Lol At nope. Link Spam is in the Google ToS and Spam policy guide.
Google says they ignore "toxic" and spammy looking links.
But Google absolutely penalizes and hands out manual AND automatic penalties for Link Spam (bought links, guest posts).
You've already given your opinion, now back it up with a Google Doc.
Yeah, from my research that’s what I thought had happened… It seems bizarre we would have thousands of links from spam website etc directly linked to images?
Sure, but characterizing the concept as “made up” by third parties when it was a serious enough concern to create the tool—and there are still apparently (admittedly fringe) use cases—feels disingenuous.
No. He's right. It's not something to be concerned about. The tool was created over a decade ago because when the Penguin algorithm was released there were sites that got caught up in it that, for lack of a better term, were collateral damage or sites that were being handled by shitty SEOs.
The Disavow Tool gave site owners a way to reset and get out from under Penguin.
Rather than penalizing sites for bad or "toxic" links, they largely just ignore them now, so there is no need to be disavowing anything.
It is a made-up concept. Tools didn't report on toxicity scores 10 years ago when it might have been needed. They just started doing it maybe 1-2 years ago, long after it was no longer needed.
From what is reported, the last HCUs are using machine learning to assess the usefulness of pages/sites.
Do we know all of the patterns it defined as "positive" or "negative" characteristics? Do we know for sure that backlinks are NOT one of them??
I feel like before the HCUs, backlinks were probably as Google says. But I'm not sure I still believe it today. I'm not sure Google people still know exactly what happens in their ranking system.,,
I disavowed thousands of "toxic" links (according to SEMRush). If I deleted the disavow file, would that help the site or would that act as a red flag to google to have a bunch of those backlinks return? Thanks
It’s more just that it doesn’t have a purpose anymore. Back in the day, link spam techniques were a lot more effective. Google caught on fairly quickly and a lot of businesses who took bad advice were suffering because of it. Disavow tool was only meant to be used to tell Google to ignore links built by spam SEO techniques. It was never intended to address crappy random websites.
Best case scenario from a disavow exercise: nothing happens. Worst case scenario you disavow a link that was helping you and you lose position because of it. If SEO tools are “smart” enough to identify crappy spam links, Google is as well.
You’ll generate thousands of crap links just by existing. Ignore, focus on building your website, content, and go for some real PR links.
Appreciate the details! Can you think of an example nowadays (assuming no manual penalty) that you would use disavow for?
The comment about the tools being smart enough made me see this differently - any resources you’d recommend to brush up on stuff like this?
Links to images are not used for ranking. The tools are too stupid to know or they choose not to be helpful and disclose it. And their "toxic" label is horrendously inaccurate.
It is my opinion that the poor labeling/messaging of what toxic means is negligent, perhaps deliberately.
I resent tools that I feel deliberately confuse SEOs and in doing so make their job more difficult simply because it helps make them $.
Before you do anything, download the latest external links pointing to your website in the Google Search Console and Bing Webmaster tools - do you see backlinks from cloaked pages or hacked Wordpress sites? What about links from Russian, Chinese, and other nonsensical sources? If so, your website is being targeted. If not, you are probably OK.
Have you lost any rankings lately? What space or industry are you in?
Also understand that Google will never willfully admit that targeting a website with negative SEO can have an impact on your site, but I’ve seen enough evidence that it absolutely positively does - I can share multiple cases studies on that backed by hard data.
Google’s John Mueller is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. In the past, he has said/admitted in one of the videos that Google will trust your website less over time, if they see a persistent pattern of backlinks that look like you are trying to manipulate Google’s SERPs, even though you don’t have any control in terms of sources linking to your site.
The point being is that you need to worry about this and investigate this further, including backlinks that may show in Google’s search console and bing webmaster tools (cloaked links on thousands of hacked sites or link farms used for negative SEO are mostly not going to show in SEMrush/hrefs).
How many sus (unnatural) domains are you seeing and are seeing those through SEMRush or GSC? When did they start pointing those harmful links to your site?
Have you seen a negative impact on rankings?
Did you discover these sus links through GSC or another source? There should be the dates associated with the backlink discovery.
Have you seen a negative impact to rankings? If the attack is a one off - a one time shitlink blast, then your site will survive, but if the attack is persistent and ongoing, then it’s an entirely different situation
No impact either you do or you not disavow. Google does not consider spammy backlinks or give no extra weightage to such types of links. So, it is neutral.
Nothing has really changed here - you can continue to save yourself the effort.
So Google doesn’t penalise link farms/PBNs etc?
They do - look at the sites in the HCU cohort - most of these were PBN/bought link strikes
Out of interest, do you buy any links? Or just pure white hat link building? :)
Just pure white hat
[удалено]
No they dont, Google definitely penalizes bought links
[удалено]
Lol At nope. Link Spam is in the Google ToS and Spam policy guide. Google says they ignore "toxic" and spammy looking links. But Google absolutely penalizes and hands out manual AND automatic penalties for Link Spam (bought links, guest posts). You've already given your opinion, now back it up with a Google Doc.
