Updated Disavow File by Mistake-Traffic Soars!

[McMohan]

22nd Nov - Disavow file overwritten by mistake. Some domains previously disavowed, re-avowed as a result. The error went unnoticed until over 10 days.
29th Nov - Organic traffic from Google increases by over 100 percent and currently has highest ever traffic.

Questions I am asking -
1. Should I again update the disavow file to include the domains that were removed as a result of the error? Those domains were not obvious spam, but a few links from some high PR directories, which were purchased.
2. Is the increase in traffic a result of re-avowing those domains. Isn't a week's time too small for it? Or is traffic increased due to some factor totally unrelated?
3. Should I leave those domains re-avowed, since disavowing-reavowing-disavowing frequently may send wrong signals to Google?

Thanks!

[McMohan]

I'm curious to know what kinds of improvements you have been making, as I think we're all curious to know what might have produced a 100% traffic boost.

It helps to tell you that it is an ecommerce site. Towards end September, we redesigned the site, including UI and layout. The CTAs were organized more rationally. Overall it was a big leap over the previous design, reflected in lower bounce rate, higher time on website and more number of pages per session. Conversion rate improved. Every 2-3 months a batch of new articles are added on unique topics relevant to the niche, not covered by most competing sites. The traffic didn't change until Nov-29.

PS: All that said, good luck with reinstating the disavow.

Thank you! Appreciate it

[fathom]

1. The links came as a legacy.

Define "legacy" as it relates to question #1; who created the links?

2. The links that were disavowed were largely directories and a couple on the homepages, directories made for SEO. Ranks went south a few weeks after the links appeared on the homepage. May not be cause and effect, but didn't see any value keeping those links.

Specifically... your target KEYWORD RICH PHRASES as the anchor text. Is that what make these SEO specific?

The reason I ask this ... Assuming PENGUIN nailed you... You can't regain results (thus traffic) for the offending links until PENGUIN ReRUNs so IF the massive increase is related to the disavowing hiccup you likely disavowing links that were not impacted by PENGUIN.

3. There was no manual action on the site. I am not sure for an algorithmic filter such as Penguin, you have to prove to Google that you have tried to take the links down or add nofollow. Easier will be to add the domains in the disavow file IMHO.

In theory, PENGUIN adds its own NOFOLLOW to links it preceives as UNNATURAL which tends to be the high risk keyword phrases Matt Cutts mentions, although with tons of observations after a PENGUIN ReRUN website seem to recover somewhat with not just less links but with a lot less keyword anchors. The only way that can actually occur is if internal link anchors that sport the same anchors are not protect from PENGUIN. Thus if we stick with the theory of NOFOLLOW with no ability to PageRank Sculpt such internal links pass PageRank into oblivion, although once you have fixed your UNNATURAL EXTERNAL LINKS the internal ones are released from their oblivion PageRank passes.

Are the links indeed UNNATURAL and how do you define what an UNNATURAL LINK is?

I will not venture a definition, but those directory links are hardly natural, allowing only the sites that submit free or paid, unedited.

A HIGH RISK UNNATURAL LINK is anchored with a keyword.

A link scheme is the second version of UNNATURAL LINKS. Commonly owned by the same enterprise. A directory that is FREE (e.g. DMOZ) is hardly a link scheme. A paid for directory (e.g. YAHOO!) is hardly a link scheme, and while UNEDITED might indeed be problematic ... If you avoid HIGH RISK anchor text, Thus appropriately edit yourself... PENGUIN will most certainly ignore those links.

Clearly if the domain itself was that bad it wouldn't pass PageRank at all (there is a penalty for that).

You can certainly be SAFE but I would hire a professional rather than being LESS SUCCESSFULLY SAFE. The point here is PENGUIN tag the unnatural links ... They already turned off ... Disavowed or not they are turned off, so IF this is about that you have a need to know.

[McMohan]

fathom, First up, thanks for your detailed response.

