http://bit.ly/2W4RwIM
Google’s John Mueller Answers Question About Negative SEO Attack via @martinibuster http://bit.ly/2EORqj0 In a Webmaster Hangout, Google’s John Mueller answered a question from a web publisher who asked what to do about a suspected negative SEO attack. The web publisher asked if he should wait until he received a manual action from Google. Here is the question:
John Mueller’s answer reiterated that Google’s algorithm already ignores spammy links.
John Mueller then stated that the links were likely normal spam links. Normal spam links happen naturally all the time. This has been the case since as long as I can remember. I believe what’s happening is that spammers believe that linking to a high ranking site will fool Google into believing they’re an authority hub and overlook their spammy links. But of course, that does not work. An old SEO myth proposes that linking to a highly ranked site will help your site rank better. If you’re interested in the origin of that SEO myth, check out this research paper published in 1998 (yes, 1998, I told you it was an old myth!) Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment (PDF) Here’s what John Mueller said:
Use the Disavow Tool if You’re WorriedGoogle’s Mueller then went on to recommend the use of the disavow tool as a way to calm your nerves if you are really worried about it. This is what John Mueller said:
Now, I have a feeling that some might try to make a big deal out of that last statement, “That’s not something our algorithms would try to judge for your website” and start reading Anyone who would make a big deal out of that last statement is taking it out of context to twist it to mean something else. John Mueller continued:
Google Can Handle Normal Spammy LinksJohn Mueller again brought the topic of negative SEO back to the idea that Google can handle normal spammy links.
Disavow Tool Only for Extreme CasesJohn Mueller ended by stating that the disavow tool is meant for extreme cases only. It is not a tool that should be widely used but rather the opposite, it should rarely be used. Here’s what he said:
Google Focuses on Positive Signals?Google has been ignoring links in one way or another since the very beginning. The idea is to remove as much irrelevant noise so that what you’re left with is a pure signal, the signals that matter. An example of this concept is how Google ignores “powered by” links in a footer. Another example is the way Google will ignore a sitewide link from one site to another site and simply count it was one link and not as thousands of links. These are examples of Google ignoring irrelevant links in order to get to the link signals that matter. Getting back to the topic of negative SEO and spammy links, Google’s algorithm ignores links that are outside of normal neighborhoods. If a site has great signals of quality, if it contains great content, and users love it, then Google can rank just as it is without the spammy links. What would be the point of punishing a site by ignoring all the positive signals it contains? The user loses and so does Google. Ignoring spammy links and judging a site by the positive qualities makes so much more sense. When this topic is viewed from that perspective, Google’s insistence to not worry about spammy links, including adult links, makes more sense. If you wish to read more about the topic of negative SEO, consider reading: Attacked by Negative SEO? Lost Rankings? Read This Watch the Webmaster Hangout here. Screenshots by Author, Modified by Author SEO via Search Engine Journal http://bit.ly/1QNKwvh May 31, 2019 at 04:08PM
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
Archives
November 2020
|