Disavow without penalty
-
Hi fellow Mozians,
I have come up with a doubt today which I would appreciate your thoughts on.
I have always been convinced that the disavowal tool can be used at any time as part of your backlink monitoring activities- if you see a dodgy backlink coming in you should add it to your disavowal file if you can't get it removed (which you probably can't). That is to say that the disavowal tool can be used pre-emptively to make sure a dodgy link does do your site any harm.
However, this belief of mine has taken a bit of a beating this morning as another SEO suggested that the disavowal tool only has en effect if acompanied by a reconsideratiosn request, and that you can only file a reconsideration request if you have some kind of manual action. This logic describes that you can only disavowal when you have a penalty.
This theory was backed up by this moz article from May 2013:
https://moz.com/blog/google-disavow-tool
The comments didnt do much to settle my doubts.This Mat Cutts video, from November 2013 seems to confirm my belief however:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=86&v=eFJZXpnsRscIt seems perfectly reasonable that Google does allow pre-emptive disavowal-ing, not just because of the whole negative seo issue, but just because nasty links do happen naturally. Not all SEOs spend all their waking hours building links which they know they will have to disavowal later shoudl a penalty hit at some point, and it seems reasonable that an SEO should be able to say- "Link XYZ is nothing to do with me!" before Google excercises retribution.
If, for example you get hired working for a company that HAD a penalty due to spammy link building in the past that has been lifted; but you see that Google periodically discovers the occasional spammy link it seems fair that you should be able to tell google that you want to voluntarily remove any "credit" that that link is giving you today, so as to avoid a penalty tomorrow.
Your help would be much appreciated.
Many thanks indeed.
-
Thanks for the help everyone!
-
Hi!
As others above me stated, it is perfectly fine to use disavow tool regardless to penalties, in my niches we tend to get a lot of negative SEO efforts against our sites, mostly from adult and pharmaceutical-remedies type of rubbish sites.
But again, it is a wild-wild expertise area where most of us has fixations
including me
good luck..
-
Google has said you can disavow anytime, disavowing is only telling google that you want these backlinks to be nofollow and not pass any linkjuice so they wont help or harm you.
You don't need to be penalized to use the disavow tool, you merely need to have backlinks or domains to add to the disavow file.
It's common for SEOs to disavow urls / domains monthly, however most will tell you to do an audit yearly and keep up on new backlinks as they come in.
I've used the disavow tool but before I did, I did about a few weeks research into what it means to disavow and why one would disavow as well as how to properly disavow. No where did I read you only use the disavow tool if you have a penalty, especially since if you were hit by penguin you wouldn't really know, so Google had to leave the door open on that one.
-
I felt similar inasmuch as how often to disavow. My research show if you have been penalized disavow regularly, if not then annually with some monitoring is fine. Pre-Emptive disavow seems slightly proactive, I only disavow 3 to 5 bad links after 6 months.
Hope this helped
KJr
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
-
Homepage with and without language subfolder
Hi all, We are checking to optimize a website that has four language versions in subfolders. When setting the self referencing canonicals and the hreflang tags, we came across a particular problem. Both the URL's example.com and example.com/nl are being indexed and have the same content in the same language. For the other language versions, it is quite straightforward, but what to do with these two URL's? Currently, there is a canonical tag from example.com to example.com/nl. Is a simple 301 redirect to the URL with the language subfolder the best solution? Something to consider: if a backlink points to example.com (without specifying the language subfolder), all the link juice will go to the /nl version and not to other versions (with a canonical as well as with a 301 of course). Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mat_C0 -
301 redirect to avoid duplicate content penalty
I have two websites with identical content. Haya and ethnic Both websites have similar products. I would like to get rid of ethniccode I have already started to de-index ethniccode. My question is, Will I get any SEO benefit or Will it be harmful if I 301 direct the below only URL’s https://www.ethniccode/salwar-kameez -> https://www.hayacreations/collections/salwar-kameez https://www.ethniccode/salwar-kameez/anarkali-suits - > https://www.hayacreations/collections/anarkali-suits
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | riyaaaz0 -
Disavow links established in 2009??
