Whitey - 7:55 am on Jun 3, 2013 (gmt 0)
@ColourOfSpring - the article links to a checklist of things to do. What was your view about these?
MC opens up about why the disavow tool may not work for some. "Folks are not going in hard enough". [ I've got a problem with this communication, because previously SEO's were told to go carefully, but maybe Google were surprised by the limited depth of the disavow submissions, and needed to review the comm. ]. Maybe some SEO's were having an each way bet to protect themselves. Did folks completely cull those links who claimed the tool didn't work, - what do you think?
For me the key takeaways are:
-A 3rd reinforcement from MC and John Mu of Google to cut links.
-Follow the process outlined, and now validated by Google
-Wait and be patient. Time and scale of link removal.
-Restore authority over culled links by using the methods outlined in the supporting articles
-Penalized sites have nothing to loose*
* I think they risk loosing further traffic, which many site-owners might be surviving on while being patient and waiting.
One thing that beats me is why Google just doesn't ignore these bad links. There's a niggling concern that Google might be looking to forgive sites that come forward in truth, before it's willing to forgive. A kind of amnesty or "truth commission" where past wrongdoings are admitted for the purpose of going forward at a new level.
But that's academic, better to focus on the purpose of this thread which is to get folks out of Penguin and interpret the communications as they now exist.