Disavowing domains, subdomains, sites w/ same hosting?

[radarroy]

I have a question about disavowing links.

Over the past month or so I suspect that someone has been hitting my site with negative SEO and most of these links have been coming from sites hosted on the same servers.

And 90% of these links are sub-domains of another domain, example

Site1.Spamdomain.com

So my questions are:

1: If I disavow the main domain, would that also disavow the sub-domain?
2: If I download all the sites on this server (all are spammy sites) would there be any problem in adding them to my disavow file?

[radarroy]

SuperT, I didn't only disavow all the links, but every site on their server. A few months back they were just links pointing to my home page, but then they began adding tons of anchor tags that focused on the local heating and cooling contractors, plumbers, lawn services.....

Look these links up as I did in Google cache and you will be able to see the page(s)

[Walt Hartwell]

Super T,
There are obviously different opinions on whether disavow is a valid tool. Disavow started as a way to disavow links a site owner built, but later decided to distance themselves from. It has morphed into a way for site owners to basically put a "no-follow" on links to their site. It is totally algorithmic, no person is going to review your links and your disavowed links and make judgments, it is all done by a computer program.

When I noticed very similar links to a site I own, I disavowed using the methods I posted earlier. I continue to add sites that show up as they show up. Eventually Google will notice this type of site promotion and devalue links associated with it. Until that time, I consider it prudent to disavow those links just so an algorithm doesn't flag my site as a false spam positive.

For this specific spam configuration, I find it takes 5-15 minutes a week to keep abreast of it, which I consider a reasonable time investment.

[tangor]

Eventually Google will notice this type of site promotion and devalue links associated with it

This is a good heart assumption I do question. G, as you and others have said, has an algorithmic heart, ie, ain't human, and has no concept of right or wrong or even what is a "value". And these days that "do no evil" slogan is just an empty platitude.

I mange 301 websites. Via agreement with most I ask if they want the g experience or the wild web. Not quite half split on this, but close to half (134) went no g, the rest g all the way. For that other "half" that wants g I asked if they want all suggestions by g or just let it fly, that turned out to be just about half once again.

Final numbers (as these have been running 2+ years), and none were ever in the hinky link scenario, I manages these, but they are competing in the arena of hinky link sites, etc.

First not half but no g doing as expected or better
Second half, the half in the let it fly, doing as expected
Last half of the g half are doing, but not as expected.

Specifications: that half of the last half wanted all suggestions via GWT and all suggestions re: page speed and etc. All efforts to comply were accomplished as I am, after all, a hired gun who will dispassionately do the job required.

Costs:

First not half, no expense to site owners.
Same for the let it fly group.
24-46% uprate in final group. (My time and keystrokes required, etc)

Much of this brouhaha was brought about by greedy stupid webmasters in the first place, hence the disavow tool creation so I have no compassion in that regard, but it has turned into something else over the last three years and that's to refine and update G specifically... and in that regard I am not willing to be one of the soldiers in that campaign. (unless paid as a mercenary to do so)

I do hope my metaphors have not made this comment unclear. But in final comment I will state that DO NOTHING in the face of evil just might get you through the day, that, and an understanding that G needs YOUR help to solve THEIR problem which YOU (not all of you of course!) brought about with hinky links.

This is not a "plan" for all, heck, it's not even good advice. Just a report of one campaign on the web. And as YMMV (your mileage may vary) implies take it as a grain of salt.

[Walt Hartwell]

@tangor
Do you mange before you 301 redirect, or do you think it's better to 301 redirect, then mange? :)

Obviously messing with you, thanks for your contribution.

I think we are in the time of tools where in previous times it was easier for an individual to make evaluations and interpret data then plan a course of action for their website. If you are managing 300 plus websites, I'd tend to think you are probably accessing tools that the individual site owners either can't justify the expense or aren't even aware the tools exist.

I'd also tend to think your experiences are a result of decent practices. Since you were managing, all sites are probably going to have similar structural design. Which would mean that G interpretation/valuation is probably fairly loose if the underlying fundamental structure is good.

Rip my theory up here, I'm floating it for that purpose.
I'd also suggest people look at the tools that are out there. Choose some SERPs, then run the top sites through some tools and see what stands out to you.

[radarroy]

Ok, guys now a new question, the server with all these sites spamming me appears to have shut down. Should I keep these sites in my disavow file or delete them?

[SuperT]

Thanks for all the feedback. I'm close to trying it but obviously disavowing should not be taken lightly. However, it is very difficult for me to believe why these people even have links pointing to us in this manner. How long does Google typically pick up a disavow? How will I be able to know that disavowing has an impact?

[Darkmoher]

You should disavow every subdomain including "www." subdomain.

[Darkmoher]

to delete

[radarroy]

DarkMoher, so your recommendation then is for me, to delete these domains that no longer exist, do I understand you correctly?

[Walt Hartwell]

radarroy,
In the past, people would often try to learn the concepts behind the information people presented.

Generally, if posters have a low post count, their input should be evaluated with that low post count in mind. I'm up to a whopping 19 posts, so take it all with a grain of salt.

The links from the spamming sites to your site have not yet all been discovered by the search engines. When two or three weeks have passed with no new spammy links showing up, that would be the time where you might want to re-evaluate your disavow list.

There are times where I can see search engine reaction to changes I make within a few days. More often, changes I make aren't fully reflected by search engines for many weeks.

[tangor]

Obviously messing with you, thanks for your contribution.

Yes, you are. :)

I tend to keep things simple. Rule #1 never depend on google. Rule #2, see rule #1.

MEANWHILE, I have no compelling need, or desire, to do google's job of validating links on the web. After all, they are, by self-proclamation, the be all, end all of the web.

As I have never done hinky links that some g algo made me regret, I've never had that problem.

[Walt Hartwell]

I have no compelling need, or desire, to do google's job of validating links on the web either.

But, I do prefer to use readily available ways to avoid potential problems with their filters. It isn't only for hinky links you've built, it's simply a way to put a condom on incoming links you do not trust.

Google is like the weather, it's everywhere, often impacts what people do day to day, and sometimes really puts a hurt on some individuals. So, I look at forecasts, observe conditions and prepare as best I can for the foreseeable future.

I'll also note that well built houses often survive weather that disrupts/destroys less well thought out structures.