Whitey - 10:17 am on Jun 23, 2013 (gmt 0)
Multiple questions about which links to disavow:
1) If a link is already nofollw, does it really need to be disavowed / removed?
No, but why would you not do this as a precaution, since you do not have control over the link if the status changes.
2) If a link is on a page that is "noindex" does it really need to be disavowed / removed? (for example, a forum profile page.)
No, but why not do the same as (1) above. How do you know what rules are in place for that site to "noindex" that page. It might change.
3) If it is a legitimate link (meaning we had nothing to do with creating that link) by some poster on a forum, but the forum is not really related to our site (although that individual page is somewhat related), does it really need to be disavowed / removed?
Honestly, I / who knows. Try and see it through Google's algorthimic eyes - would they see it as manipulative? Now that Google has introduced the disavow tool, the reality is that anything that you feel uncomfortable with should go.
4) Do we need to disavow the hundreds of sites that scrape google SERPS and link to us?
Probably. Google would argue they know the source of a document and will filter out those scrapers. But everyone knows it's way far from 100%.
5) If a link to our site is on a "links page" on another site (which links out to a dozen or more sites besides ours), does it really need to be disavowed / removed if the site is related to us?
Depends. Would it be seen as part of a network? Would it be seen to manipulate your rankings? Would you consider this to be from a low quality site/s?
6) If a link to our site appears sitewide (such as in a blogroll) on a site that is related to us, should it really need to be disavowed / removed?
Depends. Is it natural? Then again, do you think Google would see as natural even if it is?
7) Is it ok to upload disavow files in stages? Or is it best to do it all in one shebang?
It seems some folks who have not gone in hard enough have had to make several re attempts. That's a strategic question for you to answer, but the aim should be to clean your profile .
@Planet13 , additionally, I'd look at these [ not exhaustive and others may have better suggestions to share ]:
- check PR-n/a or PR0 sites to see if they are really quality
- e-commerce anchor text terms
- new domains, unless authority e.g. a new discovery in science
- any site with a reputation for advertorials
- domains with little traffic, unless authority
- identical C class , smells of an arrangement
- pages with a large number of external links, unless an authority
- on a page with reputation for other "dofollow" paid links
- press release articles [ the original ] - if someone picks it up and runs with it, fine.
- widgets with anchor text designed to boost PR / keyword terms
I'd also caution articles distributed via editorial feeds and widgets as Google may look at these as mass produced "link bait" schemes. Some may argue the morality/rules, but really who knows with Google, and it's all about mitigating the risk. Articles created out of the press release may not matter, provided the linking is given freely by the writers. It's all a risk that you have to assess on how Google will perceive it.
Moderation is the key, while you turn these sites around , but Google has just made things a lot harder to influence results through linking [ to put it politely ] - so who knows the magic threshold you can afford to play around with, if at all.
Google also seems to be not clear on how much effort it requires webmasters to demonstrate in link removal or 404/page removal. This is painful and often expensive, indeed not possible. It shouldn't matter, as Google already knows, which links are foul, but you don't know what Google has flagged. At the very least Google wants an admission of guilt before forgiveness to send a loud message to stop link manipulation of results.
How to submit the request, has some currently unanswered questions around the reconsideration request element ie is it necessary due to the automated file parsing that Matt Cutts and other Googlers have declared [webmasterworld.com...] . To me it's ambiguous since conflicting communication seems to exist from Google. No clarification or inputs from others on their interpretation has been posted, as yet, to that thread.