• http://twitter.com/jbutcherseo Justin Butcher

    I completely agree with all of this, the disavow tool is unlikely to be the “get out of jail free” card some people are hoping it will be. I made similar points here:

    http://www.returnondigital.com/blog/will-the-google-disavow-tool-lead-to-further-serp-carnage

  • http://twitter.com/ShahMenz Sha Menz

    Absolutely. The Disavow Tool should be looked at as if it were the dustpan and broom of your link removal campaign … the specially designed bit of equipment that allows you to sweep up those last few bits of rubbish you couldn’t quite manage to sweep away with the big broom.

    Incidentally, I really hope Google will think long and hard before it goes anywhere near the idea of using disavow data to assess the worth of linking root domains. Having seen a lot of frankly mean people brag about lodging DMCA requests and Spam Reports because a webmaster failed to respond to email, I can imagine those same people would happily abuse the Disavow tool. Let’s face it, that tool is so much easier and brings much more immediate gratification :(

  • 4u2discuss

    Each Disavow you request is an admission of using link farm tactics. I am convinced this was a fishing expedition by the big G and the sites listed as DISAVOW will get some kind of special treatment. Many website designers used links to expand their user information experience and never complained about sending visitors along to a site where they could get the info they are looking for. how ever many new entrants are onto the shopping wagon and try every kind of trick to keep the viewer stuck within their pages. Now our links from way back when are in line to be disavowed at the whim of some inexperienced newbie, because he / she does not understand the value of user experience.

    The Big G is also talking of this (user experience) quite a bit, as well as how to determine a sites aboutness. well news for you your sites aboutness, and user experience depends a great deal on those links you may be disavowing, so be careful and think clearly.

  • Mushegh

    Do not agree. May be algoritmically Google will think so but I disavowed links with explanations 1. Links the domain got before I registered/purchased it 2. Links from bad-bad directories that copy dmoz 3. Links from bad-bad wiki-copy sites that automatically copy wikipedia and its external links … I just hope google understands what i wrote there..

  • 4u2discuss

    Lets be serious, there are some good reasons that the disavow links should be used, but these have been around for a long time, and are not new reasons to worry. You should have requested these a long time ago, but never had the tools. sites that auto-copy links should be removed at all costs as they just spread link-farm tactics. remember that your site only got indexed in any search engine once the search engine became awear of your site via a link from somewhere….So each link has a place, but building excessive links from random sites that are not related to your information is just being silly and needs to be punished for wasting your viewers time and efforts. Think for yourself, why would you follow a link that is going to a site that has noting to do with what you are looking for? YOU WOULD NOT DO THIS? RIGHT? So why ask search engines to give you credit for wasting their time? people did this big time just to build up their inbound links, now the SE’s (search Engines) have caught up and are punishing them for previous time wasted. good thing… they were cheating, and cheaters need to pay the price of cheating when they get caught.

    Now Google is using the disavow links to look up the cheating partners and see who else they cheated with, then punish those cheaters tooo.

    @Mushegh Your issue seems to be a genuine case, and Google has the tools to distinguish between cases like yours and cases where sites employed link farms in the past. Google will use this against the sites that used link-farms, and also use this to establish the true depth of link farms within the SEO industry and its many shady characters who cheat at every opportunity.

  • Mushegh

    “people did this big time just to build up their inbound links” – another big reason to launch and use the disavow link. Agree or not, before (now also but significantly less) it was like – “hey you are not allowed to build links to trick my algo, but consider me not seeing that (wink, wink) “. Same as with many many laws we have written but never implemented, so people assume (and they are right in some regards), that bypassing it “is just fine”. Let me be clear – it’s partially google’s fault people used that tactics and a lot of other tactics, just because it was viewed “fine”, though illegal.. Way too many people “honestly thought” that’s the right thing to do, so may be Google just gives these people chance to start over or may be it just looked at its results and found that they are worse, so it needs the good sites back, but won’t admit it was wrong but gives hope?

    Again, as the saying goes “Every medal has 2 sides”, so both yes and no, google will and/or will not be using this data to improve it’s algo or as you say find more cheaters.

  • http://twitter.com/sostanza Sostanza SRL

    A link on an image (i.e. the company logo) placed in the sidebar of a partner’s website, bringing more than 64.000 links, could harm? should I ask to add a rel=nofollow? I would like to know your opinion, thanks.