Sorry for the length, but I believe this is an interesting situation, so hopefully you'll enjoy thinking this one over a little. Thanks for taking the time! Historical Information We’ve owned and operated printglobe.com since 2002. In late 2009, we acquired absorbentprinting.com and operated both sites until Mar, 2015, when absorbentprinting.com was redirected to printglobe.com. The reason we chose to redirect absorbentprinting.com to printglobe.com is that they were same industry, same pricing, and had a lot of product overlap, although they did have unique product and category descriptions. We saw a long and steady decline in organic traffic to absorbentprinting.com in the last couple of years leading up to the decision to redirect. By the way, while I understand the basics of SEO, neither I nor anyone else at our company could be considered an SEO practitioner. Recent Information An SEO firm we used to be engaged with us reached back out to us and noted: “I started looking through your backlink and it looks like there has been a sharp increase of referring domains.” They included a graph that does show a dramatic increase, starting around November, 2015. It’s quite dramatic and appears anything but natural. The contact from the SEO firm went on to say: “After doing a cursory review, it looks like a handful of these new links are the type we would recommend disavowing or removing.” We do little in the way of “link building” and we’re in a relatively boring industry, so we don’t naturally garner a lot of links. Our first thought was that we were the victim of a negative SEO attack. However, upon spot checking a lot of the recent domains linking to us, I discovered that a large % of the links that had first shown up in AHREFS since November are links that were left as comments on forums, mostly in 2009/2010. Since absorbentprinting.com was redirected to printglobe.com in Mar, 2015, I have no idea why they are just now beginning to show up as links to printglobe.com. By the numbers, according to a recent download from AHREFS: Total # of backlinks to printglobe.com through mid-Feb, 2016: 8,679 of backlinks “first seen” November, 2015 or later: 5,433 Note that there were hundreds of links “first seen” in the months from Mar, 2015 to Oct, 2015, but the # “first seen” from November, 2015 to now has been 1,500 or greater each full month. Total # of linking domains through mid-Feb, 2016: 1,182 of linking domains first seen November, 2015 or later: 850 Also note that the links contain good anchor text distribution Finally, there was a backlink analysis done on absorbentprinting.com in April, 2013 by the same firm who pointed out the sharp increase in links. At that time, it was determined that the backlink profile of absorbentprinting.com was normal, and did not require any actions to disavow links or otherwise clean up the backlinks. My Questions: If you’ve gotten through all that, how important does it seem to disavow links now? How urgent? I’ve heard that disavowing links should be a rare undertaking. If this is so, what would you think of the idea of us disavowing everything or almost everything “first seen” Nov, 2015 and later? Is there a way to disavow at the linking domain level, rather than link-by-link to reduce the number of entries, or does it have to be done for each individual link? If we disavow around 5.5k links since Nov, 2015, what is the potential for doing more harm than good? If we’re seeing declining organic traffic in the past year on printglobe.com pretty much for the first time in the site’s history, can we attribute that to the links? Anything else you’d advise a guy who’s never disavowed a link before on this situation? Thanks for any insights! Rob
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PrintGlobeSEO0 -
WhoIs penalty
Does anyone know if it's possible to get a penalty on WHOIS data and a shared IP address? We had some bad SEO done (And at ranking demolished) on one of our company websites which has the same WHOIS data and is on the same IP address as another side which is just seems to have taken a knock. Is it possible Google could have associated both and penalised accordingly?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoman100 -
What do you think about this links? Toxic or don't? disavow?
