Can we ask Google to ignore links? Pretty soon we can

[Clarrie]

If I were Google, I would give webmasters an opportunity to disavow only flagged links, not whichever links they like.

I also suspect that Google is not going to ask you, "OK, do you vouch for links A, B and C?"
What it's going to do, I think, is to send you a notification saying "There are unnatural links pointing to your site, blah-blah-blah. If you wish, mark the ones you'd like us to ignore" and let webmasters do all the guesswork. Which kind of sucks, but is better than getting penalized for the links I didn't even build.

Uh, no. Can't see that working. 'Cos that leads to build as many spammy links as you can, then when Google flags them go, ah sorry, and disavow the ones that they've flagged.

The main reasons for wanting to disavow links are a) to combat negative SEO to disavow spammy links that a competitor might have placed to harm your site; or b) to disavow spam / paid links purchased by some black hat SEOs (a particular problem for me at the moment having just taken over a naive client who has been suckered by a black hat SEO company!)

Remember we are talking here about a verified webmaster disavowing almost certain spam links, for example 2,500 links from one domain embedded in blog comments. I doubt we're talking single links from odd sites we don't know.

So I can't see this working in any other way than a webmaster spotting unknown dodgy links such as x,000 from domain xxx and disavowing them, and Google then ignoring all links from that domain. No positive impact, no negative impact. Just ignored. Why make life more complicated than that?

[ozsubasi]

I think that if Google was going to actually tell webmasters which links it doesn't like, it would have done so when sending out the unnatural links warnings. My belief is that if they give us the means to do it, it will be left to us to make the decisions.
The links I want to be rid of don't necessarily come under either category a) or b) in Clarrie's post, they are just there for no apparent reason and in many cases when I visit the sites concerned I can't even see them. If I don't like the site and/or it isn't relevant I just want to be able to disassociate it from mine. I agree that it would be most straightforward to disallow all links from a domain rather than individually.
I think it would be good to have the option to moderate links before they actually connect, i.e. when Google finds one to my site I get a notice through GWT asking if I want to accept it, but retaining the option to change my decision later.
One last thought, Google admit they we can't see all our links in GWT, so is it not quite possible that even with a new tool to disregard those we don't want, there could still be others that we wouldn't want if only we knew they were there?

[murphypj]

I honestly cannot believe that I'm reading this conversation. Google is very obviously playing a game of "Throw the SEOs in a barrel and poke them with a stick". Seriously. The software giant which has developed systems which can analyze every website ever created and make complex assessments as to it's authenticity, it's content authority, and it's relevance for an almost unlimited combination of word combinations/phrases is telling us ( or hinting, as is always the case with G ) that it is unable to just discount links from sites that it doesn't trust, and asking website owners ( or let's face it, SEO pros ) to check every site linking to theirs, hazard a guess as to which ones the Google machine won't like, and submit a request for them to be ignored?

GWT is currently showing 26,481 links to my site. 14,968 of these come from a guy who must be the internet's most enthusiastic blogger, who just happened to put a link to my site in his sidebar, which apparently is included in each post, because among several other interests, he plays guitar, and presumably found my site useful. I have never had any illusions that these links provide more than a droplet of ranking in Google's whole scheme of things. As I scroll down thru the list ( bearing in mind that Google's software has examined each of these sites to be able to provide me with this information ), I see a mixed bag of authorative music sites, directories, blog posts, but mostly sites/domains I've never heard of. There are over 400 single links among these. I have never requested or paid for links from any other site.

I wasn't among the unlucky sites hit by Panda or Penguin, so I guess I'm not (yet) in panic mode, ready to grasp any piece of thread dangled by Google to pull myself out of the mire. But I really don't believe that if I was, that I would have the time, patience or inclination to play 'find-the-spam' among this link profile, given that the organization who have provided the information are far better equipped to determine what is spam - by their own definitions and standards - and simply ignore it for ranking purposes.

If Google does decide to have a bit of fun at SEO's expense, and provide an 'ignore this link' option in GWT, my guess is that submitting 400+ such requests would be considered by G as an indication that I had probably farmed these links, and would be more likely to result in a penalty than a rank improvement. Most likely result would be 'no change'.

And yes, I am aware of the irony that in posting this, I have created another 'irrelevant' link in my sig, with which Google will do as Google chooses. The link, like everyone else's, is to attract clicks from forum readers interested in my subject matter ( I'm guessing there must be some guitar players on this forum ) - i.e. content for users, not SE's.

