Google Is Giving Me My Links Back (Doubled in a month)

[Sally Stitts]

Has anyone else been blessed with getting their links back?

Recent GSC results for incoming links -
Jan through Aug - 4x K
Aug. 1 - 41 K
Aug. 16 - 50 K
Aug. 29 - 61 K
Sep. 12 - 81 K
Sep. 19 - 95 K
WOW! Will this continue?

Huge return of "links to your site", but other stats pretty much unchanged.
Which "named update" might this involve?

Has anyone else been blessed with "re-recognized links"?
Is there anything I can do to encourage this trend?
Something has "kicked in", that's for sure. Hope I don't jinx it.
.

[keyplyr]

If some of the backlinks were included in your disavowlinks.txt, I wonder if those would still count as negative if they were now removed ... assuming this is an official move by Google

[Robert Charlton]

If some of the backlinks were included in your disavowlinks.txt...

See some extensive comments I just posted in this thread, fairly late in the thread, about various possibilities of disavow that could touch on this, different ways Google might look at disavowed links...

Massive jumps in GSC legacy crawl errors - who sees this?
Sept 2016
https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4817870.htm [webmasterworld.com]

[keyplyr]

Yes, that' a geat post Bob. It goes way beyond the level of understanding I have about back links & how Google uses the disallowlinks list.

I should probably read both of those several times:)

[Sally Stitts]

I had disavowed some links, based upon way too many from a just a few very SHIFTY-sounding domain names seeking legimacy - hundreds of links from single URLs.
Since I have never noticed ANY changes due my disavowal files, I gave up on it a year ago, because "disavowal" seemed like some scheme that simply did not work, and whose actual purpose was highly suspect, different from what was claimed - a lot of wheel-spinning with no results.
Also, I certainly did not disavow TENS of THOUSANDS of links.

I will read the referenced post now. Sounds complicated.

[Sally Stitts]

I have not seen "Massive jumps in GSC legacy crawl errors". In the last 3 months, the most crawl errors for one day was 15. Most are misspellings. One or 2 are actual deleted pages.
GSC crawl stats for pages crawled says -
High 1011
Average 179
Low 40
My site has less than 500 pages, and is very static. Some days, ALL pages seem to have been scanned.
In the last week, I estimate that my scanning activity has doubled.

[NickMNS]

The GSC incoming links report is to be viewed with a grain of salt. The links shown are far from being all inclusive and may include links that have been deleted years ago. Furthermore there is no direct correlation between the report and ranking. If you use a tools such as ahrefs or majestic, you will likely find far more links pointing to your site.

95% of links shown in my GSC link report are no-follow, the most of the do-follow links pointing to my site are not shown.

[Robert Charlton]

keyplyr, in the other post, I was simply conjecturing, why, in terms of computation load and "bookeeping", Google might prefer actual removal over disavowal alone. No way of knowing for sure.

(Disavowal, btw, as I understand from official Google statements, can't hurt the linking domains you put on the list. I have no idea how this might work collectively, though.)

Sally Stitts, as NickMNS points out, WMT/GSC does display nofollowed links, along with junk links that don't do you any good, nor probably any harm. It's maybe important to emphasize to you that disavowed links that have not been physically removed are in essence links which are simply nofollowed by Google, and, if they are still physically there, they may be shown in your GSC.

[keyplyr]

keyplyr, in the other post, I was simply conjecturing

I get that... but it's still better than my simple conjecturing :)

[aristotle]

The GSC incoming links report is to be viewed with a grain of salt.

If you're looking at the screen through a grain of salt, then as the light passes through the salt crystals, refraction and internal reflections could produce distortions and aberrations that would make the GSC information that you think you see even less reliable than it normally is.

[Sally Stitts]

I see.

Well, then, maybe, it just made me feel good to see something positive, after so much discouragement, and battles fought. Deluded I may be, but small victories can offer encouragement. I am 72 now. Looks like there ain't much more balm left in Gilead.

sigh ...

Back to dumping bogus URL errors ...
.