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
-
Is irrelevant backlinks real? And does anchor text affect all keywords?
I ask because I see many of my competitors with irrelevant backlinks still ranking at the top, despite what SEO say about it. I have a Web Design business, most of my competitors have their backlinks from sites they built ie "website by _____" and thats how they rank at the top. Should I keep getting backlinks from my clients (with permission)? Also does anchor text on backlinks affect all keywords in your website? Example is if you provide multi services ie plastering and decorating. You have 100 links pointing to your site with anchor text of "plastering". Technically your site still has 100 backlinks, will that also help boost the onsite optimisation for the keyword "decorating"?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Marvellous0 -
Linking to URLs With Hash (#) in Them
How does link juice flow when linking to URLs with the hash tag in them? If I link to this page, which generates a pop-over on my homepage that gives info about my special offer, where will the link juice go to? homepage.com/#specialoffer Will the link juice go to the homepage? Will it go nowhere? Will it go to the hash URL above? I'd like to publish an annual/evergreen sort of offer that will generate lots of links. And instead of driving those links to homepage.com/offer, I was hoping to get that link juice to flow to the homepage, or maybe even a product page, instead. And just updating the pop over information each year as the offer changes. I've seen competitors do it this way but wanted to see what the community here things in terms of linking to URLs with the hash tag in them. Can also be a use case for using hash tags in URLs for tracking purposes maybe?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MiguelSalcido0 -
Internal links question
I've read that Google frowns upon large numbers of internal links. We're building a site that helps users browse a list of shows via dozens of genres. If the genres are expose, say, as a pulldown menu as opposed to a list of static links, and selecting the pulldown option filters the list of shows, would those genres count against our internal links count?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheaterMania0 -
How to Have Flat Navigation w/out Diluting Link Juice
I have a client with a very flat navigational structure relying on a menu with CSS hover dropdowns using simple items to get to just about every page on the site through the main navigation on every page. They want this ability to remain. The issue is stat is send link juice all over and does not concentrate into pages that are key search landing pages. I don't want to "no Index" "follow" the less important pages since there are some brand related long tail searches that I would want these pages found. These are useful pages to consumers who are already engaged with the brand, but not ones we would not care to rank for outside of branded search. If there was a way to have some links be non-crawled via javascript (or some other method) and those that are more important use a more standard html type link that would seem ideal. Does anyone have a suggestion for menu tool or technique for exposing to consumers all the links to consumers but restricting google bot's path while being in line with Google Webmaster guideslines? Blair
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BlairKuhnen0 -
Internal Linking from Menu or body text or both with exact match keyword?
I used to have my menu link to every page with my exact match keywords. I am a Magician and have pages for each county / town so I had a link to /magician-hampshire with the anchor text Magician Hampshire in the menu. I recently had my website updated and the developer told me this was very spammy have a menu that said Magician Hampshire, Magician Surrey, Magician Berkshire He suggested that I should now have a menu structure that says Areas Covered>Hampshire - Surrey - Berkshire etc.Google will know my website is about a magician and relate the two together. Is this correct or should I revert my menu back to anchor text of Magician (County) I am running wordpress and he said the title attribute can say Magician Hampshire but the Visible text is for the user and not Google. I also use the technique of doing site:rogerlapin.co.uk magician hampshire and then seeing the top 10 pages google has for me and placing a text link from each of these pages in the body text. When doing link analysis I now see I have two links to each page but understand that google will only account for the first one (from the menu) Questions:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rnperki
Should I link to every main page from the Menu with the exact anchor text?
Does google only take into account the first link to a page it discovers?
Will it associate a link to a page with just the text of the county (Berkshire) to be related to Magicians in Berkshire as that is what the page is about? A few years ago I used to have at the bottom of each page Magician Hampshire | Magician Surrey | Magician Berkshire | Magician Sussex links - and to date a a lot of other Magicians employ this same technique. I was told google would slap them for it but so far it has not and it seems to be working for them. Many Thanks Roger http://www.rogerlapin.co.uk0 -
Do 404 pages pass link juice? And best practices...
Last year Google said bad links to 404 pages wouldn't hurt your site. Could that still be the case in light of recent Google updates to try and combat spammy links and negative SEO? Can links to 404 pages benefit a website and pass link juice? I'd assume at the very least that any link juice will pass through links FROM the 404 page? Many websites have great 404 pages that get linked to: http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/links?site=http%3A%2F%2Fretardzone.com%2F404 - that was the first of four I checked from the "60 Really Cool...404 Pages" that actually returned the 404 HTTP Status! So apologies if you find the word 'retard' offensive. According to Open Site Explorer it has a decent Page Authority and number of backlinks - but it doesn't show in Google's SERPs. I'd never do it, but if you have a particularly well-linked to 404 page, is there an argument for giving it 200 OK Status? Finally, what are the best practices regarding 404s and address bar links? For example, if
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alex-Harford
www.examplesite.com/3rwdfs returns a 404 error, should I make that redirect to
www.examplesite.com/404 or leave it as is? Redirecting to www.examplesite.com/404 might not be user-friendly as people won't be able to correct the URL in the address bar. But if I have a great 404 page that people link to, I don't want links going to loads of random pages do I? Is either way considered best practice? If I did a 301 redirect I guess it would send the wrong signal to the crawlers? Should I use a 302 redirect, or even a 304 Not Modified redirect?1 -
Link equity of ifram
If I link an iframe to pull its content - does that count as inbound link for the iframed content? Am I passing linklove to that page? I am on x.com and have an iframe pull content from z.com. Does this give linklove from x to z.com? (I am NOT asking if the z context is indexed in x, although I am weary to follow the most frequent statement that they do not. Google states that they will try to pull the content from the iframe, but don't guarantee it.)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | andreas.wpv0 -
Need to migrate multiple URLs and trying to save link juice
I have an interesting problem SEOmozers and wanted to see if I could get some good ideas as to what I should to for the greatest benefit. I have an ecommerce website that sells tire sensors. We just converted the old site to a new platform and payment processor, so the site has changed completely from the original, just offering virtually the same products as before. You can find it at www.tire-sensors.com We're ranked #1 for the keyword "tire sensors" in Google. We sell sensors for ford, honda, toyota, etc -- and tire-sensors.com has all of those listed. Before I came along, the company I'm working for also had individual "mini ecommerce" sites created with only 1 brand of sensors and the URL to match that maker. Example : www.fordtiresensors.com is our site, only sells the Ford parts from our main site, and ranks #1 in Google for "ford tire sensors" I don't have analytics on these old sites but Google Keyword Tool is saying "ford tire sensors" gets 880 local searches a month, and other brand-specific tire sensors are receiving traffic as well. We have many other sites that are doing the same thing. www.suzukitiresensors.com (ranked #2 for "suzuki tire sensors") Only sells our Suzuki collection from the main site's inventory etc We need to get rid of the old sites because we want to shut down the payment gateway and various other things those sites are using, and move to one consolidated system (aka www.tire-sensors.com) Would simply making each maker-specific URL (ie. fordtiresensors.com) 301 redirect to our main site (www.tire-sensors.com) give us to most benefit, rankings, traffic etc? Or would that be detrimental to what we're trying to do -- capturing the tire sensors market for all car manufacturers? Suggestions? Thanks a lot in advance! Jordan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JordanGodbey0