Is Disavowing enough? Why the myth to do more unecessarily?

[Whitey]

I'm frustrated. Sorry, but I am. We're over 2 years into original Penguin rollouts and this subject has been done to death without conclusion over 1000's of articles and threads. Still I read opposing expert commentators views.

It's about the disavow procedure, emailing webmasters and the need for reconsideration requests to be sent. Please help.

Why are so many SEO's recommending to their clients to send out unnecessary emails to remove links. This is a giant expensive waste of time and based on a myth. Or I wonder if I have got it completely wrong. I think clarity from Google is needed.

The disavow tool's intent, I believe, was to assist webmasters to remove and disassociate influence of those links pointing to their sites. Thanks Google.

Penguin:
When addressing algorithmic "penalties" involving Penguin, in these hangout's and references, Google's John Mueller states :

Aug 2013 : [youtube.com...] @47m7s : JM was asked if disavowing was as good as removing for Penguin and his response was that disavowing was "essentially the same"

Oct 2013 : [youtube.com...] [ time not available ] "if you don’t have the ability to have those links removed or you can’t contact the webmaster...the site has been stale for years now...those kind of issues...using a disavow file is fine"

Partial Matches
When addressing partial matches involving manual actions where Google has penalised the link pointing to your site, no action is required, because
a) you don't know where that link is from all of the time
b) finding it may be a crapshoot
c) the link is not under your control
d) if the link is not in your control, what is the point of sending a reconsideration request, because logically what are you being considered for.

So why is there a message on Google's Webmaster Tools suggesting that a review and reconsideration request is necessary, for partial matches with targeted manual actions, and that to disavow is not enough? Confused ?

Site wide link penalties
Seems clear cut to me. Clean up as best you can and submit a reconsideration request.

Do you think Google's instructions could be clarified better - what have you been doing and why?

Help needed here.

[Clay_More]

My interpretation is that algorithmic difficulties can be rectified with judicious use of the disavow tool. Manual actions require independent documented link removal efforts normally combined with widespread disavow submission followed by a fully documented re-inclusion request that may, or may not be considered.

Improper use of this tool may have severe impacts to your site, please make sure you fully comprehend the impacts before employing the tool.

Hope that helps.

[netmeg]

Why are so many SEO's recommending to their clients to send out unnecessary emails to remove links.

The SEOs I run with aren't doing this. But then, there's SEOs and SEOs.

[Whitey]

d) if the link is not in your control, what is the point of sending a reconsideration request, because logically what are you being considered for.

@Clay_More: Manual actions require independent documented link removal efforts normally combined with widespread disavow submission followed by a fully documented re-inclusion request that may, or may not be considered.

@Clay_More - By "manual actions" are you including "partial matches" which have involved a targeted "manual action", or not for reconsideration requests? I note that you have used the phrase "re-inclusion" request - did you mean "reconsideration request".
Could you clarify your interpretations for manual actions on:

a) partial matches and
b) site wide matches

I think it's important, as I sense some confusion coming out of your interpretation here, by mixing the two up. Apologies if I'm wrong - but that's how I see it from what you've said.


Now, the request a review button for partial matches:

Partial matches
Unnatural links to your site—impacts links
Google has detected a pattern of unnatural artificial, deceptive, or manipulative links pointing to pages on this site. Some links may be outside of the webmaster’s control, so for this incident we are taking targeted action on the unnatural links instead of on the site’s ranking as a whole.

Request a review
Tell us how you have addressed the specific issues we have listed, including all relevant information.

Reference: Google Webmastertools>Search Traffic>Manual Actions

@Netmeg - thanks for the inputs here. How are the other SEO's that you run with handling the "request a review button" that appears with instructions on the "partial match" penalty notification for inbound links. Are they ignoring this as well? Seems like a giant waste of time to me, and disinformation on Google's part, - unless I've got it completely wrong.

The disavow submission page says:

Disavow links
If you believe your site's ranking is being harmed by low-quality links you do not control, you can ask Google not to take them into account when assessing your site. You should still make every effort to clean up unnatural links pointing to your site. Simply disavowing them isn't enough
[google.com...]
... and this ?

Help me please :)

[toidi]

I did not create any bad backlinks, therefore i do not have access/ability to remove any so called bad backlinks.

[tangor]

Just have to ask. Who, besides me, have ignored this (want to say pile of farmer's friend) disavow tool as it is NOT my duty to know what is a good link or not, and, since my traffic has not been impacted too horrifically (my sites are not... shall we say... iffy in any way).

If Google wants human input to correct their algo, then they should HIRE humans to do that... Such dependence on machine code to figure out the evils that humans can do on the web is a bit short-sighted.

