Does Disavowing Links Negate Anchor Text, or Just Negates Link Juice
-
I'm not so sure that disavowing links also discounts the anchor texts from those links. Because nofollow links absolutely still pass anchor text values. And disavowing links is supposed to be akin to nofollowing the links.
I wonder because there's a potential client I'm working on an RFP for and they have tons of spammy directory links all using keyword rich anchor texts and they lost 98% of their traffic in Pengiun 1.0 and haven't recovered. I want to know what I'm getting into.
And if I just disavow those links, I'm thinking that it won't help the anchor text ratio issues.
Can anyone confirm?
-
Great! Glad I could help. If you end up running an experiment similar to the one done by Social SEO I'm sure the community would love to here about it.
-
Ryan, love the response! And the fact that you didn't back down from my challenges. Great reply!
So the fact that nofollow links still do pass anchor text is a big one. Disavowing links isn't JUST for penalized sites. And its not just for combating spam or negative SEO. Yes, its the main tool to fight those things but those things do not define it.
Having your domain disavowed by hundreds of people does not kill its rankings and make it a "spam" site. People disavow for lots of reasons.
But my thought and suspicion is that Google still counts the anchor text of disavowed links as part of your portfolio.
-
Because the disavow tool is mainly used for restoring sites that have been penalized for having spammy inbound links while unpenalized sites freely use nofollow. Also sites that have been linked to via nofollow aren't penalized because of it, and often see positive effects from it. A study on that: http://www.socialseo.com/blog/an-experiment-nofollow-links-do-pass-value-and-rankings-in-google.html, "Google may not "count" the link as a weighted backlink but this doesn’t mean they ignore the anchor text being used or the authoratative status of the website being linked from."
Further, nofollow links can still engage with active readers and provide tremendous lift--a moz example--while spam en masse is usually found on sites that have very little real world presence. Google has a pretty good idea of many sites that are worthy of a disavow...
For your precise situation you're going to have to run your own tests to get your own data and your own numbers that specifically back up what you believe, but my advice is that you don't let your client expect to get a substantial--if any--lift from their past links that they are planning to disavow.
P.S. Top secret... It's over 9000.
-
What are you basing these statements on? Are you 100% certain in your opinion? Is it based on facts?
I don't agree with what you are saying. I've read that the disavow tool is essentially telling Google to nofollow those links.
I'm looking for anyone that has data to back this up. I don't think that anyone has really addressed this issue in detail. Maybe we need to ask Google?
-
...disavowing is supposedly the same thing as adding the nofollow tag to links.
Ah I see where you've missed what I was saying. Disavow and nofollow are two different things. Just like nofollow has undisclosed benefits--especially when being links coming from highly trusted sites--disavow isn't as easily categorized as the stock description of nofollow. Fundamentally they're different as well, nofollow is linking to something purposefully, but with the caveat that for search engines, this isn't a 100% normal link. They're still intentionally making the link.
Disavow on the other hand is basically saying, "Hey, this link you found pointing to us on this site that's TOTAL spam... we want nothing to do with it. Please don't ban us, and ignore those links." In Disavow's use, ideally for the site trying to get rid of the link they'd be happier if it didn't exist. That's in contrast to a site intentionally creating a link to something, but nofollowing it.
-
So my question remains unaddressed. Does anyone know if anchor text is completely removed when you disavow links?
Its because nofollowed links still pass anchor text and count towards your anchor text rations. And reading into it, disavowing is supposedly the same thing as adding the nofollow tag to links. The only difference is that because you don't have access to the site to add the nofollow yourself, you can use the disavow tool to do it.
-
Thanks Ryan, but to answer...
" if the site is considered spam and the link juice from it is negative, why wouldn't the logical conclusion be that the anchor text is not going to count as well"
Its because nofollowed links still pass anchor text and count towards your anchor text rations. And reading into it, disavowing is supposedly the same thing as adding the nofollow tag to links. The only difference is that because you don't have access to the site to add the nofollow yourself, you can use the disavow tool to do it.
So my question remains unaddressed. Does anyone know if anchor text is completely removed when you disavow links?
-
In your position, I would want to know more about what I'm getting into as well. Before I have a contract, I would like to know what they've been doing over the last three years. There's a lot of time there where, potential, previous actions could help or hinder your efforts.
- Did they disavow?
- What did they (or a contractor) disavow, if anything?
- If they 'performed a disavow', where is the file? (There's a possibility it wasn't properly formatted, or it may not have been submitted.)
- Have they sent out link removal requests?
- If so, what were the results?
- Did they continue building low quality links after the fact? (History is a factor.)
- If so, for how long?
- Have they tried a reconsideration request after a, what you would deem sufficient, disavow/removal effort? (Though it may walk and quack like an algo/filter penalty, it could be manual.)
The above would be a few of my primary concerns before I started looking at anchor text ratios. If you've already covered those bases, good on you. Just let it be known, to everyone's general disinterest, that I said as much.
You may find that a lot of the heavy lifting is already done, but the execution was flawed at some critical point. Which may free resources toward building a better internet and generally making your client giddy. Easy peasy, right?
