Whitey - 11:10 am on Jun 3, 2013 (gmt 0)
They're a recap of Matt Cutts quotes from the last 12 months.
@ColourOfSpring - Maybe I wasn't clear in the question. The article links to further articles in bold, referenced specifically from step 3. Do you or anyone else have issues with that list? [ I do have some concerns - btw ]. But let's try to isolate specifics. :
Here are the steps you need to take to recover from Penguin 2.0:
Step 3. Build new inbound links using white-hat tactics like guest blogging, while abiding by proper anchor text rules with your new inbound links. [audiencebloom.com...]
>> Next ..... >
I note that Matt Cutts says
If you have been hanging out in a lot of blackhat forums, trading different types of spamming package tips and that sort of stuff, then this might be a more eventful summer for you
But I'm guessing most people here (like myself) have done nothing of the sort, but perhaps (also like me) have some dubious incoming links from very old link exchanges and directory submissions, and others they don't know where they came from. So it's clearly both inaccurate and rather insulting to say that penguin 2 only applies if we 'have been hanging out in a lot of blackhat forums, trading different types of spamming package tips'.
I think you are right on the money and I am finding Matt Cutts' and Google's attitude to all of this quite offensive.
@Rasputin / BeeDeeDubbleU - this is the article writer Jayson DeMers words. Matt Cutts is endorsing the article as an accurate way to get out of Penguin 2.0.
There's nothing really new here except for SEJ's opinion on the subject of Penguin.
@turbocharged - well what's new is that it's the 3rd mention of the disavow tool application made over the last couple of weeks by Googlers, the first time it's been mentioned in relation to Penguin 2.0 , one of the only times I recall that MC has referenced how to get out of a penalization referencing a procedure to escape and restore , and it follows a reversal of previous advices of "going easy" on the disavow tool issued last Oct/Nov'ish 2012. The latter follows on the heels of an earlier thread [webmasterworld.com...] referencing MC on the use of the tool like a machete rather than going in too timidly. This is a new emphasis supported with a lot of detailed referencing and a break from policy about commenting on penalties [ even if in semantics it's no longer termed a penalty by Google].
I'd be interested to know more about the specifics of why Jayson DeMers article's could or could not work. [ just re iterating I have some concern's about elements, but I'm not for one moment saying I'm right]. Positive / objective thoughts / specifics anyone ?
I believe it's an exceptional nugget.