SEO
Any Risk In Deleting A Disavow File?
Google’s John Mueller answered whether it’s okay to delete a disavow file since Google is so good at not counting the average junk links that sites acquire typically, through no fault or effort on the part of the website publisher.
Mueller mentioned an interesting quality about these links that sets them apart from links that might cause a negative result, like a manual action.
A minor quibble, the person asking the question claimed to have disavowed links for 15 years, but the disavow tool has only existed for 10 years.
Disavow Tool
The disavow tool was introduced in 2012 by Google in response to the overwhelming demand of the SEO community, who wanted an easier way to deal with the thousands of sites suffering from the Penguin algorithm.
Google introduced the Penguin algorithm to deal with the vast amount of manipulative links, particularly paid links, that businesses used to influence the search results in their favor.
The disavow tool provided SEOs an easy way to deal with links they couldn’t remove.
Google only intended the tool for dealing with manual actions.
The Google 2012 disavow tool announcement advised:
“If you’ve been notified of a manual spam action based on “unnatural links” pointing to your site, this tool can help you address the issue.
If you haven’t gotten this notification, this tool generally isn’t something you need to worry about.”
Toxic Links
What tends to happen nowadays is that a publisher who is unable to objectively review their content as anything other than perfectly fine and better than their competitors looks around for a scapegoat for their poor rankings. The finger ends up pointing toward the so-called toxic links.
Many people regard toxic links as random links that spammers generate to regular sites.
Should An Honest Site Delete Its Disavow File?
The person asking the question wants to know if it’s okay to delete a disavow to address spammy links when they haven’t received a manual action.
They asked:
“Over the last 15 years, I’ve disavowed over 11,000 links in total.
I never bought a link or did anything unallowed, like sharing.
The links that I disavowed may have been from hacked sites or from nonsense, auto-generated content.
Since Google now claims that they have better tools to not factor these types of hacked or spammy links into their algorithms, should I just delete my disavow file?
Is there any risk or upside or downside to just deleting it?”
Random Links Different From Manipulative Links
Mueller’s answer focused on assuring the person that Google can distinguish between accidental and manipulative links.
What stands out in his answer is how he highlights that random spammy links don’t resemble the kinds of links used to manipulate search engines.
Mueller answered:
“So this is a good question, it comes up every now and then.
And disavowing links is always kind of one of those tricky topics because it feels like Google is probably not telling you the full information.
But from our point of view, it’s actually like, we do work really hard to avoid taking these kinds of links into account.
And we do that because we know that the disavow links tool is somewhat a niche tool.
…SEOs know about it, but the average person who runs a website has no idea about it.
And all of those links that you mentioned there are kind of links that any websites gets over the years.
And our systems understand that these are not things that you’re trying to do to kind of like game our algorithms.”
That’s a good answer for people trying to wrap their minds around how Google can tell the difference between random spammy links and links that can lead to a ranking penalty.
Manipulative links look different from random spammy links. No legitimate website buys ten thousand links spam links to rank better.
So it’s an easy call to make to ignore those kinds of links because according to Mueller:
“…our systems understand that these are not things that you’re trying to do to kind of like game our algorithms.”
It’s Okay to Delete the Disavow File
Mueller continued his answer, using the word “crufty” in reference to the random links.
Cruft is a word from the programming world that means something extra or junk.
Mueller wrapped up his answer:
“So from that point of view, if you’re really sure that there’s nothing around like a manual action that you had to resolve with regards to these links, I would just delete the disavow file and move on with life and kind of leave all of that aside.
One thing I would personally do is just download it and make a copy so that you have kind of a record of what you deleted.
But otherwise, if you’re sure these are just kind of the normal crufty things from the Internet, I would just delete it and move on.
There’s much more to spend your time on when it comes to websites than just disavowing these random things that happen to any website on the web.”
Trust Google Enough to Delete the Disavow?
The main things to consider are:
- The disavow tool was created to make it easier for SEOs to deal with manipulative links
- It’s normal for sites to acquire random links from hacked sites, etc.
- Google’s systems “understand” that random links are not manipulative.
According to Mueller, it’s okay to stop disavowing random links and to delete the disavow list if it wasn’t done to deal with manipulative links, especially ones that caused a manual action penalty.
Citation
Watch Mueller answer the question at the 10:20 minute mark
When It’s Okay to Delete a Disavow File
Featured Image: Screenshot from YouTube.com/GoogleSearchCentral, July 2022.
SEO
HARO Has Been Dead for a While
I know nothing about the new tool. I haven’t tried it. But after trying to use HARO recently, I can’t say I’m surprised or saddened by its death. It’s been a walking corpse for a while.
