SEO Paradox - Google Ignores Bad Links vs Disavow?

[ew3]

I see many people say disavowing is pointless/dangerous since Google is good at simply ignoring “bad” or valueless links now.

If this is true, why does the disavow tool still exist? And if this is true how is it possible to ever be hurt by links from “bad neighborhoods”? Wouldn’t Google simply ignore them?

These seem like contradictions. Any thoughts on this? I’ve never seen a conclusive answer.

 

[Upsilon]

It kind of makes sense to ignore them.

Imagine being able to generate 1000s upon 1000s of spam links and target a site like Forbes. You shouldn't be able to hurt it, regardless of how many spammy links you point to it.

 

[Stones]

All spam is not the same. I'm pretty sure Google has a link velocity filter which would take care of the old GSA SER spam blasts etc but there are types of spam which if done incrementally can still move the needle positively and then negatively.

The Google mouthpieces rule by FUD and general propaganda. Try thinking of the disavow file as a switch.

<Edit>perhaps switch is a bad metaphor as it indicates immediacy. Whatever links you disavow would still have to be crawled.

 

[Ryuzaki]

I agree with your logic. They clearly are not able to ignore all spam or they wouldn't be attempting to crowdsource data on what's spam or not.

I've, first-hand, gotten sites unpenalized (both algorithmical and manual penalties) using the disavow tool. The algorithmic penalties are the ones normal webmasters need to worry about. In this specific instance, someone had created a Web 2.0 (blogger, wordpress, etc.) network and had linked to a friend's site as an authority co-citation 100% with image links. These were not only links from images but they all pointed to the money site's images. And it was penalized... for spam links to image files. Think about that. I disavowed it all and the site popped up pretty soon.

That made me a fervent believer in disavowing, but as my sites grew and got more SERP exposure both on the web and images sides of things, the amount of spam grew to the point where I had to increase my disavow sessions from monthly to every two weeks. Finally, I gave up. I'd literally have to hire someone to do disavows eventually.

So I just stopped doing it for all types of links. No problem so far. Because if the common types of spam like... image scrapers, Alexa rankers, "keyword research" sites, site valuation, and so forth really caused problems, every site would be penalized by now.

My assumption is that Google has tackled the most pervasive types of spam, ignoring it successfully. The more crafty types can still cause damage. Trying to preemptively find those in your backlink profile is way too time consuming to deal with too.

Another assumption is that as your trust, authority, brand signals, age since first indexing, and age of the backlinks in your profile grow, so does your ability to not be negatively affected by spam. Eventually there's nothing to worry about. Otherwise Wikipedia, .edu and .gov sites, Walmart, Amazon, and anyone else constantly used as "footprint blurring" links on PBNs would be toast.

 

[Stones]

I agree with you @Ryuzaki but I think the less authoritative a site is, the more it's open to being negatively effected by these links.
Particularly local sites or authority sites in their infancy should keep an eye.

To suggest an answer to @ew3 original question. Why don't you disavow all your links and see if your site tanks? Probably not a good idea, but it would tell you if the disavow file is still relevant.