[EditorialGuy]

Who, besides me, have ignored this (want to say pile of farmer's friend) disavow tool as it is NOT my duty to know what is a good link or not, and, since my traffic has not been impacted too horrifically (my sites are not... shall we say... iffy in any way).

I've never used it. My impression is that the tool is for people who have gotten themselves into trouble and want to undo the damage.

Should Google do away with the tool because ignorance and a herd mentality lead people to use it when they don't need to? I don't feel strongly either way, but I'd imagine that people who have been penalized because of shady linking tactics (and who have been unable to get their toxic links removed) might not want to see it disappear.

[Zivush]

d) if the link is not in your control, what is the point of sending a reconsideration request, because logically what are you being considered for.

So why is there a message on Google's Webmaster Tools suggesting that a review and reconsideration request is necessary, for partial matches with targeted manual actions, and that to disavow is not enough? Confused ?

Maybe Google think that 100% of the links to any site should NOT be in the site's owner control. Surely some of the links to a given site might be bad links. You can also guess that with normal sites the percentage of bad-links versus total-links MUST be very low.

[Whitey]

Hey Guys - I'm enjoying those opinions, but isn't some of it wandering OT. What I've brought into question is not the logic behind why you would, or wouldn't use the disavow tool. The question is about exploring the myths or non myths around the disavow process and surrounding activities like reconsideration requests, and email "link removal campaigns", plus the messages sent out by Google.

There's a lot of SEO's or website owners reading these forums that have advised their clients, or been advised to undertake that process, who have not yet voiced their views. Anyone out there feeling strongly about this and what's been said ?

For some there's good grounds to take a particular route, and for others I respect their interpretations, but I think it would be beneficial to have any views or myths brought out into the open for discussion. There's big $$'s involved.

So, just asking. Can we be objective in this thread. It may help :)

[netmeg]

I don't use it (despite plenty of crappy links in my GWT for years and years) because there's no reason to. I've no reason to believe any of the links hurt me, and I don't want to accidentally remove something useful.

Personally, I think a lot of people run immediately to disavow links and assume negative SEO when there are plenty of other things to work on first.

[Clay_More]

@Whitey,

Apologies, I earlier attempted a response that I felt would reflect how a Googler might respond. My humor on the internet, destined for failure.

Reconsideration request is the proper course of action if the causes of a manual action have been rectified. If you haven't fixed the problems, it's probably not a good idea to do the reconsideration request.

Disavow, at the hopeful best, tells Google that you don't vouch for links that point to your site. Similar to a nofollow, but in reverse. Totally algorithmic, nobody will review or analyze any site relationships.

That's all there is. You don't understand that after 10 years?

[Whitey]

@Clay_More - Sounds great, but it's not what a lot of SEO's are saying. A couple of top tier SEO firms are quoting analysis, outreach and reconsideration requests for algorithmic Penguin penalties. Also there's conflict in what JM and MC have said, and what's on the WMT disavow file submission instructions.

I'm just teasing a response to pinpoint how the myths may be occurring.

[tangor]

It's not a myth if g says do it. Then again, they said link building was good at one time, and... well we know how that worked out. Pretty sure this will go the same route. I suppose the real question is the same as the computer in the movie War Games asked: "Would You Like To Play A Game of Tic-Tac-Toe?"

Then again, there is the myth some SEO companies and "experts" espouse that disavowing and submitting reconsideration (even if not manually penalized) will either restore lost ranking or get new ranking.

I don't believe that that actually works, we have too many threads here at webbasterworld asking why disavow and reconsideration are not doing the job...

[Clay_More]

This is a bit OT, but Google and MC have stated that nofollow links pass no link juice or anchor text value. Many SEO companies would say the same thing. So conventional wisdom would say those links are pointless.

I'll say, from my observed results, that there is some benefit from nofollow links. But, that benefit is highly dependent on the site where the link originates. Crappy links are crappy links, nofollow isn't much of a factor in that.

There is a saying in some industries "Throw it against the wall and see what sticks". In quite a few ways SEO has become like that, if you throw enough stuff at the wall, some will stick and you can claim prescient knowledge.

[Shai]

Some quick points from personal experience.

1. We have had many manual penalties revoked from just submitting disavow files. Some of these, out of curiosity, had just one line of non-comprehendible text in the reconsideration request text box. Unlike the common misconception, I have, for a long time now, doubted anyone actually reads them or pays any more then 1 minute of attention to each case. These are probably presented to a low level member of staff on a well laid out screen with some key factors enabling him/her to make very quick decision before moving to the next case.

2. We have had great results from algorithmic penalties from just submitting disavow files.

3. I will say that we have noticed that whereas 2 or 3 years ago, when you received the all clear from Google after submitting a reconsideration request, the rankings would jump back to very near previous levels. This seems to no longer be the case. I.e. they seem to have added a loss of trust period which is very difficult to regain. Or, alternately, this could be the result of just a disavow and no actual physical link removals. Who knows.

