4 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 4 previous comments
- Pe lagic+2As I thought you have been misquoted, but please note that > 'Google are using the disavow tool to crowdsource bad links' is italicized in the article, which generally indicates a direct quotation.
Both you and Kaspar clearly state that it would make sense to use such data when there is a critical mass as such, I think many would totally agree with that.
I also note that you clearly stated 'purely hypothetical', whereas the article quotes you as saying it's an actual fact already.
ps despite the poor audio quality, it's a really good video with some great advice ;)
'The Reality of SEO' Panel Debate at BrightonSEO 2014 - Two Ex-Googlers & One Ex-SpammerApr 26, 2014
- Pe lagic+2Ye sure it has popped up many times, not unlike Analytics, amongst the many other (noisy) signals such as SERP CTRs etc !
Regarding the SEJ article that you linked to >
What do you think Google might be doing with Disavow Tool data?
If it is on proportionally more lists than would be expected for the size of the site, then that’s a flag that may be used to penalize other sites with links from that domain. The result is quite a clinical ‘bad neighbourhood’ index.
comment is just speculation, which is all good, he's not actually asserting that's the case though ;)Apr 26, 2014
- yes, people keep misquoting us. Not sure why as I believe we are clear enough. Anyway, I am happy you enjoyed the video :-)Apr 27, 2014
- I made the very last audience question but wasn't very impressed with the over-simplistic answer "don't always believe what you read". Let me try again...
Google's stance about what needs to be done so that a manual penalty is revoked has always been that you should try and physically remove as many unnatural links as possible and then disavow what couldn't be removed. You guys have made the same recommendation in previous panels, stating more or less that manual penalties cannot be removed if you just disavow the unnatural links, without putting any effort removing them.
However, there are more and more cases where people have managed to revoke a manual penalty without removing any single link. ( ) claims to have removed over 60 penalties this way:
Note that there's more and more people (I trust) claiming that the above strategy works.
So, my question is why are you (and Google) still suggesting we should go through the very time-consuming and painful process of requesting link removals if manual penalties can be revoked by just disavowing the toxic links?Apr 27, 2014
- sorry we had to rush the end but we were running out of time. As mentioned earlier during the panel, we absolutely have seen cases where only disavow works. For example with forum and comment spam. However this is not a long term strategy as the disavow file remains a suggestion. Other search engines will not be using this. And your brand may still be associated with this spam, and potentially be reported for webspam repeatedly to search engines by other users and your competitors. Putting any future link building at riskApr 27, 2014
- Thanks for clarifying- This makes perfect sense and I'm personally not an advocate of this strategy either e.g. what would happen if the disavow file gets accidentally overwritten or removed one day? I guess that for some types of links which are very hard to remove (like the ones you mentioned) there needs to be a second option.
However, I am just very surprised that Google allows for short-cuts. It doesn't feel fair to all those following Google's recommendations and spending time on link removals. It would be great to hear 's view on this too.
It was great seeing you and .Apr 27, 2014