Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
I think it's pretty poor the way quite a few "SEOs" spread the FUD for Google on the disavow rather than exercising some simple reasoning and letting people know part of the reason it was introduced was:
to be able to help in negative SEO situations and/or in a situation where you hire a SEO and they do something wrong without your knowledge and/or in a situation where you actually built some spammy links...
I remember that before the Disavow Tool was ever created, many webmasters and SEOs were crying out for a way to disavow bad backlinks. Then the tool got offered and immediately the cry was "don't use it - you're confessing to wrong doing if you do."
Q: Can this tool be used if I'm worried about "negative SEO"?
A: The primary purpose of this tool is to help clean up if you've hired a bad SEO or made mistakes in your own link-building.
This is an advanced feature and should only be used with caution. If used incorrectly, this feature can potentially harm your site’s performance in Google’s search results. We recommend that you disavow backlinks only if you believe you have a considerable number of spammy, artificial, or low-quality links pointing to your site, and if you are confident that the links are causing issues for you. In most cases, Google can assess which links to trust without additional guidance, so most normal or typical sites will not need to use this tool.
Your text file can include additional information about excluded links, as long as each line of description begins with the "#" character (all lines beginning with # will be ignored).
Google doesn't know that ;)Oh yes they do.
...there was another thread here from a current Google employee interview in EU (I think) that said it does not even harm the site being disavowed.)
"I would concentrate on the links reported in the Webmaster Tools on Google"
"Do not worry about damaging other people, that does not happen"
"Be aware of the site-wide disavow possibility, it will make your life easier" have been the key sentences in his reply. I am thankful for such a definite answer and thought I’d share it here.
and I don't think that Google wants to allow people to evade their own actions either. Here's a discussion where I don't feel we have full diagnosis or disclosure, sad in either case....
I also think, in the case of Penguin manual actions/penalties, that there is a punishment aspect to this, and that Google does want the process to require some sweat, along with some self-awareness and thorough analysis.
Another question about justifying using the tool, what about just disavowing, or starting the disavow list, from the sites with links that cause errors?
Also, if you've hired an SEO (the first thing he says in the quote above), that's not you doing it or confessing to anything except getting "taken" by someone who didn't do their job right and may have hosed you in the process.
I feel like a softer pitch would have reduced the FUD.
Those links happen naturally on the InternetOh my no, for that I wasn't referring to naturally occurring, natural errors.
Does anyone know of any site-owners with "unnatural link notices" that were unaffected by Penguin 2.0
I may have missed something, but think it's important to receive feedback on, as many folks were waiting to see "what happened". [webmasterworld.com...]
I posted over here, but no-one responded, so reposted here.
Perhaps it's more relevant, assuming folks who didn't respond to the unnatural link notices with the disavow tool would have read this.
Also, could I additionally ask if any folks that didn't do anything were hit by Penguin 2.0 [ I assume there were ].
Can we have some inputs - I think it would be helpful to know especially from the "unaffected ones".