Google says to disavow domains


Apparently, poor website owners are not aggressive enough when  disavowing links as Matt says there is almost no need in doing that URL by URL. It's better to use domains...

For example, often it would help to use the “domain:” operator to disavow all bad backlinks from an entire domain rather than trying to use a scalpel to pick out the individual bad links. That's one reason why we sometimes see it take a while to clean up those old, not-very-good links.

Have you been using the  disavow tool yet?


Collateral damage coming

I wonder how long it will be before sites get dropped from their index because someone disavowed them? Most bloggers who comment regularly end up flagged by Akismet as spammers - and the same thing is likely to happen with that disavow tool. 

I've used it...

a number of times, cleaning up clients' sites. I've also used it pre-emptively, cleaning up the profile on one of my own sites. In the case of my own site, I'd been targeted by a number of eastern-bloc porn sites, all separte domains belonging to the same owner, and linking to my site from several internal pages. In that case, I used a domain-wide disavow. Normally, even if there is only one link from a domain, if it's a domain I don't want my site associated with, I just take advantage of the opportunity to preclude any future links, and disavow the entire domain. In some instances, though, the site itself is fine, but the linking page is irrelevant or a little spammy, in which case, I'll disavow by specific URL.

I think the key is that from a time and resources standpoint, a domain-wide disavow is faster and easier to process than 50 separate URLs from the same domain. If there are still many webmasters/SEOs out there that are unaware of the domain: option, are are submitting hundreds of individual URLs on the same domain, multiply that times the number of disavow requests received, and you can see why Google might like to minimize all that unnecessarily granular activity.

I've noticed that as well

Using even an aggregete output of multiple link tools is not sufficent, since it is not worth their resources to exhastively crawl those types of sites... domain:  lets you account for all the links from a sites duplicate content and the best way to handle those crappy links that are a sometimes 100's of pages, with out having to capture all of those, using tools and merging of data, etc... for the live links that I include in disavows, I tend to err on the side of domain: as well..

Difference between bad sites and blogs

Obviously, disavowing sites like that is good. What concerns me is that Google's spam team tells people to get comment links deleted on quality blogs. If we don't see their request to remove their comments or they don't bother to ask, blogs are going to end up being disavowed. 


I have seen these communications personally, but the site owners were only willing to share what Google's people sent them if I didn't make them public. Basically, their spam team considers links in comments spam regardless of the quality of the site or whether it was a real comment left by someone who read the post or not. 


Of the thousands of comments on GrowMap, Google has done this a handful of times. This position by Google has led bloggers like Eren McKay to not ever leave a link in any comment. That is a loss for all of us, because if bloggers won't comment or link we don't get to know them or follow their comments back to their sites. 


Just as most bloggers who comment regularly end up flagged as spammers by Akismet, I believe that most blogs will end up being disavowed over time.  


wow...that is facinating...just curious, stupid question, was this a special  GWMT message, basically saying disavow blog links?


Blog Comment Links Targeted in Unnatural Link messages

I've had several requests to remove links in comments and once in a post. Each time the reason they wanted them removed was because their site had an "unnatural link profile". The one letter I have (but agreed not to publish) has the Google web spam team telling them that links in real comments in quality blogs are "bad" and should be removed. 


Meanwhile, there are millions of comments in blogs everywhere. I heavily moderate comments, and I have many regular readers who work as SEOs who link to sites. I do NOT consider those spam, or bad. On the one hand Google tells us to get comments because they show content is still useful and on the other they are randomly penalizing commenters. (One blogger I know who is widely respected for her SEO knowledge will never put a link in any comment ever any more because of this.) 


The traditional view of the world is to only ever give if you get more in return. In my view of the world, if everyone were giving the world would be a lot better place.  Why should I read your blog if I can't comment?


If I have a choice of commenting on a CommentLuv blog where your readers and you can find out more about me and click through to read related content it they choose, or commenting in a blog that wants me to stay in their walled garden and build a profile there because they won't let me link to anything that would already tell you that - which would YOU choose? 


Google has far too much power and users can limit it - but they won't unless influential bloggers start explaining why what they do is endangering small business and our ability to make a living outside of a corporation. 

I love being the unpaid human

I love being the unpaid human element to the Google algorithm.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.