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
-
OK to change the anchor text of a link?
I have built a link on behalf of a ciient in a long, well-written article on a reputable website that accepts contributor accounts. I therefore control the link. I have since realised that the anchor text of the link could be optimized much better than it currently is (while still only being a partial match). Would I be punished by the algorithm for going in and changing the link? I know it's not 100% "natural," but then we're SEOs, and i don't think it's too implausible that a website owner may go in and do the same... Maybe if I add some text as well, it would make things look more natural?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | zakkyg1 -
2015 Disavow Links on Bing?
In years past I was told not to disavow links in Bing unless the site had an issue. This was driven home when a site we were working on disavowed the links in google and saw the site recover after a few months, then when they disavowed the same links in Bing and the rankings dropped 20% over the next few months. The reasoning was that Bing was looking more at the qty of links, and didn't analyze links the way Google does. So even though you might disavow links in Google you might not want to disavow those same links in Bing. Does this still hold true in 2015? I want to get the community's opinion on this topic, should the same links be disavowed in Bing that are disavowed in Google? Why or why not?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | K-WINTER1 -
Linking Within Website
Hello - I have about 10 landing pages that I am focusing on ranking for and I'm doing okay. My question is should I have all these pages on a drop down menu from my home page or is the innerlinking too much? http://www.kasplacement.com
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ksundheim10 -
The Affects of Removing Anchor Texts from Super Menu on Homepage
Hi, Currently we have a div that drops down our super menu which has subcategories, ie. under Shop by Color (super menu) Black Ties, Blue Ties, Brown Ties, et, al. (see Ties.com Anchor Text image attached) If we were to remove these subcategories from the div (in other words, they do not get crawled from homepage, will we loose ranking for those keywords? We are trying to reduce link count on homepage. Thoughts? UBHu8.png
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ties.com0 -
A Client Changed the Link Structure for Their Site... Not Just Once, but Twice
I have a client who's experiencing a number of crawl errors, which I've gotten down fo 9,000 from 18,000. One of the challenges they experience is that they've modified their URL structure a couple times. First it was: site.com/year/month/day/post-name
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | digisavvy
Then it was: site.com/category/post-name
Now it's: site.com/post-name I'm not sure of the time elapsed between these changes, but enough time has passed that the URLs for the previous two URL structures have been indexed and spit out 404s now. What's the best/clean way to address this issue?I'm not going to create 9k redirect rules obviously, but there's got to be a way to address this issue and resolve it moving forward.0 -
Am I Stuffing Internal Anchor Text?
We've got about 1,700 products and 6,600 pages on our site. I recently finished up adding similar product links and popular category links to our product and category pages in an effort to juice up the pages that sell and make us money. I also added a category html sitemap in the footer. A couple of the targeted category rankings are moving down. Am I possible accruing a penalty for overusing anchor text? Is this internal linking strategy poor form? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AWCthreads0 -
Increasing Internal Links But Avoiding a Link Farm
I'm looking to create a page about Widgets and all of the more specific names for Widgets we sell: ABC Brand Widgets, XYZ Brand Widgets, Big Widgets, Small Widgets, Green Widgets, Blue Widgets, etc. I'd like my Widget page to give a brief explanation about each kind of Widget with a link deeper into my site that gives more detail and allows you to purchase. The problem is I have a lot of Widgets and this could get messy: ABC Green Widgets, Small XYZ Widgets, many combinations. I can see my Widget page teetering on being a link farm if I start throwing in all of these combos. So where should I stop? How much do I do? I've read more than 100 links on a page being considered a link farm, is that a hardline number or a general guideline?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rball10 -
Am I losing link juice with 302-redirected faceted navigation?
My site has faceted navigation that allows shoppers to filter category page results by things brand, size, price range, etc. These pages 302 redirect to the same page they came from, which already include canonical meta tags. I added the rel="nofollow" attribute to the facet links and added the line "Disallow: /category_filter/" to robots.txt. One of our SEO consultants told me that this is likely diluting the potency of the page's link juice since they are divided among all the page's links, including the links I am instructing crawlers to disregard. Can anybody tell me whether I am following the best practices for links that redirect to the same page?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TahoeMountain400