{"id":20275,"date":"2018-04-26T02:01:32","date_gmt":"2018-04-26T10:01:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ahrefs.com\/blog\/?p=20275"},"modified":"2024-03-18T07:36:27","modified_gmt":"2024-03-18T12:36:27","slug":"google-disavow-links","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ahrefs.com\/blog\/google-disavow-links\/","title":{"rendered":"Google\u2019s \u201cDisavow Links Tool\u201d: The Complete Guide"},"content":{"rendered":"
Good backlinks help a site rank higher. Bad backlinks can cause problems. You have only limited control over which links point to your site.<\/div>\n

If you\u2019ve spent any time in SEO, these are things you already know.<\/p>\n

You also know that Google\u2019s \u201cDisavow Links Tool\u201d<\/a> can help protect your site from link-related penalties.<\/p>\n

Even with that knowledge, most SEOs\u2014even leading experts\u2014answer the question, \u201cShould I disavow?\u201d with an emphatic, \u201cIt depends.\u201d<\/p>\n

And SEO \u201cbest practices\u201d (e.g., \u201cDisavow only bad links that are harming your site\u201d) assume that it\u2019s easy to separate links that boost rankings from those that threaten them.<\/p>\n

In this article, I\u2019ll explain when you should (and shouldn\u2019t) disavow links, and how to identify \u201cbad\u201d links.<\/p>\n

But first, you should understand why Google created the disavow tool and how its use has changed over the years.<\/p>\n

What is Google\u2019s \u201cDisavow Links Tool\u201d and why did they create it?<\/h2>\n

Google\u2019s Disavow Links Tool lets you tell Google to ignore specific backlinks for ranking purposes.<\/p>\n

Like a rel=\u201dcanonical\u201d tag<\/a>, a disavow file is a \u201cstrong suggestion rather than a directive<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The technical process is simple: You submit a text file containing the linking pages or domains that you want to disavow via Google Search Console (GSC).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

(More on this later.)<\/em><\/p>\n

The decision-making process\u2014determining which domains should be in the disavow file or whether you should disavow at all\u2014is more complicated.<\/p>\n

To make that determination, you need to understand:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Why Google created the Disavow Links Tool;<\/li>\n
  2. How its importance has changed with algorithm updates.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Why did Google create the Disavow Links Tool?<\/h3>\n

    Google has fought spammy link-building for more than a decade.<\/p>\n

    Its first attempt to reduce link spam was the introduction of the \u201cnofollow\u201d attribute<\/a> in January 2005, which sought to combat comment spam like this:<\/p>\n

    \"comment<\/p>\n

    While Google continued to adjust its algorithm in subsequent years, the next significant change targeting link schemes didn\u2019t occur until April 2012, when Google rolled out the first Penguin algorithm<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Penguin was an \u201cexternal filter\u201d through which search results passed. That technical detail meant that an algorithmic penalty could persist for months after a thorough site clean-up.<\/p>\n

    Google supplemented algorithmic penalties with Manual Actions<\/a>, which it sent to webmasters if it \u201cdetected a pattern of unnatural artificial, deceptive, or manipulative outbound links.\u201d<\/p>\n

    An entire site could be demoted even when a link scheme targeted a subsection or single page of a website.<\/p>\n

    The Disavow Links Tool, then, gave webmasters more control over the links that Google used to rank\u2014or potentially penalize\u2014their site.<\/p>\n

    Even at its rollout<\/a> in October 2012, Google believed the disavow tool applied to a limited number of webmasters:<\/p>\n

    If you\u2019ve been notified of a manual spam action based on \u2018unnatural links\u2019 pointing to your site, this tool can help you address the issue. If you haven\u2019t gotten this notification, this tool generally isn\u2019t something you need to worry about. <\/div>
    \"Jonathan<\/div>
    Jonathan Simon,<\/span> Webmaster Trends Analyst, Google<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/blockquote>\n

    The tool wasn\u2019t intended then (or now) as a first line of defense against link-based penalties.<\/p>\n

    As Matt Cutts explained in a 2012 interview<\/a>, it could expedite site recovery after<\/em> manual methods were exhausted:<\/p>\n

