Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Seo Book - Jackassery - Disavow Tool

disavow tool google intimidation morale values internet ptsd

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:12 PM

Aaron Wall at SEO Book posted on the disavow tool and link removal requests and refers to google's antics as "jackassery."  His use of the term "jackassery" is very appropriate in this case, imho.  :)  What do you think?

 

Aaron wraps up by saying ->

 

When Google aggregates Webmaster Tools link data from penalized websites they can easily make 2 lists:

 

  • sites frequently disavowed
  • sites with links frequently removed

 

If both lists are equally bad, then you are best off ignoring the removal requests & spending your time & resources improving your site.

 

If I had to guess, I would imagine that being on the list of "these are the spam links I was able to remove" is worse than being on the list of "these are the links I am unsure about & want to disavow just in case."

 

What say you?

 

End of Quote____________________________________________________________________________

 

When you explain it that way, I agree.

 

I am a little concerned about the lack of thoughtfullness shown by the SEO intelligentsia, but Aaron makes it clear that he's not showing disrespect to thoughtful people that are just trying to improve their business.  And I know from reading Aarons work, commenting and e-mailing with him that showing respect is very important to him. (Aaron is the most amazing person.  If anyone sends him an e-mail, he'll likely answer within 5 minutes.  It's clear he doesn't think he's too good to accept requests from the little people.)

 

The discovery of a new disease -- Internet PTSD -- may help explain the bad behavior we regulary see from some people in the SEO industry.

 

In some cases we should just do what our mothers' taught us -- talk to the people making the link removal request.  Of course, that assumes their mother taught them the same thing and maybe that they're not suffering from Internet PTSD.


Edited by chuckfinley, 13 April 2013 - 07:49 PM.
punctuation, spelling error


#2 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 4567 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 11:07 AM

It is important to remember history to have a reasonable grasp of what may be... Back when (last year) there was a growing concern among SEOs !?! that having created a mess of crappy backlinks there was no similar simple software method of removing same when a search algo, i.e. Penguin, switched from love to hate of said crappy links.

Then in June 2012 Bing decided to offer a disavow method/tool. And that made the SEOs !?! whimper even more at Google. I suspect that Bing's response was strictly marketing and Google's lack thereof was because they saw no benefit to them.

The real truth of the matter was/is that most SEs, including Bing and Google, work from their existing link data/graph/what-have-you and did not need to be told when a link does not meet whatever threshold. By the time a webdev notices calamity the damage is already done and accounted.

The traditional method when this happens is to build out new links from different sources with different anchor/surrounding text. Or, if the probable error is due to paid links stop paying and watch them (perhaps, mostly) vanish. In other words to dilute the crap sufficient to fall below whatever threshold(s) had been triggered.

Unfortunately, for many SEOs !?!, when Penguin hit they had to own up (though denial was far more common) to the fact that their links, in the zillions, were mostly, even all, crap. Dilution was not a practical option.
Note: that many of these same webdev/SEO !?! types were also building crap content and met Panda just added to the angst.

And so they begged for a fix other than shutting up shop and rebuilding (better?) on a new domain. And Bing took advantage. And eventually Google almost had to follow Bing's lead. What real use Google (or Bing) have for the tool is largely unknown - Google has said it (currently?) works much as adding a rel=nofollow.

There are accounts of Penguin recovery... but as the first (related by DonnaFontenot) I heard about (before Google implemented disavow) required widespread footer (sitelinks) removal and most/all of the others I've read since were a combination of removal and disavowal it is hard to put a value on the tool's use.

Presuming it does work as rel=nofollow (whatever that may mean at any given moment) then it's use is unlikely to cause recovery but may ease recovery from new better quality links. Of course we are speaking of sites that may have no SEO !?! clue beyond quick and dirty solutions...

And this carpet bombing clear cut approach to link removal we are speaking of is the flip side of the SEO !?! ignorance incompetence idiocy that acquired all those zillions of auto-generated links in the first place.

I quite happily do not use SE band-aids. And when I cheat, if I do, it is quietly and not as the stampeding herd. Thresholds: the magic SE word.

 

Note: how Google or Bing may be using disavow data is pure speculation, interesting but... The accompanying FUD is likely of more value - as was mentioned. Gotta love the entertainment value of the recurring hysteria of the 99% of SEOs !?! that aren't, i.e. follow, regurgitate 'advice' without understanding.



#3 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13469 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 11:26 AM

And when I cheat, if I do, it is quietly and not as the stampeding herd.

Exactly.  Ths is why have no sympathy for the sites that are now scrambling to fix the damage they caused for themselves.  And, as I ranted about in another discussion, being asked to remove links from a site that NEVER did anything spammy because site owners are now paranoid is also a pathetic result of all this greed.

 

From day 1, there are some of us who saw the value of PATIENCE in marketing.  

 

Aaron Wall is a genius btw.  He's one of the rare ones who has experienced the SEO LIFE and learned from it, and he's always had an uncanny ability to cut through the moon poop and tell it like it is. 



#4 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 04:50 PM

Aaron Wall is a genius btw.  He's one of the rare ones who has experienced the SEO LIFE and learned from it, and he's always had an uncanny ability to cut through the moon poop and tell it like it is. 

 

Ditto.

