05 Dec 2017
For SEO folk though, it has become a real pain to deal with and something that continues to cause confusion. Do you give it resource or trust Penguin to do its job? or use it for some other vague reason we arenâ€™t that sure about?
Disavow is a tool Google provides to allow website owners to distance themselves from dodgy links. Usually, these have been generated via crappy agency work or in some cases negative SEO attacks. It happens.
Disavow was used throughout the Penguin update era and was a bit of an olive branch to get site owners away from algorithmic penaltyâ€™s they either had or fear they may get. Usually, they had employed a very bad SEO firm.
Disavow, by many pros was also seen as tacit acknowledgement from Google that negative SEO was possible and may actually work.
The theory was simple. If you could spend a tenth of the time knocking competitors out of the game â€“ why bother playing by the rules?
Like spilt milk, negative SEO was a smell that just wouldnâ€™t go away.
Enter Penguin 4.0.
Now I wrote about that earlier in the year and you can read that here.
The key difference between previous rollouts of Penguin and 4.0 was massive â€“ Penguin no longer demoted and instead just ignored spam. It was also not site wide, so if some idiot was attempting to spam you, Penguin could now ignore that crap altogether and the world was safe again.
When disavow came up, the general advice was - yeh keep using it.
Do we really need to keep using it or not? the reason being - it's a real pain and a resource drain.
On top of that, if you went for an automated toxic link service, it was really expensive and post-Penguin 4.0, these guys had still not really changed their position i.e. they still talked about Penguin demotions rather than manual actions.
That is pretty much still true now. I recently downloaded a whitepaper from one of these vendors and it was dominated by 2014/5 examples. So what is going on here please?
Fast forward to Brighton SEO 2017 and it gets worse. Illyes, the same guy telling us it was safer to use disavow, appears to have done a U-turn, or maybe he was just being sarcasticâ€¦.
When asked about whether we should still Disavow (yep SEO's were still asking him), Gary replied â€˜if it makes you feel betterâ€™.
So we appear to have no entered no man's land with this now.
I have recently seen a negative SEO attack first hand and that coincided with a key term being dropped from the index. Coincidence?
Possibly because it also happened around the time of a site migration to https. But it remains a possibility that someone threw enough mud at the domain â€“ and some of it stuck.
I may write more about that issue but for now, I will leave you with these musings:
My view and the position we have taken is that we are pretty much ignoring disavow. That was until however, the spam attack I saw recently possibly work.
So that made me stop and consider what else is out there that could damage clients.
So confusion reigns. For the moment we will work on the basis that as long as a client has a healthy link profile and we are working on that, then low-quality spam won't impact us. Even if it did trigger a review, you would expect Google to see it for what it is.
My recent negative SEO case is intriguing though. Watch this space.
The article was written by Jon Colegate. Connect with Jon: