Google Encourages Webmasters To Remove Backlinks Before Using Disavow Tool

[engine]

Nothing particularly new in this message, but a repeat as a reminder.

I wonder if the disavow tool is being overused?

The problem here is that sometimes it's impossible to get links removed, especially from sites where the webmaster is awol, or if it's being used for negative seo.

For a reconsideration request to be successful, a significant percentage of inorganic links should be removed from the website. If you can get a backlink removed, remove the link instead of adding it to the disavow file. Simply disavowing links will not be enough to make a reconsideration request successful.Google Encourages Webmasters To Remove Backlinks Before Using Disavow Tool [plus.google.com]

[Saffron]

I do think that their results are better actually, but they are not perfect.

Two years ago you could search a topic and just find very thin content from buzzle etc., with really nothing compelling to say. I do actually think there is more 'authority' nowaways, but it depends on the algorithm change at the time. Right now I see lots of domain crowding and wikihow type articles., but in general I think they have moved in the right direction in removing a lot of rubbish.

I think what peeves me about this link removal thing is that when I have posted my link on forums, it's actually been with the intention of getting forums readers to click on the link, it's never, ever been about improving my ranking with Google. They assume it's always about gaming them, it's not.

[Awarn]

But Saffron if you post links so a forum user comes to your site and then you get AdSense revenue because of that user, why should Google pay you? I think the major issue with links is the fact people are generating AdSense revenue from them. Eliminate AdSense and I don't think links would be an issue.

[Saffron]

But if you come to my site and click on an Adsense ad, I am assuming that you have clicked because you are interested in the product. So why shouldn't I be paid for it? As long as the click is legitimate, does it matter where the user came from?

I wouldn't post a link to my site here for two reasons 1) it's not allowed and 2) it's completely irrelevant to the subject matter. I'm sure a small percentage of users would be interested in the topic. But, if I'm on a forum and it is relevant, I post a link, some people go check it out, click on an ad if they're interested in, it's no different to them coming via Google, a link from another site, news article etc.

PS: It's not even about posting links to get people to the site to click on ads. Only a tiny number of people click on ads. The site came before Adsense was even invented. Yes, the income is nice, but it's not all about making money either.

[Leosghost]

<slightly OT>

Eliminate AdSense and I don't think links would be an issue.

Eliminate adsense and IMO 99% of all spam, content and image copyright abuse , re-spinning etc and crap sites, and links that need disavowing, negative SEO etc would vanish from the web over night..

And yes I have an adsense account, but what I wrote there is so true that I'd be perfectly happy if adsense didn't exist..I could live perfectly well via ecomm and direct ad sales..I preferred the web before adsense and other "place the code and auto-run the ad feed" existed..
</slightly OT>

[Saffron]

Spam existed before Adsense and it would exist after Adsense. Maybe not as much, but it would be there.

Spammers and webmasters still want you to visit their site to read their content, to click on other ads (not just the Adsense ones), buy their product, sign up for their subscription etc.

[Robert Charlton]

rish3 posted earlier...

The webmaster guidelines were pretty consistent, yes...but what they actually valued and rewarded did not match their guidelines.

Yes, I see it pretty much the same. I do believe that while Google gave many warnings, Google also waited too long to give teeth to these guidelines. Google may perhaps have held back with the widespread penalties until it was more sure that false positives were rare... I don't know... but I do know that there was a considerable time when SEOs debated whether Google really meant what it said about link spam, and when it was virtually impossible to rank legitimately in some niches without purchased links.

So, no one twisted anybody's arms, but it was hard for a conservative SEO like me to persuade a certain kind of client to stick it out and believe the guidelines. Those who did, I'm happy to say, did get rewarded in the long run.

There were also SEOs from the start who simply took the lazy way out, and mostly they are the ones who are howling now. But I also get depressed almost every time I see how sloppy and greedy some webmasters have been, and they really can't blame Google for that.

Ditto, many fell for link packages that they should have known were too good to be true... and most of these were warned. I had drag out battles with some clients.
.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 9:45 am (utc) on Sep 7, 2014]

[Robert Charlton]

Not "punitive," but "educational"...

John Mueller was pretty explicit in agreeing with this. Back about a year ago, Jim Boykin posted a series of transcripts of conversations he'd had with Google's John Mueller in a Google group chat. Here's a very telling comment from John....

John Mueller and Jim talk Disavows – The lost transcripts
Part 2 (of 2)
Internet Marketing Ninjas Blog
Posted by Jim Boykin - 28 August 2013
http://www.internetmarketingninjas.com/blog/google/john-mueller-disavow-links/ [internetmarketingninjas.com]

JM: "They just want to see that you’re really spending a significant amount of time to clean up this problem so that they can kind of be sure that you’re not going to turn around and do it again."

I remember putting one client through a cleanup that I insisted on, before there was a disavow or official cleanup. Not the most tactful thing to do with a client, but it was effective. I just showed them Yahoo Site Explorer (which was still available... sigh) and showed them how obvious the patterns were, and they got all the links taken down immediately.

[EditorialGuy]

I think one problem with Google's Webmaster Guidelines isn't with the guidelines themselves, but with how they're perceived. Many SEOs and site owners view the guidelines as a list of rules that can be circumvented with loopholes (e.g., purchased "guest posts" with links as a substitute for paid links), when in fact they're principles-based and the "rules" are merely examples.

Google now states explicitly:

"These quality guidelines cover the most common forms of deceptive or manipulative behavior, but Google may respond negatively to other misleading practices not listed here. It's not safe to assume that just because a specific deceptive technique isn't included on this page, Google approves of it. Webmasters who spend their energies upholding the spirit of the basic principles will provide a much better user experience and subsequently enjoy better ranking than those who spend their time looking for loopholes they can exploit."

In finance, this is called "principles-based regulation," as opposed to "rules-based regulation." It's been Google's approach all along, but now that approach or policy has been spelled out in no uncertain terms.