Anyone Used The Disavow Tool?

[david64]

Evening,

Has anyone used the disavow tool in Google?

Most of us will find junk websites in our backlinks, such as these:

in0.co.uk/
lookupthe.name/

My thought is that these will dilute my domain's authority.

If anyone has used the disavow tool, have they found it makes any difference?

 

[mobyme]

Leave it alone unless you have received a "Unnatural links" warning by email from Google.

 

[david64]

Leave it alone unless you have received a "Unnatural links" warning by email from Google.

What is you reasoning for this statement?

One of my old sites is completely pancaked in Google. No unnatural links warning, but it is certainly the links that have tanked it. If I had time I'd use disavow to ignore most of the links.

 

[Ian J]

One of my old sites is completely pancaked in Google. No unnatural links warning, but it is certainly the links that have tanked it.

Me too. I used the disavow tool a week ago but I'm yet to see any results

 

[Websitehandyman]

I suspect the disavow tool will do absolutely nothing to help Seo.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I suspect the disavow tool will do PLENTY to help Google

I know a few people have used it, yet to see any result.

My gut is that Google will be swamped with disavow requests, and will either completely ignore them, take months to action them, or just hit another algorithmic system to deal with them, which will be as crap as their other algorithmic systems that got them into this mess in the first place.
ALL of this could have been avoided, all the disavow rubbish, all the negative SEO if ONLY they decided to ignore poor links rather than punish sites for them.

Guilty until proven innocent is the new Google motto!

 

[Suzuki]

ALL of this could have been avoided, all the disavow rubbish, all the negative SEO if ONLY they decided to ignore poor links rather than punish sites for them.

They can't do this though as it will just encourage even more spam. Right now I need to think twice before I do something as it might harm me. If there is no downside at all then I'm really going to go wild with the spammy link buying.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

They can't do this though as it will just encourage even more spam. Right now I need to think twice before I do something as it might harm me. If there is no downside at all then I'm really going to go wild with the spammy link buying.

So spin that on the head then and look at it this way:-

Right now I NO LONGER need to think twice before I do something as it might harm me. If there is no downside at all then I'm really going to go wild with the spammy link buying. AND BUILD MILLIONS OF SPAMMY LINKS TO COMPETITORS

The text in red is my additional text. Google have created a beast wher it is possible not to worry about volume, where you can have a dedicated server, spmming millions (Literally) of links 24/7 against your competitors., build circle links to the opthers on page 1 and watch them fall 'like toy soldiers' as Martika said

 

[Suzuki]

Well the disavow tool (if it works) is a sort of happy medium... or rather its at least as good as Google can realistically do with the current situation they created.

If someone negative seo's you, you can undo the damage by disavowing the links. But you can't add the links yourself then disavow them in a scattergun approach later in an attempt to game the search results.

I don't know what the best solution is, but I don't think letting people negative seo each other, or at the other end of the scale simply not counting bad backlinks at all, were ever going to be viable long term options.

The problem with the disavow is always going to be that someone determined enough will be able to build links faster and cheaper than you can find and disavow them

I suppose a sort of hybrid approach might work.... completely ignore any bad links that came from places you would never want to count. So xrumer blasts, forum profiles, forum signature links and comment spam would never harm you. They're just too easy and cheap to buy in bulk. But let other types of paid looking links that were harder to come by, harm you. Then you would need to disavow these if you had anything to do with them, while making it an extremely expensive game to try and negative seo someone.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Well the disavow tool (if it works) is a sort of happy medium... or rather its at least as good as Google can realistically do with the current situation they created.

If someone negative seo's you, you can undo the damage by disavowing the links. But you can't add the links yourself then disavow them in a scattergun approach later in an attempt to game the search results.

I don't know what the best solution is, but I don't think letting people negative seo each other, or at the other end of the scale simply not counting bad backlinks at all, were ever going to be viable long term options.

The problem with the disavow is always going to be that someone determined enough will be able to build links faster and cheaper than you can find and disavow them

I suppose a sort of hybrid approach might work.... completely ignore any bad links that came from places you would never want to count. So xrumer blasts, forum profiles, forum signature links and comment spam would never harm you. They're just too easy and cheap to buy in bulk. But let other types of paid looking links that were harder to come by, harm you. Then you would need to disavow these if you had anything to do with them, while making it an extremely expensive game to try and negative seo someone.

Re: the bit in bold.

Nope you can't and that is the point

I got a couple of my test sites banned (neg SEO) I then removed ALL the linsk (as in there was not a link pointing to the site) google refiused my reconsideration as they said I had 'un-natural links' . I hade NO LINKS.

Google are not showing ALL the links they are basing their decision on, so even if you disavow ALL your links, they may still penalise you for not telling them about the links you didn't build that THEY didn't tell you about in WMT.

So in short, google expect you to know about the links they know about, that you didn't build but that they are not telling you about.

it is a crock of crap sorry, and until G show you ALL the links they know about , then a crock of crap it will remain.

 

[mobyme]

I got a couple of my test sites banned (neg SEO) I then removed ALL the linsk (as in there was not a link pointing to the site) google refiused my reconsideration as they said I had 'un-natural links' . I hade NO LINKS.

Google are not showing ALL the links they are basing their decision on, so even if you disavow ALL your links, they may still penalise you for not telling them about the links you didn't build that THEY didn't tell you about in WMT.

So in short, google expect you to know about the links they know about, that you didn't build but that they are not telling you about.

it is a crock of crap sorry, and until G show you ALL the links they know about , then a crock of crap it will remain.

Exactly OWG. There are a lot of people out there that don't realise that the disavow procedure is a manual process just like the reconsideration one. Going down the disavow route puts every link to your site under scrutiny and you will finish up having to prove that any links you didn't disavow are legitimate and natural. (Even if you haven't got any; been there done that.) My advice is stay away from it. We have been approached by too many people who have used it and finished up with a unnatural links warning for it to be a coincidence.

 

[Suzuki]

Re: the bit in bold.

Nope you can't and that is the point

I got a couple of my test sites banned (neg SEO) I then removed ALL the linsk (as in there was not a link pointing to the site) google refiused my reconsideration as they said I had 'un-natural links' . I hade NO LINKS.

Google are not showing ALL the links they are basing their decision on, so even if you disavow ALL your links, they may still penalise you for not telling them about the links you didn't build that THEY didn't tell you about in WMT.

So in short, google expect you to know about the links they know about, that you didn't build but that they are not telling you about.

it is a crock of crap sorry, and until G show you ALL the links they know about , then a crock of crap it will remain.

I agree that Google should show all the links as its completely impossible to use your WMT account alone to deal with a negative seo attack. But there is nothing stopping someone paying for a service like Majestic SEO and using the data from there to do a comprehensive sweep of the bad links.

I don't have any real confidence in the tool at this point... but its not been out long enough to say for sure it doesn't work.