I agree with Ryan's second paragraph. Definitely under-promise and attempt to over-deliver. I haven't seen many sites that didn't have at least a chance at recovery, if money were no object. However, there are sites where it would be wise to start over from an economic perspective. (Time/Opportunity Cost+Actual Money)
It's that nearly three year long penalty that would give me pause, prior to jumping in. Again with the ratios, if there's been a disavow and you don't have the file; you're not looking at anything remotely accurate - until you go through the same process. Still, no one ever has the entire picture. It's various shades of confidence in what you can gather about the situation.
There. I made it two paragraphs without emoting. I can go play video games now.
-
I think the perspective is a little skewed on this... If you look at it form the angle of a link from a spammy site is a bad thing (hence the need to disavow), that includes the anchor text being bad too, even if it's targeted anchor text. What I mean is if the site is considered spam and the link juice from it is negative, why wouldn't the logical conclusion be that the anchor text is not going to count as well, or even be a negative ranking factor for that anchor text.
Within the RFP I'd err on the side of caution (under promise - over deliver) and say that we're going to disavow X number of links and start targeting quality. If by some strange reason you do get an anchor text boost some how, it's extra to the above board work you're doing moving forward.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Should I revive the old domain or just redirect all the juicy links to my new site?
I'm about to acquire a domain with a lot of great/highly authoritative backlinks. The links pointing to the domain are quite powerful and the domain is an exact match TLD. I have two options (that I know of 😞 1. I could redirect all the links to their new home(s) on my new site which offers the same resources the old site used to offer. or 2. I could rebuild the tools/content on this site. Ideally, I'd transfer to my new site as all those powerful links could help all my rankings. However, I'm worried that some of the powerful links will de-link once they see the site redirects elsewhere, even though it's offering the same content. Also, option one isn't an exact match domain. Which, I know, shouldn't make a difference now-a-days but regardless of what people say, it still seems to help out some sites in less competitive niches. One more thing to note: The domain that I'm purchasing is about 25 years old. I'm leaning toward option one. I want to make sure I put my best foot forward on this investment and thought it wise to consult the SEO gods.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ninel_P0 -
Link conundrum - losing nav/footer links in mobile view
Hi Moz folks! I'm currently moving a site from being hosted on www. and m. separately to a responsive single URL. The problem is, the desktop version currently has links to important landing pages in the footer (about 60) and that's not something we want to replicate on mobile (mainly because it will look pretty awful.) There is no navigation menu because the key to the homepage is to convert users to subscription so any distraction reduces conversion rate. The footer links will continue to exist on the desktop view but, since Google's mobile-first index, presumably we lose these important homepage links to our most important pages. So, my questions: Do you think there is any SEO value in the desktop footer links? Do you have any suggestions about how best to include these 60-odd links in a way that works for mobile? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | d_foley0 -
How to do Spam Link Analysis before posting a link?
OSE provides Spam analysis for website link profile, Do Moz have a tool to check the link quality before placing a link? How to do Spam Link Analysis before posting a link?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bondhoward1 -
Do Internal Link Anchor Text Count Towards Overall Ratio?
I have a few pages that have dropped in rankings recently. I suspect it is because of the ratio of the anchor text. For example, you have 20 links pointing to page site.com/mens-jeans.html, and 15 have the anchor text "mens jeans". If I am looking to dilute the exact match anchor text, will the internal links count? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | inhouseseo0 -
Quick Rel Canonical Link Juice Question
Let's say I have two duplicate pages, A and B. However, A has 5 external links and B has 3 _different _external links. If I add the rel canonical tag to B, so that A is the "master page" do I also lose whatever link juice was going to B from the 3 external links?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
TLA / Text Link Ads
Hi folks, Curious to hear what people know about the TLA situation since reports surfaced that they'd been de-indexed. It looks like it's all been quiet since those early reports. Not many people admit to using TLA so perhaps you've heard something on the grapevine... nudge nudge wink wink.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MattBarker0 -
Performing Internal Optimization Without Much Anchor Text?
Hi guys. We're in the process of building a new site, and are using a lot of icon based linking, image linking, etc. There is some basic text linking here and there, but not a whole lot. My concern is, because I'm not using actual anchor text, but just images, that crawlers are going to have a more difficult time determining what pages are about. Do I have a valid concern, or am I just worrying about nothing? If this concern is valid, what is the best way to remedy this concern? Alt img tags?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CodyWheeler0 -
Anchor text help
Hello, I am a small website designer in Mexico.. as you know it is hard to rank in these keywords My main competitors appear with (diseño web = web design) on google.com.mx Almost 80% of the anchor text from my links are (diseño web Mexico =web design Mexico) If I search (diseño web Mexico =web design) on google.com.mx I appear on first page. If I search (diseño web = web design) on google.com.mx I appear on page 3. My questions: Is this because my anchor text is diseño web Mexico? should i change it to (diseño web = web design)? Or is it because (diseño web = web design) is a harder key word to rank? this is my website http://bit.ly/eKyWvr Regards
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Pixelar0