s head of web spam Matt Cutts back in 2012, Danny Sullivan asked if “someone decides to disavow links from good sites in perhaps an attempt to send signals to Google these are bad,” if Google is mining the data to better understand what the bad sites are.

    Cutts responded (emphasis mine), “Right now, we’re using this data in the normal straightforward way, e.g. for reconsideration requests. We haven’t decided whether we’ll look at this data more broadly. Even if we did, we have plenty of other ways of determining bad sites, and we have plenty of other ways of assessing that sites are actually good.”

    Like I said at the time, Google does have over 200 signals, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for the data to play some role in the algorithm, even if it’s not the weightiest signal. I don’t know how we’ll ever know if Google does decide to start using it. It’s not like Google is listing its algorithm changes every month or anything.

    Cutts added in that conversation, “If a webmaster wants to shoot themselves in the foot and disavow high-quality links, that’s sort of like an IQ test and indicates that we wouldn’t want to give that webmaster’s disavowed links much weight anyway. It’s certainly not a scalable way to hurt another site, since you’d have to build a good site, then build up good links, then disavow those good links. Blackhats are normally lazy and don’t even get to the ‘build a good site’ stage.”

    It does sound like a pretty dumb strategy, and probably not the most effective way to hurt another site. On the other hand, people do dumb stuff all the time.

    But in a more natural sense, mightn’t this data say something about a site? If a lot of people are disavowing links from the same sites, doesn’t that say something?

    But if it were to become a signal it could be misleading at times when Google’s unnatural link warnings have so many people scrambling to get all kinds of links (including legitimate ones) removed. It certainly shouldn’t carry too much weight if it ever does make it into the algorithm.

    SEO analyst Jennifer Slegg said it well: “People who have been affected with bad links will very likely take a very heavy-handed approach to the links they disavow in their panic of seeing their traffic drop off a cliff. There is no doubt that some of those good links that are actually helping the site will end up in the list along with poor quality ones because the webmaster is either unclear about whether a link is a bad influence, or just think the starting fresh approach is the best one to go with.”

    In the comments section of the Search Engine Roundtable post, Durant Imboden makes an interesting point: “Isn’t it possible that an unusually high number of disavowals might trigger a manual review of the frequently-disavowed site? In such a case, the disavow tool itself wouldn’t trigger a penalty or other ‘problems for your website,’ but the resulting review might (depending on what was found).”

    Either way, don’t worry about the tool sending any signals about your site for the time being.

    In related news, Cutts spoke about the tool at SMX West last week, where he said that if you’re aware of bad links to your site, you should probably go ahead and disavow them anyway, even if you’re not already penalized. He added on Twitter (when Rae Hoffman tweeted about it), that if it’s one or two links, it may not be a big deal, but the closer it gets to “lots,” the more worthwhile it may be.

    Something to think about.

    Do you think Google should ever include data from the tool in its ranking algorithm? Share your thoughts.

  • Google: Go Ahead And Disavow Links Even If You Haven’t Been Penalized

    Google suggests you go ahead and use its Disavow Links tool if you know of bad links you have out there, even if Google has not penalized you. If you only have a couple, don’t worry about it, but the more you have, the more you’ll want to do it (again, according to Google).

    Here’s what Google’s head of webspam Matt Cutts told Rae Hoffman about it on Twitter:

    Okay, if you “know” you have “bad” links, why not? The problem is that people often don’t know which ones are actually “bad,” and as we’ve seen in the past, people go hog-wild on getting backlinks removed just because they’re afraid Google won’t like them, regardless of whether or not there is evidence of this.

    Cutts also said when the Disavow Links tool came out that most people shouldn’t use it.

    Here he is talking about when you should worry about your links. Should you spend time analyzing your links and trying to remove ones you didn’t create that look spammy? The “simple answer is no.”

    And here’s Google’s “completely clear” stance on disavowing irrelevant links.

    Image via YouTube

  • Google’s ‘Completely Clear’ Stance On Disavowing ‘Irrelevant’ Links

    We knew that when Google launched the Disavow Links tool, people were going to use it more than they should, even though Google made it clear that most people shouldn’t use it at all.

    A person doing some SEO work posted a question in the Google Webmaster Central product forum (via Search Engine Roundtable) that many others have probably wondered: Should I use the disavow tool for irrelevant links?

    In other words, should you tell Google to ignore links from sites that aren’t related to yours? The answer is no.

    Google’s own John Mueller jumped in to say this: “Just to be completely clear on this: you do not need to disavow links that are from sites on other topics. This tool is really only meant for situations where there are problematic, unnatural, PageRank-passing links that you can’t have removed.”

    Google updates and manual action penalties have caused a lot of webmasters to re-evaluate their link profiles. Many have scrambled to get various links to their sties taken down, often going overboard (or even way overboard).

    For the record, Google still views backlinks as “a really, really big win in terms of quality for search results.”

    In other “how Google views links” news, Matt Cutts just put out an 8-minute video about how Google determines whether your links are paid or not.

    Image via Google.com

  • Google Gives Advice On Speedier Penalty Recovery

    Google has shared some advice in a new Webmaster Help video about recovering from Google penalties that you have incurred as the result of a time period of spammy links.

    Now, as we’ve seen, sometimes this happens to a company unintentionally. A business could have hired the wrong person/people to do their SEO work, and gotten their site banished from Google, without even realizing they were doing anything wrong. Remember when Google had to penalize its own Chrome landing page because a third-party firm bent the rules on its behalf?

    Google is cautiously suggesting “radical” actions from webmasters, and sending a bit of a mixed message.