 

Aaron is also a realist.  He knows that the purpose of a business is to maximize profit.  He will explain that a business needs to do a risk vs reward analysis before deciding to use low quality links.  Aaron knows that the one that is creating this mess is google and he isn't willing to point fingers at fellow business owners or SEO's because of that.  And, he sure isn't into outing his competitors or anyone else.

 

I have a high degree of respect for him because of that.  He's has had reason to retaliate and hasn't done so.  That's character.  I don't listen to what people say anymore, I watch what they do.  (I evaluate google the same way.)

 

Don't get me wrong.  I'm sure Aaron thinks you should build authority for your site and build high quality links that will boost that authority.  He also knows -- you can't do that to start and many small businesses with limited knowledge and budgets can't do that.

 

google was on record with statements that low PR directory links with anchor text were not something they would take action against.  I have Maile Ohye on video stating that -- she said those kinds of links didn't affect PageRank so google didn't care.  No matter how ridiculous that statement is, she said it in public  The video has been taken down, hmmmmm..... I wonder why?  I have a copy.  If you would like a copy, let me know and I'll send it to you.

 

That's why I wouldn't be so quick to give other businesses the cold shoulder.  It wasn't as clear to the rest of us that google wouldn't allow these kinds of links.  Just because some people in the industry think that's the way "it should be" doesn't make it true.   Truth depends on what google will clearly state in their Quality Guidelines.

 

And, of course, google wouldn't be clear or put anything in writing.  I wonder why?  Although, google has included it in their Quality Guidelines now.  Thanks, google, for clearing this up and attaching a penalty to it after there's nothing we can do about it.  And, thanks for that special touch you have with people -- yes, you have succeeded in getting us to turn on each other.  I suspect this was your intent in the first place (and I'm pretty sure I read Aaron saying quite a ways back that this would happen). 

 

I'll bet the number of spam reports has quadrupled since this started.  Did you ever think that maybe google is letting us do their detective work for them by filing spam reports and outing each other?  Maybe that's what the disavow tool is about.  And, to make matters worse, once they review all these reports, they'll decide that new marketing methods (which may be high quality marketing methods) are spam and they'll use it to penalize all of us. 

 

All they had to do is get us all to turn on each other to make the plan work.


Edited by chuckfinley, 14 April 2013 - 04:51 PM.
spelling


#5 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 4567 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 05:29 PM

There are the rules aka ToS and then there are the rules that are enforced and how they are enforced. Just because a rule has a history (and despite 'rulings' aka 'official' comments at any given time) relying on anything other than the rule itself is hazardous. And even rules themselves change and adapt over time... This is true of legislation, laws, regulation let alone software ToS.

 

Make action risk assessments and business decisions based on them. And don't complain (too much :D) when they bite you.



#6 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 4567 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 06:53 PM

Aaron Wall is one of an increasingly small number (many have gone quiet for various reasons) of SE outside experts (not a SE employee) I read with great interest. While he usually does qualify his commentary it is best to remember that what he writes is (1) opinion albeit based on experience, (2) fairly basic/broad as he naturally withholds much behind a business pay-wall or for his own use, and (3) limited by being outside looking in; all is inference and patterns.

Reading Aaron and others can certainly be quite helpful. However, as each SE treats each industry/vertical/niche differently and sites themselves vary greatly the real intelligence is found in each site's logfiles. Learning how to query and what to query that data is critical to deliberate designed success. Analytics is (or should be) a foundation of just about every site business decision. And logfiles are the premier data set to be analysed.
Note: media or page (IRL or URL) tagging analysis can also be very valuable.
Note: careful determination of metrics is critical to avoid miscounting and other errors, i.e. AOL/mobile gateway effect, unstructured data, unique visitor (aka 'hotel') over time disconnect...

And that means learning an analytics program, i.e. Google Analytics, Piwik, that can deliver what you need (not what it offers).
Plus .htaccess (or httpd.conf if dedicated server).
Plus regex (regular expression).

And then things get interesting. :)
 



#7 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 09:29 PM

Make action risk assessments and business decisions based on them. And don't complain (too much :D) when they bite you.

 

You're absolutely right about that.

 

The way google plays, the only rule is -- there are no rules.

 


 



#8 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 09:46 PM

And that means learning an analytics program, i.e. Google Analytics, Piwik, that can deliver what you need (not what it offers).
Plus .htaccess (or httpd.conf if dedicated server).
Plus regex (regular expression).

And then things get interesting. :)

 

I bought The Definitive Guide to Apache mod-rewrite, Rich Bowen and Mastering Regular Expressions, O'Reilly, Jeffrey E.F. Friedl and am working my way thorugh them.

 

I shall control the internet soon....... :)

 

Don't get me wrong. I just sayin', google could do a better job of controlling their services and their communications.  They need to get a new view.  Their public relations efforts need work.

 

I don't suggest clients that have ten of thousands of dollars invested in their site take any risk with google.  They can afford to do it the right way, though.  The problem is, you really can be an innocent bystander and get taken out.  Who needs that kind of risk?

 

It does makes sense to diversify your risk over multiple channels, that's just basic business whether you're on-line or off-line.  It's not a matter of picking a different channel, though, we need then all to produce to be competitive.


Edited by chuckfinley, 14 April 2013 - 09:47 PM.
sp




RSS Feed


Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: disavow tool, google intimidation, morale values, internet ptsd

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users