Thread by @darth_na

1/?
:: Toxic Links & the Link Disavowal Tool ::
<by C. S. Lewis 🤣>

.

Googles Link Disavowal Tool can be harmful.
It allows you to tell G to ignore good links,
as well as bad!

(Don't understand why G made/left it that way!?)

>>>

#SEO #BackLinks

https://twitter.com/patrickstox/status/1590420540514500608

2/?
>>>

Technically, the tool is there for people to flag one type of link to Google:
> The ones they made themselves!

It is not meant for links :
* from adult sites
* from questionable sites
* from foreign sites
* that are on sites you don't like
etc.

>>>

3/?
>>>

But, I also like to include a 2nd type of link:
> The ones that look like the ones they made themselves!

The theme here is ,
the tool is meant to tell G to ignore your self-made spammy links (or ones that G could honestly mistake as such).

>>>

4/?
>>>

So if you've been good,
if you've not made, arranged or bought links
(esp. blatantly spammy ones, on low quality sites, shoved in comments/footers etc.),
and
if your site is of quality (not spammy etc.),
then
you (should) have no reason to worry!

>>>

5/?
>>>

But ... let's be utterly honest here:

1) Some clients are just plain stupid
2) Many don't believe it
3) Many will go ahead and use the G-LDT anyway

So ... go with a hybrid approach.

.
Get them to disavow a % of those links!
.

That simple!

>>>

6/?
>>>

Score the list up,
and break it into quarters/fifths.

Sort the links via the tools data.
Then, working from the most offensive downwards,
tag
* In content
* Relevant
* Quality page
* Trust worthy site
* Sensible link text

Each of those is worth 1 point.

>>>

7/?
>>>

Add the points up, +1 extra point.
(so all links should have a value between 1 and 6).

Sort the list by that score.

Break it into quarters or fifths.

Let them disavow the lowest scoring fifth.
Tell them to wait 1 month,
and report any change in rankings.

>>>

8/?
>>>

If there's a change - ok - consider rolling the next quarter/fifth etc.

If there's no change - ok - see if the client is appeased.
If not - permit the next quarter/fifth, as a final test.

Mitigate the damage as much as possible,
stop them burning (too many) good links.

9/?
>>>

I know - it's no ideal.
But you have to perform triage,
and win their trust,
whilst trying to stem the bleeding.

I'm not against the concept of "toxic links".
Some links are bad.
And the LDT can solve some ranking issues.

But ...

>>>

10/?
>>>

But... normally only on spammy sites,
with spammy links!

If there's no indication of a link-based penalty,
and no spammy links... don't use it.

.

(You can always try to replace the LD File with a "better" one, and try to reduce the damage at a later date)

>>>

11/?

Please Note:

At no point have I mentioned "link scores", "page scores" or "site scores" - from any tool.

You should Not be basing decisions on whether a link is good or not on "just" those things.

Instead, prioritise, and go look!
(thus the quality assessment above)

>>>

12/?
>>>

Just because a link comes from a low-scoring page/domain does Not mean it's a bad link.

The site may be new, or poorly promoted, or just not that good.
Doesn't mean the link is spammy.

(If in doubt, look at what else they link to.)