    Right now it can be a difficult task to clean up a site\u2019s backlinks, and from listening to the SEO community we wanted to provide a tool that could help after site owners had already taken substantial steps to try to clean up their site\u2019s backlinks<\/strong>. <\/div>
    \"Matt<\/div>
    Matt Cutts,<\/span> former Head of Web Spam, Google<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/blockquote>\n

    Through the first three iterations of Penguin, most SEOs believed that disavowing links was essential to protect sites from lengthy demotions in search results.<\/p>\n

    Consensus changed with the introduction of Penguin 4.0<\/a>, which Google released in September 2016.<\/p>\n

    Penguin 4.0 marked Google\u2019s update to a \u201creal-time\u201d Penguin algorithm, which also allowed Google to target link spam at a page-specific level.<\/p>\n

    Most importantly, it marked a fundamental shift from \u201cdemoting\u201d to \u201cdevaluing\u201d<\/a>\u2014from algorithmic wrath to algorithmic apathy:<\/p>\n

    \"facebook<\/p>\n

    And so began the great debate: Is disavowing still necessary? And if so, when?<\/p>\n

    When should (or shouldn\u2019t) you disavow?<\/h2>\n

    What constitutes a \u201clow-quality\u201d link? What is a \u201cbad\u201d directory? What is a \u201cgood\u201d guest post<\/a>?<\/p>\n

    According to Google<\/a>, a low-quality link is one that is:<\/p>\n

    [\u2026] intended to manipulate PageRank or a site\u2019s ranking in Google [or] may be considered part of a link scheme and a violation of Google\u2019s Webmaster Guidelines. This includes any behavior that manipulates links to your site or outgoing links from your site.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Gabriella Sannino<\/a>, the founder of Level343, simplifies that definition for her link audits:<\/p>\n

    A good rule of thumb is, if the link isn\u2019t relevant to your site or your users, it probably shouldn\u2019t be in your profile. <\/div>
    \"Gabriella<\/div>
    Gabriella Sannino,<\/span> Founder, Level343<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/blockquote>\n

    Marie Haynes<\/a> applies a similar logic:<\/p>\n

    Does the link serve any purpose outside of SEO? Does this link have legitimate potential to bring business to my site? <\/div>
    \"Marie<\/div>
    Marie Haynes,<\/span> Owner, Marie Haynes Consulting<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/blockquote>\n

    In contrast, Google notes that high-quality links are often \u201ceditorially earned\u201d<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    Links are usually editorial votes given by choice, and the more useful content you have, the greater the chances someone else will find that content valuable to their readers and link to it.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    There\u2019s plenty of space for subjective interpretation between these definitions:<\/p>\n

    \"link<\/p>\n

    Still, there are some unambiguously \u201cbad\u201d links<\/a>, and taking the time to investigate their origin and timing can help identify if a client is unknowingly paying another agency to build them.<\/p>\n

    (This can help you stop the leak instead of just bailing water.)<\/p>\n

    Here are six clear-cut sources of bad links:<\/p>\n

    1. Paid links<\/h3>\n

    Google targets a subset of paid links<\/a>: non-editorial, dofollow links that are clearly designed to pass PageRank<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    While some paid links may be difficult to detect, there are a few red flags:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • Dofollow site-wide links with exact-match anchor text;<\/li>\n
    • Dofollow links from unrelated sites\/content;<\/li>\n
    • Dofollow links from pages with obvious footprints such as \u201cSponsored Post.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      2. Private Blogging Networks (PBNs)<\/h3>\n

      Google began actively de-indexing PBNs in 2014<\/a>. They still exist, but links from PBNs are not part of any white-hat link-building<\/a> strategy.<\/p>\n

      PBNs are a focus of link audits by Ryan Stewart<\/a> and his team at WEBRIS, who<\/p>\n

      [\u2026] generally focus on links that were built by humans. The internet is full of garbage and sites tend to pick up random links that look spammy but are really just ignored by the algorithm. The only links we disavow are ones from PBNs and low-quality domains with exact-match anchors. <\/div>
      \"Ryan<\/div>
      Ryan Stewart,<\/span> Founder, WEBRIS<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/blockquote>\n