PENGUIN adds its own NOFOLLOW to links it preceives as UNNATURAL which tends to be the high risk keyword phrases Matt Cutts mentions

Going by this, if you have plenty of brand name anchor text "dofollow" (without nofollow) links on low quality forums as signatures, blogs as comments, directories, Web 2.0 profiles, Social bookmarks, etc you would still be safe from Penguin? If there are good number of good quality links, those links alone will help the website rank irrespective of whether or not those low quality brand name links are present? Will it then follow that the only way such a site will suffer is through a manual review?

IF the massive increase is related to the disavowing hiccup you likely disavowing links that were not impacted by PENGUIN

If I had disavowed good links, could traffic have increased within a week by reavowing them? Isn't there such a thing as lag?

[fathom]

PENGUIN adds its own NOFOLLOW to links it preceives as UNNATURAL which tends to be the high risk keyword phrases Matt Cutts mentions

Going by this, if you have plenty of brand name anchor text "dofollow" (without nofollow) links on low quality forums as signatures, blogs as comments, directories, Web 2.0 profiles, Social bookmarks, etc you would still be safe from Penguin? If there are good number of good quality links, those links alone will help the website rank irrespective of whether or not those low quality brand name links are present? Will it then follow that the only way such a site will suffer is through a manual review?

What makes “forums as signatures, blogs as comments, directories, Web 2.0 profiles, Social bookmarks,” low quality. As an example: WebmasterWorld offers a signature link, is that high or low quality?

What are “good quality links”?

A manual review requires someone to do research and point the offense out to Google’s Webspam Team. If they see (according to Matt Cutts) high risk link anchors I’m positive you’ll have a Manual Review. But if they only see usernames, site names (not keywordy) they may ignore the spam report, unless it is clear you are participating in a link scheme.

IF the massive increase is related to the disavowing hiccup you likely disavowing links that were not impacted by PENGUIN

If I had disavowed good links, could traffic have increased within a week by reavowing them? Isn't there such a thing as lag?

You never lost the traffic from the domains, it is assumed you lost ranks then regained ranks. Any lag is Googlebot crawling each page that was disavowed to undo that action. JohnMu suggests you should file a disavow list at least 4 weeks in advance of a PENGUIN ReRUN to allow Googlebot enough time to crawl every page but would believe it doesn’t wait 4 weeks to start and you don’t likely need “all links crawled” to see a change.

The ONLY question here is "are your current observations about the disavow file edit or not". If it is, it is 100% guaranteed that PENGUIN ignored some of the links you disavowed... I can't claim they are NATURAL, I'm suggesting you find a way to make them appear NATURAL, rather than simply disavowing them again.

[McMohan]

What makes “forums as signatures, blogs as comments, directories, Web 2.0 profiles, Social bookmarks,” low quality. As an example: WebmasterWorld offers a signature link, is that high or low quality?

I mentioned "low quality forums as signatures...". What makes them low quality is they themselves have a history of abusing Google algorithm or carry little unique content or carry a large number of "dofollow" links with exact match keyword anchor text to low-quality sites. My links might not necessarily have keyword anchor text on them, but I am on a wrong site among a bad neighborhood, which makes me vulnerable. Isn't it sufficient ground for Penguin to apply?

Any lag is Googlebot crawling each page that was disavowed to undo that action

Quoting from [searchenginewatch.com ] - "However, Matt Cutts has stated that Google has built a lag into the reavow feature of the tool"

If we do take what Matt said on its face value, even if those disavowed links were useful, and Google crawled those URLs after reavowing them, letting the pagerank juice flow, wouldn't this lag prevent the site from having a dramatic improvement in ranks?

[keyplyr]

I didn't notice this "lag" a year & a half ago when I removed 90% of my disavow links. I saw a boost in SERP position in about a week. Maybe this "lag" wasn't in effect at that time or maybe it just isn't so. IMO there's quite a bit of talk that ain't so.

[Wilburforce]

Maybe this "lag" wasn't in effect at that time or maybe it just isn't so.

