Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
If I run afoul of a manual action, yes; otherwise, no.I did run afoul of a manual action and completed all the steps Whitey describes (one difference I admit to: I only sent takedown requests once before disavowing) - the manual action was removed, or so I've been notified. So what? 4,6 and 9 months on (three different sites) and not a shred of difference in rankings/G traffic/Gbot activity - any of the indications I can think of that G had improved their "link trust". Bottom line: they make you jump through hoops but they have no intention of helping you in return. Basically, you're just another drone helping them clean their index for free.
Does this fill you with an incentive to get cracking on link clean ups?
As a webmaster, your goal is to reach out to sites that you explicitly purchased links from or maybe any services that you used to automatically generate backlinks to your site.
- make multiple "take down" requests to sites referring "bad links" to your website.
- keep documentation of those efforts
- clearly articulate, and if possible evidence efforts, that you are serious about removing those links to Google, in any future reconsideration request
- when you have made 2 or 3 attempts to take down those links, then use the disavow tool
- send your reconsideration request in.
If a site owner has lost Google's trust, it probably isn't because of "negative SEO." It could be, but realistically, it's probably because the site or its SEO went a little too far with "link building." (In my sector, sketchy link building is rampant, and there are thousands of bloggers who'll happily take your money for plain-vanilla text links or for links that are buried in "guest posts" or "sponsored posts.")
[edited by: aakk9999 at 2:57 pm (utc) on Aug 11, 2013]
[edit reason] ToS [/edit]
The "it's too much hassle to do negative SEO" argument doesn't reflect actual reality.
I didn't say anything about whether negative SEO is easy or difficult to do. I said that negative SEO could be the reason why a site owner lost Google's trust, but, "realistically, it's probably because the site or its SEO went a little too far with 'link building.'"
[edited by: ColourOfSpring at 4:15 pm (utc) on Aug 11, 2013]
Unfortunately, the video does not address what should be done if "unnatural" (or better say, "dodgy") links were not placed or ordered by webmaster, and instead the site has "obtained" such links via scrappers or as a result of a negative SEO.
If there's any site you don't want to be associated with that's linking to you and you want to say, "Hey, I got nothing to do with this site," you can just do a disavow.
This whole disavow tool is designed to turn us into unpaid manual reviewers for Google, and the data they collect from this will likely be used for another purpose in the future.
I did want to note that in most every case that I have been involved, getting links removed from 50% of the domains targeted has been pretty standard. I'm not sure where the 5% is coming from.This could only be the case where you have absolute control over the link, i.e. you stop paying for it, and it goes away - exactly the type of bad link Google is trying to identify. It's either that or you've got extremely lucky.
What Google wants to see is hard work and acknowledgement that you tried to remove those links.
You may be able to find the owners of those websites via whois, contacting the website, etc.
Its not going to be fun, but chalk it up to a good learning experience. I would go that route rather than throwing away a decent domain with some age.
This whole disavow tool is designed to turn us into unpaid manual reviewers for Google, and the data they collect from this will likely be used for another purpose in the future. How many of you have all this free time that you don't mind doing Google's job for free? I surely don't.
From feedback I've been hearing, approximately 95% of sites will not take down links, for a likely variety of reasons. So the effort is in-practical.
It's hard to believe so many webmasters accept this whole disavow tool/link garbage as being fair. At any given time a site could be hit with tens of thousands of links from someone that simply wants to rank higher than you. They will even buy you links so that they can report you for the links they paid for! I've seen it happen a number of times, and I'm sure it's only going to get worse and more widespread as time goes on.
I completely agree here. For a small webmaster it is painful for me to take time out of my schedule and go in the painstaking process of identifying scrappers, then contacting them individually to take down the content, following up with them and finally when they dont respond I report them to Google with the disavow tool.
How difficult is it for Google to develop a standard and then push it for popular publishing platforms which allows content creators to ping with the content they have created. So that if anyone scrapes them Google knows its a duplicate.
I understand fat pings have been around since some time but Google has not approved / denied them.
With the amount of tools that are available it does not take a smart person a couple of hours to rip apart and clone a 8 - 10 year website.
You'll be happy to know that "scrapper sites" don't have a lot of trust signals to devalue your pages and if they happen to have more than you you have bigger problems... e.g. your content isn't all that original and likely not the first version Google had in its archive.True to a certain degree. But not always.
Google could easily just accept the disavow tool and release the manual action. But they re emphasise and acknowledge that the exercise is "going to be painful". Before they restore "trust" they are saying that they want some evidence that the site involved will not engage in SPAM linking again.
Google has lost my trust. They need to now earn it back.