I used HARO way back in the day to build links. It worked. But a couple of months ago, I experienced the platform from the other side when I decided to try to source some “expert” insights for our posts.
After just a few minutes of work, I got hundreds of pitches:
So, I grabbed a cup of coffee and began to work through them. It didn’t take long before I lost the will to live. Every other pitch seemed like nothing more than lazy AI-generated nonsense from someone who definitely wasn’t an expert.
Here’s one of them:
Seriously. Who writes like that? I’m a self-confessed dullard (any fellow Dull Men’s Club members here?), and even I’m not that dull…
I don’t think I looked through more than 30-40 of the responses. I just couldn’t bring myself to do it. It felt like having a conversation with ChatGPT… and not a very good one!
Despite only reviewing a few dozen of the many pitches I received, one stood out to me:
Believe it or not, this response came from a past client of mine who runs an SEO agency in the UK. Given how knowledgeable and experienced he is (he actually taught me a lot about SEO back in the day when I used to hassle him with questions on Skype), this pitch rang alarm bells for two reasons:
- I truly doubt he spends his time replying to HARO queries
- I know for a fact he’s no fan of Neil Patel (sorry, Neil, but I’m sure you’re aware of your reputation at this point!)
So… I decided to confront him 😉
Here’s what he said:
Shocker.
I pressed him for more details:
I’m getting a really good deal and paying per link rather than the typical £xxxx per month for X number of pitches. […] The responses as you’ve seen are not ideal but that’s a risk I’m prepared to take as realistically I dont have the time to do it myself. He’s not native english, but I have had to have a word with him a few times about clearly using AI. On the low cost ones I don’t care but on authority sites it needs to be more refined.
I think this pretty much sums up the state of HARO before its death. Most “pitches” were just AI answers from SEOs trying to build links for their clients.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not throwing shade here. I know that good links are hard to come by, so you have to do what works. And the reality is that HARO did work. Just look at the example below. You can tell from the anchor and surrounding text in Ahrefs that these links were almost certainly built with HARO:
But this was the problem. HARO worked so well back in the day that it was only a matter of time before spammers and the #scale crew ruined it for everyone. That’s what happened, and now HARO is no more. So…
If you’re a link builder, I think it’s time to admit that HARO link building is dead and move on.
No tactic works well forever. It’s the law of sh**ty clickthroughs. This is why you don’t see SEOs having huge success with tactics like broken link building anymore. They’ve moved on to more innovative tactics or, dare I say it, are just buying links.
Sidenote.
Talking of buying links, here’s something to ponder: if Connectively charges for pitches, are links built through those pitches technically paid? If so, do they violate Google’s spam policies? It’s a murky old world this SEO lark, eh?
If you’re a journalist, Connectively might be worth a shot. But with experts being charged for pitches, you probably won’t get as many responses. That might be a good thing. You might get less spam. Or you might just get spammed by SEOs with deep pockets. The jury’s out for now.
My advice? Look for alternative methods like finding and reaching out to experts directly. You can easily use tools like Content Explorer to find folks who’ve written lots of content about the topic and are likely to be experts.
For example, if you look for content with “backlinks” in the title and go to the Authors tab, you might see a familiar name. 😉
I don’t know if I’d call myself an expert, but I’d be happy to give you a quote if you reached out on social media or emailed me (here’s how to find my email address).
Alternatively, you can bait your audience into giving you their insights on social media. I did this recently with a poll on X and included many of the responses in my guide to toxic backlinks.
Either of these options is quicker than using HARO because you don’t have to sift through hundreds of responses looking for a needle in a haystack. If you disagree with me and still love HARO, feel free to tell me why on X 😉
SEO
Google Clarifies Vacation Rental Structured Data
Google’s structured data documentation for vacation rentals was recently updated to require more specific data in a change that is more of a clarification than it is a change in requirements. This change was made without any formal announcement or notation in the developer pages changelog.
Vacation Rentals Structured Data
These specific structured data types makes vacation rental information eligible for rich results that are specific to these kinds of rentals. However it’s not available to all websites. Vacation rental owners are required to be connected to a Google Technical Account Manager and have access to the Google Hotel Center platform.
VacationRental Structured Data Type Definitions
The primary changes were made to the structured data property type definitions where Google defines what the required and recommended property types are.
The changes to the documentation is in the section governing the Recommended properties and represents a clarification of the recommendations rather than a change in what Google requires.
The primary changes were made to the structured data type definitions where Google defines what the required and recommended property types are.
The changes to the documentation is in the section governing the Recommended properties and represents a clarification of the recommendations rather than a change in what Google requires.