Or maybe something else accounted for the boost.

Penguin is not running continuously, so whatever the answer to the time-lag question it is also possible that adding a suspect backlink now - whether as a new link or by reinstating it by amending the disavow file - may have a positive effect until Penguin next runs, and a negative effect thereafter.

I think the important thing to weigh up is the potential positive effect of a link - if it is from a forum that probably won't be much unless the forum is highly regarded and/or ranked - against the potential risk, which if the anchor-text is an exact key-term match should not be underestimated. I don't believe that Penguin's differentiation between "natural" and "unnatural" links is either based on a distinction we would all agree with or infallible in execution, so I don't think it is safe to assume that any link is OK (although underlying patterns are probably much more dangerous than individual links).

My own policy has been "if in doubt throw it out" (especially if it postdates my site's historic top position for many key terms, as I obviously didn't need it then), but it is very difficult in the current climate to see what harm or good has come of it.

[fathom]

Abuse doesn't mean "you have to abuse" and if you don't abuse PENGUIN will ignore your links.

Here at WebmasterWorld your signature link is a domain URL which draws relatedness from your username which suggests you can't abuse it.

If the traffic change was related to the disavow file and you replaced the previous version; traffic should decline. If it doesn't this thread is moot.

[Wilburforce]

if you don't abuse PENGUIN will ignore your links

Are you saying false-positves are impossible, and that "negative SEO" never works?

[fathom]

That's a different thread... It is clear here, when the OP suggests they did everything... There are no false positive but YES you can do NEGATIVE SEO on yourself, contrary to popular opinion.

[McMohan]

If the traffic change was related to the disavow file and you replaced the previous version; traffic should decline. If it doesn't this thread is moot.

Agreed. I have reinstated those links in the disavow file and it is now 3 days since I did it. Will update this thread if traffic drops in a few days.

[Robert Charlton]

McMohan, getting back to the question of whether the Nov 28 Phantom update might have been the cause of the traffic increase, your clear description of the onsite work done leading up to Nov 28/29 makes me believe that the new traffic came because of the Phantom update and Google's reactions to your onsite changes... and not because of the over-writing of your disavow file.

Discussion above regarding disavow suggests that reinstating the file was a prudent move. I doubt that the site is going to drop because of loss of link juice when the file is reinstated.

To look at what you'd done and compare that with what Google valued in Phantom 3, this is how you described your changes....

Towards end September, we redesigned the site, including UI and layout. The CTAs were organized more rationally. Overall it was a big leap over the previous design, reflected in lower bounce rate, higher time on website and more number of pages per session. Conversion rate improved. Every 2-3 months a batch of new articles are added on unique topics relevant to the niche, not covered by most competing sites. The traffic didn't change until Nov-29.

These changes sound like they're completely in line with what Google rewarded on the Phantom 3 update [webmasterworld.com].

Note that I've just added to the Phantom 3 discussion some additional comments about the kinds of factors observed in the update, and also some thoughts about the Marcus Tober SearchMetrics analysis, which I hadn't seen when I originally posted.

[Jez123]

Any update on this? I'm interested to know if traffic is still soaring.

[McMohan]

Jez123, good to see the thread revived. From average December 2015 traffic AFTER the traffic soared to average January 2016 traffic, traffic increased by another 50%. Traditionally this niche has lowest traffic in December and in January it recovers. Whatever it was, again disavowing the reavowed links didn't affect the ranks.

[Wilburforce]

Whatever it was, again disavowing the re-avowed links didn't affect the ranks.

We don't know whether the first change to the disavow file - "re-avowing" the links - was picked up before they were disavowed again: if, e.g., Google does nothing about the effect of a disavowed link until the next time it is crawled, there may be a considerable delay between a change in the disavow file and any possible effect, even if there isn't any deliberate time-lag.

Consequently, although we can be pretty certain the links had nothing to do with the traffic boost, we still don't have any clear evidence about the effect of the disavow file.