Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Google Launches Disavow Link Tool

  1. #21
    TopDogger's Avatar
    TopDogger is offline Über Hund
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hellfire, AZ
    Posts
    3,106
    Thanks
    350
    Thanked 919 Times in 703 Posts
    If you look up some of my previous posts, according to Matt Cutts Google had a blow-up with Twitter and Twitter completely blocked their access for over two months. They have since abandoned Twitter as a source for social signals. That does not mean that they might not use them again in the future. The two might kiss and make up, and work together again. However, Twitter is another social networking site where social signals are already easy to fake.

    Twitter can be a good tool for driving traffic if you pick up enough followers that like what you write.

    I fully agree that Google is provably keeping track of sites that frequently show up on the submitted Disavow Links lists, but if a site is really crappy, it is probably already on their hit list.
    Mike Dammann likes this.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  2. #22
    Mike Dammann's Avatar
    Mike Dammann is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Geographically flexible
    Posts
    964
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    237
    Thanked 182 Times in 148 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    Twitter is another social networking site where social signals are already easy to fake.
    Yes and as I am reading this, I remember looking at Wefollow again which used to differentiate between most followers and most influencial. Their most influential option was very flawed, so I am assuming they gave up on their own creation.

    I am however looking at some other tools like livefyre and see that their evaluations are pretty accurate. Especially evaluating some account I know of which are very influential, even though they have no more than 3000 or 4000 followers while others with more than 80000 are seen for the low retweets and low overall reach that they truly have.

    I will see if I find something more, I hope to be able to demonstrate better what I have observed.
    For blood type dating go here. If your blood type is rhesus negative, go there. If you are bored and feel like liking a Facebook page, hit this one.

  3. #23
    bogart's Avatar
    bogart is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Thanks
    1,886
    Thanked 776 Times in 609 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by vanderkitty jones View Post
    Google is really sweet. They are giving spammers a chance at redemption
    It's not clear that Google is offering redemption. The disavow tool may end up working as good as the Facebook killer Google +1.

    For instance, I know a publisher that since March has removed 200k links from a large older site and still gets Google's automated message saying "We've reviewed your site and we still see links to your site that violate our quality guidelines."

    The sites has over 400k backinks and of course removing the links is negatively affecting the traffic.

    So, one question is does Google have the right to define what is a "legal link"? Should a webmaster have to be bothered worrying about who links to his site or should he focus on the end user and quality content?

    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    I still do not think they can determine things like the quality of an article strictly with an algorithm. It appears that they are applying points and demerits to an article.

    lots of natural links to the article = point
    same theme as the site = point
    over 300 words = point
    spun content = demerit
    duplicate content = demerit
    site without a focused theme = demerit
    spammy site = demerit
    lots of obviously crappy links = demerit
    and so on.

    I call this Sherlock Holmes logic. As Sherlock Holmes said in The Sign of the Four, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
    It seems to me that Penguin evolved from Panda and that for the earlier iterations of Panda the quality of links were used to evaluate article quality. It's interesting at the least that Panda (20th) was refereshed at the end of Sept and Penguin (10th update) was refreshed at the beginning of Oct.

    I suggest to anyone considering using the link disavow tool to first take care of any potential Panda issues like removing low quality articles and checking for sites ripping off your content.

    Sherlock Holmes logic (You're killin' me mon)

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Cutts
    Hallo! My name is Inigo Montoya. You spam my index. Prepare to die!

    TopDogger likes this.

  4. #24
    vanderkitty jones's Avatar
    vanderkitty jones is offline Newbie Net Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    19
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    It's not clear that Google is offering redemption. The disavow tool may end up working as good as the Facebook killer Google +1.

    For instance, I know a publisher that since March has removed 200k links from a large older site and still gets Google's automated message saying "We've reviewed your site and we still see links to your site that violate our quality guidelines."

    The sites has over 400k backinks and of course removing the links is negatively affecting the traffic.

    So, one question is does Google have the right to define what is a "legal link"? Should a webmaster have to be bothered worrying about who links to his site or should he focus on the end user and quality content?



    It seems to me that Penguin evolved from Panda and that for the earlier iterations of Panda the quality of links were used to evaluate article quality. It's interesting at the least that Panda (20th) was refereshed at the end of Sept and Penguin (10th update) was refreshed at the beginning of Oct.

    I suggest to anyone considering using the link disavow tool to first take care of any potential Panda issues like removing low quality articles and checking for sites ripping off your content.