Address Schema.org property
This is a subtle change but it’s important because it now represents a recommendation that requires more precise data.
This is what was recommended before:
“streetAddress”: “1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.”
This is what it now recommends:
“streetAddress”: “1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy, Unit 6E”
Address Property Change Description
The most substantial change is to the description of what the “address” property is, becoming more descriptive and precise about what is recommended.
The description before the change:
PostalAddress
Information about the street address of the listing. Include all properties that apply to your country.
The description after the change:
PostalAddress
The full, physical location of the vacation rental.
Provide the street address, city, state or region, and postal code for the vacation rental. If applicable, provide the unit or apartment number.
Note that P.O. boxes or other mailing-only addresses are not considered full, physical addresses.
This is repeated in the section for address.streetAddress property
This is what it recommended before:
address.streetAddress Text
The full street address of your vacation listing.
And this is what it recommends now:
address.streetAddress Text
The full street address of your vacation listing, including the unit or apartment number if applicable.
Clarification And Not A Change
Although these updates don’t represent a change in Google’s guidance they are nonetheless important because they offer clearer guidance with less ambiguity as to what is recommended.
Read the updated structured data guidance:
Vacation rental (VacationRental) structured data
Featured Image by Shutterstock/New Africa
SEO
Google On Hyphens In Domain Names
Google’s John Mueller answered a question on Reddit about why people don’t use hyphens with domains and if there was something to be concerned about that they were missing.
Domain Names With Hyphens For SEO
I’ve been working online for 25 years and I remember when using hyphens in domains was something that affiliates did for SEO when Google was still influenced by keywords in the domain, URL, and basically keywords anywhere on the webpage. It wasn’t something that everyone did, it was mainly something that was popular with some affiliate marketers.
Another reason for choosing domain names with keywords in them was that site visitors tended to convert at a higher rate because the keywords essentially prequalified the site visitor. I know from experience how useful two-keyword domains (and one word domain names) are for conversions, as long as they didn’t have hyphens in them.
A consideration that caused hyphenated domain names to fall out of favor is that they have an untrustworthy appearance and that can work against conversion rates because trustworthiness is an important factor for conversions.
Lastly, hyphenated domain names look tacky. Why go with tacky when a brandable domain is easier for building trust and conversions?
Domain Name Question Asked On Reddit
This is the question asked on Reddit:
“Why don’t people use a lot of domains with hyphens? Is there something concerning about it? I understand when you tell it out loud people make miss hyphen in search.”
And this is Mueller’s response:
“It used to be that domain names with a lot of hyphens were considered (by users? or by SEOs assuming users would? it’s been a while) to be less serious – since they could imply that you weren’t able to get the domain name with fewer hyphens. Nowadays there are a lot of top-level-domains so it’s less of a thing.
My main recommendation is to pick something for the long run (assuming that’s what you’re aiming for), and not to be overly keyword focused (because life is too short to box yourself into a corner – make good things, course-correct over time, don’t let a domain-name limit what you do online). The web is full of awkward, keyword-focused short-lived low-effort takes made for SEO — make something truly awesome that people will ask for by name. If that takes a hyphen in the name – go for it.”
Pick A Domain Name That Can Grow
Mueller is right about picking a domain name that won’t lock your site into one topic. When a site grows in popularity the natural growth path is to expand the range of topics the site coves. But that’s hard to do when the domain is locked into one rigid keyword phrase. That’s one of the downsides of picking a “Best + keyword + reviews” domain, too. Those domains can’t grow bigger and look tacky, too.
That’s why I’ve always recommended brandable domains that are memorable and encourage trust in some way.
Read the post on Reddit:
Read Mueller’s response here.
Featured Image by Shutterstock/Benny Marty
-
WORDPRESS6 days ago
Turkish startup ikas attracts $20M for its e-commerce platform designed for small businesses
-
PPC7 days ago
31 Ready-to-Go Mother’s Day Messages for Social Media, Email, & More
-
PPC7 days ago
A History of Google AdWords and Google Ads: Revolutionizing Digital Advertising & Marketing Since 2000
-
MARKETING5 days ago
Roundel Media Studio: What to Expect From Target’s New Self-Service Platform
-
SEO5 days ago
Google Limits News Links In California Over Proposed ‘Link Tax’ Law
-
MARKETING6 days ago
Unlocking the Power of AI Transcription for Enhanced Content Marketing Strategies
-
SEARCHENGINES6 days ago
Google Search Results Can Be Harmful & Dangerous In Some Cases
-
SEARCHENGINES5 days ago
Daily Search Forum Recap: April 12, 2024
You must be logged in to post a comment Login