Hi, we are now involved in a google penalty issue (artificial links – global – all links). We were very surprised, cause we only have 300 links more less, and most of those links are from stats sites, some are malware (we are trying to fight against that), and other ones are article portals. We have created a spreadsheet with the links and we have analyzed them using Link Detox. Now we are sending emails, so that they can be removed, or disavow the links what happen is that we have very few links, and in 99% of then we have done nothing to create that link. We have doubts about what to do with some kind of links. We are not sure them to be bad. We would appreciate your opinion. We should talk about two types: Domain stats links Article portals Automatically generated content site I would like to know if we should remove those links or disavow them These are examples Anygator.com. We have 57 links coming from this portal. Linkdetox says this portal is not dangerous http://es.anygator.com/articulo/arranca-la-migracion-de-hotmail-a-outlook__343483 more examples (stats or similar) www.mxwebsite.com/worth/crearcorreoelectronico.es/ and from that website we have 10 links in wmt, but only one works. What do you do on those cases? Do you mark that link as a removed one? And these other examples… what do you think about them? More stats sites: http://alestat.com/www,crearcorreoelectronico.es.html http://www.statscrop.com/www/crearcorreoelectronico.es Automated generated content examples http://mrwhatis.net/como-checo-mi-correo-electronico-yaho.html http://www.askives.com/abrir-correo-electronico-gmail.html At first, we began trying to delete all links, but… those links are not artificial, we have not created them, google should know those sites. What would you do with those sites? Your advices would be very appreciated. Thanks 😄
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | teconsite0 -
Given the new image mismatch penalty, is watermarking considered "cloaking"?
Google has released a new penalty called "Image mismatch". Which actually penalizes sites that show images to Google than are not the same as the ones offered to users when accessing the site. Although I agree with those sites that the image is completely different that the one shown in image search, lately I've seen lots of big sites using some king of watermark or layer that reads something like "To see the high quality of this image, click here" in order to "force" the user to visit the site hosting the image. Considering the latest changes to Google's image search, which made lots of sites lose their "image search traffic", are these techniques considered part of the new penalty Google is applying? Or does it only apply to the first scenario when the image is completely different? You can read more on this new penalty here.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | FedeEinhorn0 -
Best way to move a page without 301
I have a page that currently ranks high for its term. That page is going away for the main website users, meaning all internal site links pointing to that page are going away and point to a new page. Normally you would just do a 301 redirect to the new URL however the old URL will still need to remain as a landing page since we send paid media traffic to that URL. My question is what is the best way to deal with that? One thought was set up a canonical tag, however my understanding is that the pages need to be identical or very close to the same and the landing page will be light on content and different from the new main page. Not topically different but not identical copy or design, etc.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IrvCo_Interactive0 -
Google Disavow Tool - Waste of Time
My humble opinion is that Google's disavow tool.... is a utter waste of your time! My site, http://goo.gl/pdsHs was penalized over a year ago after the SEO we hired used black hat techniques to increase ranking. Ironically, while having visibility, Google itself had become a customer. (I guess the site was pretty high quality, trust worthy and user friendly enough for Google employees to purchase from.) Soon enough the message about detecting unnatural links had shown up on the webmaster tools and as expected, our rankings sank and out of view. For a year we had contacted webmasters, asking them remove links pointing back to us. 90% didn't respond, the other 10% complied). Work on our site continued, adding high quality, highly relevant unique content.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Prime85
Rankings never recovered and neither did our traffic or business….. Earlier this month, we learned about Google’s "link disavow tool" and were excited! We had hoped that following the cleanup instruction, using the “link disavow tool”, we would get a chance at recovery!
We watched Matt Cutts’ video, read the various forums/blogs/topics online that were written about it, and then we felt comfortable enough to use it... We went through our backlink profile, determining which links were either spammy or seemed a result of black hat practices or the links added by a 3rd party possibly interested in our demise and added them to a .txt file. We submitted the file via the disavow tool and followed with another reconsideration request. The result came a couple of weeks later… the same cookie cutter email in the WMT suggesting that there are “unnatural links” to the site. Hope turned to disappointment and frustration. Looks like the big box companies will continue to populate the top 100 results of ANY search, the rest will help Google’s shareholders… If your site has gotten in the algorithm crosshairs, you have a better chance of recovering by changing your URL than messing around with this useless tool.0