deeper - 9:48 am on Jun 28, 2013 (gmt 0)
I think all professional SEOs say that usually an explicite action of Googles algo or quality raters needs more than one bad factor. As far as I know it#s the same with pinguin.
So the clones ALONE probably are not able to penalize, even if their anchors are recorded by Gooogle. But it may be one important factor because the number of kw-anchors definitely is part of pinguin.
I think subpages with few backlinks and most of them from clones are higly at risk.
Let us think beyond anchors. After panda and pinguin quality of backlinks has become more important, especially trust and relevance.
Do clones have trust and relevance? Before pinguin/panda a lot of low-quality backlinks were just discounted, they could not help you but didn't harm you. Now they may be a problem.
With a subpage which has most of their backlinks from clones, clones really could be a bad thing.
So, at the moment I think, disavowing clones MAY help me and cannot hurt me. The only thing which will become worse is the domainpop.
@robzilla: Do you really trust in Google to weed out bad backlinks? Why did they give us the disavow-tool...
Why Google doesn#t say "we recognize clones, don't like scrapers and therefore backlinks from them are completely deleted, they cannot help or hurt in any thinkable way"? Would be easy, reasonable and clear. It would help to diminish scrapers/clones.