Question about Disavow and Directories

I got a call from a guy saying that he needed my help tracking down a directory owner because he was hit with the Unnatural Link Penalty. I told him to just disavow the links. He said he had tried that and it wasn't good enough for Google. He said they needed to show evidence they were taking steps to remove the unnatural links, and simply disavowing would not get the penalty lifted. I hope this is not true, but anyone heard such a thing?

(And if it is true, I think it is another win for the black hats, argh!)

 

I am pretty sure that Google does state something along those lines. My understanding is yes, Google wants to see that you have been actively working on removing so called unnatural links by other means than simply using the disavow tool. What I fail to understand is just how Google is supposed to know what you have been doing behind the scenes. How will they ever know if you have contacted a directory owner and they refused to removed a link. Sure, there may be some indication that you are reducing links but what's the threshold for G to say ok, you have done enough, we will look at your reconsideration request? I don't understand how that process works. Is it a judgment call where a real live person looks at your site and says yes or no or is it purely algorithmic and if it is, I just can't fathom how it could work on a consistent basis because there will never be two sets of identical websites with identical or even near identical circumstances.

 

Yes, Google wants to see evidence you have tried to have the link removed and has a process for showing it.

 

Screenshots of the emails.

 

This whole thing is so ridiculous. Google made this mess and now they have everyone chasing their tails.

It would almost be fun to set up an auto-approve directory. The only charge was to make changes and edits to listings. Including, of course, removal fees.

 

Yes, that is what I asked for as well, but I have not been able to produce proof.

 

You can find an example of how to show evidence on this page
See the example of a valid file near the bottom.

# example.com removed most links, but missed these
http://spam.example.com/stuff/comments.html
http://spam.example.com/stuff/paid-links.html
# Contacted owner of shadyseo.com on 7/1/2012 to
# ask for link removal but got no response
domain:shadyseo.com

 

That does give some evidence to the idea that Google is requiring you to do some work emailing people about link removal before you can have the penalty lifted. So we can't just disavow, and forget about contacting people?

 

I don't know if I believe that Google is actually sending people letters saying they don't have enough proof to use the disavow tool. I suspect it's just the latest excuse folks have latched on to.

It's virtually impossible to get direct help for Adsense and that's a program that makes Google money. I just don't see them really investing the time to go through emails from webmasters who had tried to game their PR and SERPs in order to disavow a single backlink.

 

I would pass out if Google had a single employee dedicated to checking for evidence that a webmaster had tried to have a link removed. Google bases everything they do in search on their algorithm unless a site had a manual penalty imposed on it.

Looks like G finally updated their toolbar pr after something like 9 months.

 

So what are we saying? It really doesn't matter what we do because Google is just blowing smoke up our backsides and is keeping us distracted with all this nonsense while they are raping the internet.

If the disavow tools doesn't work as a sufficient, stand alone link removal method and is not accepted in our reconsideration request because G wants to see "evidence" that you have been actively removing links by some sort of contact with website owners. I am only guessing but I think the consensus is G doesn't have a team of workers reading the thousands of email exchanges and has no plausible way to verify what we are doing behind the scenes as far as link removal.

If an algorithm is involved then why even bother to submit a reconsideration request? Every website is different with it's own unique set of circumstances and I don't see how a computer program will ever understand the subtleties and nuances involved. When we submit a reconsideration request we are hoping that a real live person reads it who can display empathy and has the capacity and ability to give us a "second chance". If the latter is the case then why bother going through all the drama of using the disavow tool and contacting webmasters with link removal request without having some idea if it even makes any difference or when enough is enough.

IMO, Google has successfully pulled the wool over our eyes (again) and has us running around spending our time and resources on things we probably shouldn't. In the beginning we were led to believe that we need links and lots of them and by any means available and we spent great amounts of time and resources acquiring them. Now we are lead to believe the opposite, links are bad and we must get rid of them by any means necessary and we are going to unbelievable lengths to remove them.

I think it's classic Google to whip us into a frenzy over something then watch as we sheeple blindly follow each other around repeating some mantra we read somewhere.

 

YMC - They actually are pretty full on about you doing link removal first before using disavow. They even state that disavow isn't a fixing tool. There are instances where they don't even use the disavow tool they just ignore it.

If someone has engaged in a lot of unnatural link building then they are less likely to get a positive result.

I've seen an in-depth case study involving an enterprise level client. They got hit and they've tried everything under the sun to please Google. They've basically butchered their entire backlinks and disavowed vast quantities of domains to try and turn it around. They've submitted reconsideration requests after each cleansing phase but it is beyond ridiculous. They basically need to throw their domain in the bin, it's toast. They've lost millions of dollars.

What I've said all along and what I will continue to say is that link pruning is a scam. It doesn't work. The best thing to do is build your way out of trouble with natural links that become the far more significant part of your profile. What many people do when they prune is they keep only authoritative links with awesome keyword value. That's probably the worst kind of link to retain in vast quantities because it looks totally unnatural. They get rid of all the low-level links that may have just been URLs, and these can be some of the best to keep because they offer no keyword value and are natural.

People don't prune the correct way, because the people offering the software don't understand how link prolifing works. I recommend reading, absorbing and understanding Jason DeMers article on SEJ about % of anchors in your profile (search for hybrid anchors). It isn't news. Some of us have been saying that since the early 2000s, but Jason's article offers a very clear insight using charts. Profiling isn't difficult but you need to get it right from the outset. If you have an overgrown tree with branches that need attention but you want the tree to survive would you listen to an arborist or a chainsaw operator? Link pruners are chainsaw operators.

 

^This.
Google is a multi billion dollar company that just had a 36% profit increase, the big picture is they a slowly and steady turning their search results into paid listings. Every quarter more and more listings have to become paid they are on top and need to rake in billions of dollars while they are up there.

Like they are really going to "investigate" if some lowly non paying site has tried to remove backlinks..? to them it is just some vultures using their search engine for free.

Its all about profit. There is no profit in supporting and dealing with nonpaying sites. Matt Cutts just likes to do a dog and pony show every so often to distract people who try study what google is doing. and it work really well

 

I fail to see how Disavow is anything other than a tool to threaten site owners into capitulating and a metric to gauge lazy website owners.

If google really wanted to, they could easily discount these links without even notifying the site owners. I can see where google may be using this as a way to train webmasters to do things they way google wants in the hopes that they no longer do. However, to Silencer's point, I think a great many webmasters out there are going to simply only remove those links that are of no more value to them and leave the rest. Almost makes the disavow tool look like more of a litmus test than a tool to protect the webmaster from themselves.