    Sherlock Holmes logic (You're killin' me mon)





    If I was getting traffic from 200k links. Google could go ... jump in a lake.
    Mike Dammann likes this.
    Start Your Online Advertising Campaign With Chitika Today!

    Publish a Chitika Widget on your Site and Earn $$ - Low TEN dollar threshold. Set it and forget it!

  5. #25
    TopDogger's Avatar
    TopDogger is offline Über Hund
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hellfire, AZ
    Posts
    3,106
    Thanks
    350
    Thanked 919 Times in 703 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by vanderkitty jones View Post
    If I was getting traffic from 200k links. Google could go ... jump in a lake.
    I would envy anyone who is getting traffic from 200k links--and I would also ignore Google and their Googley world if I was getting that traffic.

    However, with probably 95+% of the crappy links you would not see any traffic at all other than from spiders and bots who happen to follow the links. A link does not necessarily provide any human traffic at all. We once did a study of traffic from directories. We saw lots of human traffic from local business directories, some human traffic from a few of the better known web site directories, and almost zero human traffic from 95% of the hundreds of crappy directories where we placed links. Remember that part of your traffic is always going to be spiders, some of which are nothing more than spam bots.

    It can be difficult to identify a lot of spiders because so many masquerade as browsers in their user agent signature.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  6. Thanked by:

    vanderkitty jones (22 October, 2012)

  7. #26
    Mike Dammann's Avatar
    Mike Dammann is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Geographically flexible
    Posts
    964
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    237
    Thanked 182 Times in 148 Posts
    It really depends if the site has 200k pages all previously ranking in Google.
    Quote Originally Posted by vanderkitty jones View Post
    If I was getting traffic from 200k links. Google could go ... jump in a lake.
    For blood type dating go here. If your blood type is rhesus negative, go there. If you are bored and feel like liking a Facebook page, hit this one.

  8. Thanked by:

    TopDogger (22 October, 2012)

  9. #27
    bogart's Avatar
    bogart is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Thanks
    1,886
    Thanked 776 Times in 609 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by vanderkitty jones View Post
    If I was getting traffic from 200k links. Google could go ... jump in a lake.
    The issue is that Google is not offering any guidance on what links it has problems with other than an automated message.
    Mike Dammann likes this.

  10. #28
    Mike Dammann's Avatar
    Mike Dammann is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Geographically flexible
    Posts
    964
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    237
    Thanked 182 Times in 148 Posts
    My thoughts:

    A friend offered help. Needless to say I turned it down, especially in light of Google's updates.

    Let's say I take his help and get penalized.

    Google will be waiting for me to break and rat out the links and from there they will take all of his links down and penalize his clients?


    I think the definition of spam is mainly dependent on the intention behind your action.


    If you come forward and state "I know this is spam", then Google knows that those links are sold for SEO.

    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    The issue is that Google is not offering any guidance on what links it has problems with other than an automated message.
    For blood type dating go here. If your blood type is rhesus negative, go there. If you are bored and feel like liking a Facebook page, hit this one.

  11. Thanked by:

    bogart (23 October, 2012), vanderkitty jones (22 October, 2012)

  12. #29
    bogart's Avatar
    bogart is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Thanks
    1,886
    Thanked 776 Times in 609 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by firetown View Post
    My thoughts:
    A friend offered help. Needless to say I turned it down, especially in light of Google's updates.

    Let's say I take his help and get penalized.

    Google will be waiting for me to break and rat out the links and from there they will take all of his links down and penalize his clients?


    I think the definition of spam is mainly dependent on the intention behind your action.

    If you come forward and state "I know this is spam", then Google knows that those links are sold for SEO.
    Based on Google's past history, I'll wait awhile before considering using the link disavow tool.

    1st step is this: Recovering from Panda a Case Study which is to add more content to de-optimize the site.
    Mike Dammann likes this.

  13. #30
    bogart's Avatar
    bogart is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Thanks
    1,886
    Thanked 776 Times in 609 Posts
    According to Q&A With Google's Matt Cutts On How To Use The Link Disavow Tool the link disavow tool won't work unless some of the bad links are removed.

    Question:
    What if you don’t try to remove links? Given what a pain it is to get links off the web, why wouldn’t someone just use disavow? I know Google recommends requesting link removals, but from a technical standpoint, if they don’t do that and just disavow, it’s pretty much going to work, right?
    Answer:
    No, I wouldn’t count on this. In particular, Google can look at the snapshot of links we saw when we took manual action. If we don’t see any links actually taken down off the web, then we can see that sites have been disavowing without trying to get the links taken down.
    Mike Dammann likes this.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •