Since Google released the Disavow Tool last year a question many SEOs have been asking is - should I disavow links for sites affected by Penguin? Will it help me recover?
In a comment to a recent Search Engine Watch article a reader asks - where is the proof that the link disavow tool has worked for anybody?
A few days ago Marie Haynes published an interesting example of a likely Penguin recovery assisted by the disavow tool. I thought I'd share an additional example with some thoughts on the process.
The site described below was primarily a test site, one of several similar websites and was ranking for its primary keyword at #1 for several months before the initial Penguin update in April 2012. The links had been built, not acquired naturally and the site's anchor text had been heavily focused around keyword-rich phrases. While the anchors were diversified the site had a very small number of branded, URL-based or generic anchor text links. At its peak there were probably about 100 linking root domains pointing to the site, as reported by Google Webmaster Tools.
The site was hit by the the first Penguin update after which it was left unattended until February 2013 when I submitted a disavow file with over 50 domains that were likely hurting the domain's rankings.
Nothing happened until 9th May (10th in Australia) when the site's ranking soared:
You might say - Wait, wait, wasn't Penguin 2.0 (a.k.a. Penguin #4) rolled out on 22nd May not 9th? Yes, however from what we've seen and from what others have noticed it seems that Google either pre-released the new Penguin or refreshed a portion of the data used for its calculation earlier, around the 9th of May. Interestingly, some of the other sites which had similar link disavowals completed (I'll get to them in a moment) recovered on the 9th of May while others on the 22nd.
The "domain:" parameter was used for ALL submitted links. The reason for this approach was that after inspection it turned out many of the links were being duplicated across several pages on their host domains (mainly on tag pages, category pages and the like), so being extra careful I decided to err on the side of deleting too many links than missing toxic ones.
To be sure that all potentially problematic links are disavowed I included in the disavow files even those domains which no longer hosted links to the penalised site, but were reported in Google Webmaster Tools or of which I knew that had hosted such links in the past.
Links were classified as good or bad solely based on their anchor text - if the anchor text was not the URL, brand name or a generic phrase it was labelled unnatural and the link was included in the disavow file. Links with branded or URL-based anchor text were preserved in most cases even if they came from a potentially spammy domain.
Not really. After the site was hit by Penguin #1 in April 2012 one relatively insignificant link was pointed to the domain in December 2012. No significant, long-term change in rankings was observed after the link was published.
No. Since the site was clearly hit by an algorithmic penalty and nearly all of the site's links were far from kosher, I decided not to submit a reconsideration request.
While the site has not regained exactly the same rankings as before the penalty, I do believe it has recovered fully. Why? Consider the following time-line:
So with the majority of the links disavowed, a year of link-decay and nearly no new links the site improved to rankings not seen after Penguin 1. The simplest explanation seems to be that the Penguin penalty has been either completely lifted or very significantly reduced.
While I've shared here only rankings of one site I went through a similar disavow process for a number of sites. Overall after disavowing links for 14 sites, 10 have shown signs of clear improvement after the latest Penguin update.
Why did not all of the sites recover? Here is some speculation on potential reasons:
As all the links to the site were linking to the www version of the home page, in May 2012 I redirected the site to its non-www version, so that http://www.site.com became http://site.com.
A similar change was made at that time on a number of domains, none of those sites recovered during the following Penguin 2 or Penguin 3 updates in May and October 2012.
#1 The Penguin penalty can be lifted by simply disavowing a significantly large number of offending links.
#2 Submitting a disavow file on its own will not always bring the rankings back.
#3 A reconsideration request is not required to lift a Penguin penalty (you should consider it though if you think a manual penalty has been applied to your site).
#4 A simple 301 redirect within the same domain will not shake-off a Penguin penalty.
Good luck!
Thanks for the mention in your article Nemek. I saw you in my referrer stats and popped over for a look. It's an interesting case study. Is it a Penguin recovery? It's tough to say!
No one seems to know what happened on May 9. My gut instinct is that it was a minor Panda refresh. Google is no longer announcing Panda refreshes because they are happening so frequently, but they still are pushing them out. The reason why I say that I think it is connected to Panda rather than Penguin is that I have one site for which no link building was done. This site was getting 5000 visitors per day and has a whack of completely naturally earned links. There is no way that Penguin could affect it. However, it has had a couple of dips and then recoveries with some of the Panda updates. This particular site saw a significant traffic dip on May 9 as well.
But Panda probably wouldn't explain what is happening with your site so who knows...perhaps it was one of those other random algo tweaks that Google is constantly doing. It does definitely seem that disavowing your links had a positive effect.
Thanks for reporting. Even if we don't know what is happening, the more information we have from actual sites the better.
Marie
Thanks for the comment Marie. I was wondering if it could have been a release from a different penalty, but find it hard to piece a different theory together. Looking at the rankings the site was very clearly hit by Penguin in April 2012 and has recovered at some point from the penalty (because rankings are now higher than at any point after the initial Penguin demotion). There was no improvement after Penguin update #2 or #3, hence the idea that some kind of (partial?) Penguin refresh must have happened around the 9th of May. Appreciate your input!
Penguin april 2012 was so near to a Panda Update.
Matt tell us that hadn't penguin update on 8may
The most probably was Panda
Thanks Carlos for the comment. I have considered it being a Panda hit, but the original drop date (24/25 April) matches the Penguin 1.0 spot on. Since some of the sites mentioned recovered on the 9th and some on the 22nd of May (and all looked like Penguin victims) I might gather the data together and revisit the topic in a separate blog post.
Thanks for sharing that case study.
Great case study example Nemek. I also often perform a full link audit and disavow file submission for new clients that have low quality, over optimised link profiles from previous SEO work. I also have the links pinged and crawled as this seems to speed up the recovery process.
My theory is that the disavow file is honored only once Google has recrawled the disavowed links, regardless of any Penguin updates. This has been my experience with many of the sites I have tested. Since it can take Google months to recrawl such low quality links, it makes sense to force them to crawl them to speed up the entire process.
Well, penguin is dangerous, specially for those who are not aware of Good Link building strategies. They can get hit by this algorithm update quite easily and recovery for them is also very difficult. Being faced this scenario in my blogging career, I can easily understand the pain of recovering a blog from Penguin penalty, as it can months to remove bad backlinks and then, wait for the penguin refresh, so that our blog gets free from penalty. Anyways, I must say, the post is quite good, well written. Thumps Up for this.