Other points I would mention:
Yes, in some cases, there seems to be a 'weigh down' effect on some sites that cannot be attributed to Penguin or Panda and a disavow has been a great tool in removing this effect. We have had numerous cases where we monitored excellent gains in rankings from just doing a disavow file. Other cases show no improvement at all so I always presumed there is some sort of tipping point for some unrecognised and unnamed 'weigh down' filter/penalty.

I suggest that its obvious why the Myth exists. Its not in the interest of SEO's to share this kind of knowledge. Whenever things such as the above is made public, it gets abused and then that avenue (shortcut, loophole, call it what you like) is blocked. Taking myself as an example, I was in two minds whether to even post about this but considering that its becoming quite common knowledge these days it can no longer be considered holy ground.

I would assume that all SEO's who have worked in the field for more than a few years and have a varied range of clients and hence experience, have some secrets/tips/loopholes that they picked up either by accident or by some experimentation. These are invaluable tools in our daily task of helping clients. Would you just give those pointers out on any public forum?

In a perfect world, it would be great for some SEOs to get together in a private forum and build a list of tips and tricks. Sorry.. gone a little OT.

[RedBar]

Would you just give those pointers out on any public forum?

Nope...well, you did ask!

[netmeg]

it would be great for some SEOs to get together in a private forum and build a list of tips and tricks

These have always existed.

[Shai]

These have always existed.

Not as tight as I would want it before sharing, :)

[Clay_More]

There's an American saying that "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Back in the day, WebmasterWorld used to have an awful lot of tips of where to find low hanging fruit, now you just need to read between the lines. It's still there, just not sitting in front of your face.

Not as tight as I would want it before sharing, :)

Probably not referencing this forum. A lot of conceptual sharing has moved to PM, Skype and email. Way of the world.

[Whitey]

We have had many manual penalties revoked from just submitting disavow files

@Shai - Thanks for sharing. That's what brings value to these threads.

Re " manual penalties" do you mean "partial matches" only? Or both?

[RedBar]

<OT>

There's an American saying that "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Nope!

The proverb 'lead a horse to water' has been in continuous use since the 12th century. John Heywood listed it in the influential glossary A Dialogue Conteinyng the Nomber in Effect of all the Prouerbes in the Englishe Tongue:

"A man maie well bring a horse to the water, But he can not make him drinke without he will."

</OT>

[Shai]

@Whitey I mean both. I think there is a misconception that partial penalties don't really hurt your overall site as they are 'targeted'. This may be true, but due to the nature of link building, they tend to be targeted at the most important key phrases/pages of a site. We have only ever seen massive drops in traffic after the partial message. We always went with the option of going through a reconsideration request.

Results after revocation has been varied and I have never really been able to pinpoint the reasons for that.

[Whitey]

We have only ever seen massive drops in traffic after the partial message. We always went with the option of going through a reconsideration request

@Shai - For partial match? What did you believe you were being reconsidered for [ this doesn't make logical sense to me ]?

Did you try the disavow only on any partial match penalties?

[Whitey]

We have had many manual penalties revoked from just submitting disavow files

@Shai - I re read your earlier post and your subsequent post. Can you clarify.

In one you say you did not use a reconsideration request for many manual penalties, only the disavow file, as per above. You went on to say this was for both partial and site-wide manual actions / penalties.

In the other you said you say you used a reconsideration request all of the time, for both partial and site-wide penalties.

Your statements appear to conflict. Have I missed something?

[Shai]

Hi Whitey. I also just re-read it and not sure where I say that we do not do a RR for a manual penalty. Can you quote the exact bit that gave you that impression out of interest? (imprecise answers is a pet hate of mine) Just to clarify:

We ALWAYS do a RR for site wide manual penalties.

We always do a RR for partial Matches. The reasoning for this is that without a revocation, you will find it impossible to rank for the key phrases you have been penalised for. I understand the descriptions of a partial manual action says that its the links that are targeted but in our experience, its the actual keywords that are made impossible to rank for until you clear the penalty. You can try this yourself by taking an affected site, look at the backlink anchor text distribution and pick the obviously over optimised anchor texts and then do some very high quality link building surrounding that anchor text. Where you would expect to see an increase in the rankings for those terms, there will be none. In our experience, this has been the case every single time.

I can also turn the question round and ask, why would they provide you with a reconsideration request button if there is nothing to be reconsidered for?

edit: ok, I think I understand where you got that impression. What I should have said is:

We have had many manual penalties revoked after a reconsideration request from just submitting disavow files

The "just" was meant to indicate that we did not carry out any link removals... just a disavow. Sorry for the confusion caused.

[Whitey]

@Shai - Thanks for clarifying. Did you have any of the links removed from the web ; did you email those site owners ?