[SENtelligence]

Uh, no. Can't see that working. 'Cos that leads to build as many spammy links as you can, then when Google flags them go, ah sorry, and disavow the ones that they've flagged.

The point is, when Google flags them, it doesn't tell you which links it flagged. This will have a very interesting psychological effect on SEO's, I think. They may begin disavowing the links Google did not flag, giving Google valuable hints.

The main reasons for wanting to disavow links are a) to combat negative SEO to disavow spammy links that a competitor might have placed to harm your site; or b) to disavow spam / paid links purchased by some black hat SEOs (a particular problem for me at the moment having just taken over a naive client who has been suckered by a black hat SEO company!)

Agreed.

Remember we are talking here about a verified webmaster disavowing almost certain spam links, for example 2,500 links from one domain embedded in blog comments. I doubt we're talking single links from odd sites we don't know.

Link spam comes in all shapes and sizes and may be very hard to identify, depending on a particular profile, especially if you were not the one who built it.

So I can't see this working in any other way than a webmaster spotting unknown dodgy links such as x,000 from domain xxx and disavowing them, and Google then ignoring all links from that domain. No positive impact, no negative impact.

Well, then Google may be tempted to use disavowing as a signal, and this may lead to abuse. Besides, unsavvy webmasters could begin disavowing the links they don't understand, just to be on the safe side, and this will lead to less relevant SERPs. I don't think webmasters should be given that much power and be able to disavow everything in sight.

[SENtelligence]

If Google does decide to have a bit of fun at SEO's expense, and provide an 'ignore this link' option in GWT, my guess is that submitting 400+ such requests would be considered by G as an indication that I had probably farmed these links, and would be more likely to result in a penalty than a rank improvement. Most likely result would be 'no change'.

I think webmasters should be able to simply check a box opposite the link or the group of links they want Google to ignore, without having to submit anything. This would be done automatically. Then Google would match the checked links against the list of flagged links.

As for the links that were marked by the webmaster, but were not flagged by Google, I'd just disregard the ignore command, because this could be a manipulative or uneducated move on behalf of the webmaster.

[ozsubasi]

Besides, unsavvy webmasters could begin disavowing the links they don't understand, just to be on the safe side, and this will lead to less relevant SERPs. I don't think webmasters should be given that much power and be able to disavow everything in sight.

But such unsavvy webmasters could do any number of things to their sites already which could be detrimental to their SERPs, should they not be permitted to make changes at all on that basis? Or what if they wanted to close it altogether, should they not be permitted to do so? If a site is mine I want the right to make my own mistakes.

[SENtelligence]

If a site is mine I want the right to make my own mistakes.

That's right, it's your site and you can do with it whatever you'd like. But the SERPs are not yours, they're Google's. Google has never relied on webmaster's subjective opinions about things. For example, it may respect your wish to make a particular URL canonical or may not.

[ozsubasi]

Yes they are Google's and I'm not responsible for them because Google doesn't tell me how they are decided upon. In any case of course whatever we discuss here isn't going to have any effect on what they do or do not allow us to change as regards links, they will do what they want to. I am just arguing against the principle expressed that I should not be trusted to make changes (if such changes are allowed) on the basis that it may affect Google's SERPs, when other things I can do already could affect them.
However, I already suggested that there could be an option to switch links on and off, in which case if I did make an error I would be able to correct it.

[chrisJumbo]

Google created this problem first problem by giving people some indication on a little toolbar of a site's strengths. This created the situation where people were seeking links from strong sites, paying for links on strong sites, playing a game with trying to mix a certain # of PR0, PR1, PR2, etc. Now, people are trying to create links that don't look too smart. Domain name, click here, etc. Over and over again, Google claimed another site can't hurt you with their links. Now, they say they do their best to combat spam, but a site can hurt you. Thus, people are desperate to get rid of links they think are hurting them. But, what if the links I think are hurting me are actually the ones helping me. If my rankings drop even further after a disavow links can I reclaim them?!?

Google only pays lip service to caring about the natural results. They don't make $ off of the natural results. People with day jobs (small to medium business owners) just don't have the time to try to play these games. Google has not leveled the playing field at all. It is now more like the wild, wild west.

[williamc]

I honestly cannot believe that I'm reading this conversation. Google is very obviously playing a game of "Throw the SEOs in a barrel and poke them with a stick".

While this may be the true motivation to adopt this, the idea was actually given to Matt Cutts by David Harry, a known SEO. I still think the idea has merit, but as Sentelligence said, Google should not leave it to the webmasters to try and guess which links google may deem bad.