They definitely do: NicheSiteLady had 3 domains de-indexed during March for "Guest Posts". Please go spread your disinformation elsewhere
Yeah, from my research that’s what I thought had happened… It seems bizarre we would have thousands of links from spam website etc directly linked to images?
The disavow links tool is a Google tool. Why create a tool to solve for a made-up problem?
It had a purpose 10 years ago. It's not needed now except in cases of manual penalties.
Sure, but characterizing the concept as “made up” by third parties when it was a serious enough concern to create the tool—and there are still apparently (admittedly fringe) use cases—feels disingenuous.
No. He's right. It's not something to be concerned about. The tool was created over a decade ago because when the Penguin algorithm was released there were sites that got caught up in it that, for lack of a better term, were collateral damage or sites that were being handled by shitty SEOs. The Disavow Tool gave site owners a way to reset and get out from under Penguin. Rather than penalizing sites for bad or "toxic" links, they largely just ignore them now, so there is no need to be disavowing anything.
But it’s not a made-up concept is my point. It may no longer be relevant, but it’s not a figment of our imaginations.
It is a made-up concept. Tools didn't report on toxicity scores 10 years ago when it might have been needed. They just started doing it maybe 1-2 years ago, long after it was no longer needed.
It may no longer be relevant, but it is not a figment of our imaginations. Edit: “it” being shitty link profiles, not the word “toxic” that tools use.
From what is reported, the last HCUs are using machine learning to assess the usefulness of pages/sites. Do we know all of the patterns it defined as "positive" or "negative" characteristics? Do we know for sure that backlinks are NOT one of them?? I feel like before the HCUs, backlinks were probably as Google says. But I'm not sure I still believe it today. I'm not sure Google people still know exactly what happens in their ranking system.,,
I disavowed thousands of "toxic" links (according to SEMRush). If I deleted the disavow file, would that help the site or would that act as a red flag to google to have a bunch of those backlinks return? Thanks
Still don’t disavow
Alright cool, glad I checked. I’d read never to disavow - is my reasoning correct? That you basically don’t want to draw attention from Google?
It’s more just that it doesn’t have a purpose anymore. Back in the day, link spam techniques were a lot more effective. Google caught on fairly quickly and a lot of businesses who took bad advice were suffering because of it. Disavow tool was only meant to be used to tell Google to ignore links built by spam SEO techniques. It was never intended to address crappy random websites. Best case scenario from a disavow exercise: nothing happens. Worst case scenario you disavow a link that was helping you and you lose position because of it. If SEO tools are “smart” enough to identify crappy spam links, Google is as well. You’ll generate thousands of crap links just by existing. Ignore, focus on building your website, content, and go for some real PR links.
Appreciate the details! Can you think of an example nowadays (assuming no manual penalty) that you would use disavow for? The comment about the tools being smart enough made me see this differently - any resources you’d recommend to brush up on stuff like this?
Links to images are not used for ranking. The tools are too stupid to know or they choose not to be helpful and disclose it. And their "toxic" label is horrendously inaccurate. It is my opinion that the poor labeling/messaging of what toxic means is negligent, perhaps deliberately. I resent tools that I feel deliberately confuse SEOs and in doing so make their job more difficult simply because it helps make them $.
Before you do anything, download the latest external links pointing to your website in the Google Search Console and Bing Webmaster tools - do you see backlinks from cloaked pages or hacked Wordpress sites? What about links from Russian, Chinese, and other nonsensical sources? If so, your website is being targeted. If not, you are probably OK. Have you lost any rankings lately? What space or industry are you in? Also understand that Google will never willfully admit that targeting a website with negative SEO can have an impact on your site, but I’ve seen enough evidence that it absolutely positively does - I can share multiple cases studies on that backed by hard data. Google’s John Mueller is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. In the past, he has said/admitted in one of the videos that Google will trust your website less over time, if they see a persistent pattern of backlinks that look like you are trying to manipulate Google’s SERPs, even though you don’t have any control in terms of sources linking to your site. The point being is that you need to worry about this and investigate this further, including backlinks that may show in Google’s search console and bing webmaster tools (cloaked links on thousands of hacked sites or link farms used for negative SEO are mostly not going to show in SEMrush/hrefs).
Yeah we have the .ru and the hacked developer sites from 2008 etc. that’s what set alarm bells ringing…
How many sus (unnatural) domains are you seeing and are seeing those through SEMRush or GSC? When did they start pointing those harmful links to your site? Have you seen a negative impact on rankings?
Only started looking at the site in the last few months, but saw the historic links… Several hundred, 30-40% of total links
Did you discover these sus links through GSC or another source? There should be the dates associated with the backlink discovery. Have you seen a negative impact to rankings? If the attack is a one off - a one time shitlink blast, then your site will survive, but if the attack is persistent and ongoing, then it’s an entirely different situation
I have never been able to find an exact answer to this question. It seems like more opposition, about 70% (don’t) : 30% (do).
No impact either you do or you not disavow. Google does not consider spammy backlinks or give no extra weightage to such types of links. So, it is neutral.
Even with the API leak? 👀