      3. Low-quality directories<\/h3>\n

      To identify a low-quality directory, ask yourself: Do you expect to get referral traffic from the listing? If the answer is \u201cNo,\u201d it\u2019s probably low quality.<\/p>\n

      While low-quality directory submissions haven\u2019t worked for years (and many now use nofollow links that eliminate the need to disavow), some unethical SEOs claim the contrary when pitching their \u201cservices\u201d to unsuspecting website owners.<\/p>\n

      A handful of high-quality or niche-specific directories might be worth the fee, but this tactic is not an effective way to grow site authority<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      4. Comment and forum spam<\/h3>\n

      Commenting on relevant, authoritative sites and forums and linking back to related content on your site is not only allowed but encouraged by Google<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      The problem is the scaling or automation of that process. Many comment systems now make all links nofollow by default, so there\u2019s likely little risk or reward here.<\/p>\n

      5. Hacked sites<\/h3>\n

      There\u2019s no gray area when it comes to hacked websites.<\/p>\n

      Links from hacked sites will all but guarantee a penalty from Google, and participating in the hacking can also get you in real trouble. (It\u2019s, you know, illegal.)<\/p>\n

      6. Negative SEO<\/h3>\n

      The most common type of negative SEO<\/a> is backlink spamming\u2014intentionally linking back to a competitor from hundreds or thousands of low-quality websites.<\/p>\n

      If you\u2019ve ever logged into Site Explorer<\/a> and seen a massive, unwarranted jump in referring domains, it could indicate that your site has been attacked:<\/p>\n

      \"negative<\/p>\n

      Receiving thousands of spammy links in a short period will arouse Google\u2019s suspicion, potentially resulting in a penalty.<\/p>\n

      What are the risks of disavowing?<\/h3>\n

      Even with a firm grasp of which links are \u201cbad\u201d and which are \u201cgood,\u201d disavowing remains risky. A link that looks \u201cbad\u201d may still help your site.<\/p>\n

      Google has continued to caution users<\/a> about the use of the disavow tool:<\/p>\n

      \"google<\/p>\n

      Despite this warning, the fear of a penalty has led many SEOs to prune links aggressively.<\/p>\n

      Years ago, this overzealous approach was aided by a misinterpretation of advice from Cutts<\/a> about the use of the disavow tool:<\/p>\n

      \"cutts<\/p>\n

      While the takeaway should have been an endorsement of domain-level rather than URL-level disavowal (read past the highlighted portion above), the enduring sound bite for many was to \u201cdisavow with a machete, not a scalpel.\u201d<\/p>\n

      Cutts is also on record<\/a> noting that an effort to \u201creavow\u201d links takes more time and may weaken the signals sent by those links:<\/p>\n

      [If you want to \u2018reavow\u2019 a link, then that will] take a lot longer, and we might not even give it the same weight, if we start to allow it to be reavowed. <\/div>
      \"Matt<\/div>
      Matt Cutts,<\/span> former Head of Web Spam, Google<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/blockquote>\n

      With so much at stake, only a handful of situations weight the risk-reward calculation heavily toward reward.<\/p>\n

      So when should you disavow?<\/h3>\n

      A Manual Action is the one absolute \u201cyes\u201d when it comes to the use of the disavow tool:<\/p>\n

      \"John<\/p>\n

      Beyond that, there are two instances when disavowing links is probably (but not definitely) the right choice:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. A dramatic jump in low-quality links that correlates with a sharp drop in rankings. <\/strong>Correlation is not causation; however, a stable site that disappears from search results after an influx of bad links is a prime candidate for link disavowal. (Even without a sharp drop, a proactive disavow can protect a site.)<\/li>\n
      2. If you can connect a suspicious backlink profile to a client\u2019s admission that they paid for links in the past<\/strong> (or still are today), a disavow of those links makes sense.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Nonetheless, experts remain divided in these and other situations that can fall into a \u201cgray area.\u201d<\/p>\n

        A sample of post\u2013Penguin 4.0 tweets reveals a range of perspectives:<\/p>\n

        \n

        Dwindling need for the disavow tool. Still there if you need it, but Google is handling spammy links now. https:\/\/t.co\/mFDY7EbWjd<\/a><\/p>\n

        \u2014 Glenn Gabe (@glenngabe) March 15, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n