    How far would you go to get back in Google’s good graces? How important is Google to your business’ survival? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    The company’s head of webspam, Matt Cutts, took on the following question:

    How did Interflora turn their ban in 11 days? Can you explain what kind of penalty they had, how did they fix it, as some of us have spent months try[ing] to clean things up after an unclear GWT notification.

    As you may recall, Interflora, a major UK flowers site, was hit with a Google penalty early this year. Google didn’t exactly call out the company publicly, but after reports of the penalty came out, the company mysteriously wrote a blog post warning people not to engage in the buying and selling of links.

    But you don’t have to buy and sell links to get hit with a Google penalty for webspam, and Cutts’ response goes beyond that. He declines to discuss a specific company because that’s not typically not Google’s style, but proceeds to try and answer the question in more general terms.

    “Google tends to looking at buying and selling links that pass PageRank as a violation of our guidelines, and if we see that happening multiple times – repeated times – then the actions that we take get more and more severe, so we’re more willing to take stronger action whenever we see repeat violations,” he says.

    That’s the first thing to keep in mind, if you’re trying to recover. Don’t try to recover by breaking the rules more, because that will just make Google’s vengeance all the greater when it inevitably catches you.

    Google continues to bring the hammer down on any black hat link network it can get its hands on, by the way. Just the other day, Cutts noted that Google has taken out a few of them, following a larger trend that has been going on throughout the year.

    The second thing to keep in mind is that Google wants to know your’e taking its guidelines seriously, and that you really do want to get better – you really do want to play by the rules.

    “If a company were to be caught buying links, it would be interesting if, for example, [if] you knew that it started in the middle of 2012, and ended in March 2013 or something like that,” Cutts continues in the video. “If a company were to go back and disavow every single link that they had gotten in 2012, that’s a pretty monumentally epic, large action. So that’s the sort of thing where a company is willing to say, ‘You know what? We might have had good links for a number of years, and then we just had really bad advice, and somebody did everything wrong for a few months – maybe up to a year, so just to be safe, let’s just disavow everything in that timeframe.’ That’s a pretty radical action, and that’s the sort of thing where if we heard back in a reconsideration request that someone had taken that kind of a strong action, then we could look, and say, ‘Ok, this is something that people are taking seriously.”

    Now, don’t go getting carried away. Google has been pretty clear since the Disavow Links tool launched that this isn’t something that most people want to do.

    Cutts reiterates, “So it’s not something that I would typically recommend for everybody – to disavow every link that you’ve gotten for a period of years – but certainly when people start over with completely new websites they bought – we have seen a few cases where people will disavow every single link because they truly want to get a fresh start. It’s a nice looking domain, but the previous owners had just burned it to a crisp in terms of the amount of webspam that they’ve done. So typically what we see from a reconsideration request is people starting out, and just trying to prune a few links. A good reconsideration request is often using the ‘domain:’ query, and taking out large amounts of domains which have bad links.”

    “I wouldn’t necessarily recommend going and removing everything from the last year or everything from the last year and a half,” he adds. “But that sort of large-scale action, if taken, can have an impact whenever we’re assessing a domain within a reconsideration request.”

    In other words, if your’e willing to go to such great lengths and eliminate such a big number of links, Google’s going to notice.

    I don’t know that it’s going to get you out of the penalty box in eleven days (as the Interflora question mentions), but it will at least show Google that you mean business, and, in theory at least, help you get out of it.

    Much of what Cutts has to say this time around echoes things he has mentioned in the past. Earlier this year, he suggested using the Disavow Links tool like a “machete”. He noted that Google sees a lot of people trying to go through their links with a fine-toothed comb, when they should really be taking broader swipes.

    “For example, often it would help to use the ‘domain:’ operator to disavow all bad backlinks from an entire domain rather than trying to use a scalpel to pick out the individual bad links,” he said. “That’s one reason why we sometimes see it take a while to clean up those old, not-very-good links.”

    On another occasion, he discussed some common mistakes he sees people making with the Disavow Links tool. The first time someone attempts a reconsideration request, people are taking the scalpel (or “fine-toothed comb”) approach, rather than the machete approach.

    “You need to go a little bit deeper in terms of getting rid of the really bad links,” he said. “So, for example, if you’ve got links from some very spammy forum or something like that, rather than trying to identify the individual pages, that might be the opportunity to do a ‘domain:’. So if you’ve got a lot of links that you think are bad from a particular site, just go ahead and do ‘domain:’ and the name of that domain. Don’t maybe try to pick out the individual links because you might be missing a lot more links.”

    And remember, you need to make sure you’re using the right syntax. You need to use the “domain:” query in the following format:

    domain:example.com

    Don’t add an “http” or a ‘www” or anything like that. Just the domain.

    So, just to recap: Radical, large-scale actions could be just what you need to take to make Google seriously reconsider your site, and could get things moving more quickly than trying single out links from domains. But Google wouldn’t necessarily recommend doing it.

    Oh, Google. You and your crystal clear, never-mixed messaging.

    As Max Minzer commented on YouTube (or is that Google+?), “everyone is going to do exactly that now…unfortunately.”

    Yes, this advice will no doubt lead many to unnecessarily obliterate many of the backlinks they’ve accumulated – including legitimate links – for fear of Google. Fear they won’t be able to make that recovery at all, let alone quickly. Hopefully the potential for overcompensation will be considered if Google decides to use Disavow Links as a ranking signal.

    Would you consider having Google disavow all links from a year’s time? Share your thoughts in the comments.