Disavow tool success stories

[Dr.Marie]

http://www.seowizz.net/2012/10/the-d...1#comment-6786

Interesting article! I have a bunch of questions...still waiting for my second comment to be moderated where I ask about the supposed Penguin recovery. According to John Mueller you can only recover when there is a Penguin refresh (see the link in my sig for more on this), but they claim recovery very quickly after the disavow tool was used. So either they had access to the tool before everyone else (because Penguin refreshed on Oct 5), or they are saying they recovered without a refresh.

[craig20]

The tool only came out 9 days ago! How can those examples be correct. As someone else stated -

" in example 3 you’re using the disavow links tool, waiting three weeks and then recovering rankings… 9 days after it was released.

Ditto with example 1. Timelines are wrong, therefore how are these examples accurate?"

[Dr.Marie]

There were some people who had beta access to the tool. I am guessing he was one of them.

[Belfast]

My bet is JM is wrong.

I'm sure Fathom, after much testing, said something like "the only thing I'm sure of is that you don't need a refresh" - I'll try to find it.

Hey, just imagine - there could be a conclusion to all our (yours and my) debates!

[Test-ok]

If this information is correct and this tool can make a site recoup it's rankings and as he stated, some better than before.
I'm assuming links are not near as valuable as they once were.
It makes sense if it's a manual penalty, but algorithmically?
Unless when penalized manually those sites are not being ran or checked algorithmically.
But we do know a lot more today than we did 3 or 4 months ago.
Thanks for posting Marie

[Dr.Marie]

OK, the author responded to my questions. The first was whether or not they had beta access to the disavow tool and he said,

All I can say is we had some unique insight before the tool was launched, unfortunately I can’t go into it anymore than that.

Not sure what that means???

Next I asked about whether the algorithmically affected site recovered from Penguin because the only recent refresh was October 5 and the response was

In terms of the algorithm, not all algorithmic updates relate to penguin e.g. one of the businesses that came to us were hit in December 2011, however, we recovered them using the exact same technique. As the article says, if it is penguin you have to wait for the refresh, and we did see some recoveries on the 5th.

I'm not sure what the other algorithmic issues were that they had, but it's encouraging that they did see some recoveries on the 5th when Penguin refreshed!

[Belfast]

Tell him to use them as link bait if he really has them.

How many sites do you reckon they are working on seeing recoveries for?... then 'algorithmic ones are the penguin recoveries not on that date, penguin are the algorithmic recoveries on the date'... simple.

[joshz]

OK, the author responded to my questions. The first was whether or not they had beta access to the disavow tool and he said,



Not sure what that means???

Next I asked about whether the algorithmically affected site recovered from Penguin because the only recent refresh was October 5 and the response was



I'm not sure what the other algorithmic issues were that they had, but it's encouraging that they did see some recoveries on the 5th when Penguin refreshed!

It means BS. If they're unable to provide details I have no stock in any claims. Keep on the pressure, Marie. Force an answer with your woman charm.

[jimmyn]

More inbound marketing bull****.

People are searching for disavow success stories, this gave them one.

"Unique insight" could be the new "secret sauce".

[borishar]

If this information is correct and this tool can make a site recoup it's rankings and as he stated, some better than before.
I'm assuming links are not near as valuable as they once were.
It makes sense if it's a manual penalty, but algorithmically?
Unless when penalized manually those sites are not being ran or checked algorithmically.
But we do know a lot more today than we did 3 or 4 months ago.
Thanks for posting Marie

I still think links are the most important factor for SEO. If it wasn't, google wouldn't risk getting sued by thousand of companies for destroying them supposedly for "buying links". Must still be the most important factor for ranking, and that's why they are doing all these penguin updates to simply make the link ranking more accurate.

[AlexTampa]

If it wasn't, google wouldn't risk getting sued by thousand of companies for destroying them supposedly for "buying links".

It's "their" search engine.

I am sure they are thinking "bring it on" or maybe "bing it on".

[Ann Smarty]

There is another case study from another beta tester (not sure if it has been shared anywhere here yet):

http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/google-disavow-tool-released-we-tested-it.html

They also claim recovery and seem more straightforward about the details... Also I am just used to believing in what is blogged at @davidnaylor

I don't see how those case studies can be unbiased. Google should have recovered those beta testers' sites to get the positive case studies published. I would have definitely done that

[fathom]

If you review the graphs for both naylor and seowizz stories they are the same imagery... what does that mean? No idea since neither author explains the opposing details.

I often quote "what Google does not say is often more important than what they do say".

If you read Google's Q&A REALLY CAREFULLY they strongly advise you to use the tool in the event of Manual Reviews and only suggest "...if you believe..." as oppose to "Google knowing something..."

Matt Cutts also explains disavow is similar to the use of rel="nofollow"... and IMHO that precisely explains the impact of PENGUIN...

But since Google knows everyone will still demand answers for PENGUIN - it's no harm, no foul since:

1. adding rel="nofollow" in the same as
2. PENGUIN doing it or
3. You disavow it

That's still just an opinion though.

There is another case study from another beta tester (not sure if it has been shared anywhere here yet):

http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/google-disavow-tool-released-we-tested-it.html

They also claim recovery and seem more straightforward about the details... Also I am just used to believing in what is blogged at @davidnaylor

I don't see how those case studies can be unbiased. Google should have recovered those beta testers' sites to get the positive case studies published. I would have definitely done that

[johnfambrini]

I did read somewhere that it is Google's way to get webmasters to fess up. Many governments in Asia and Africa declare an amnesty scheme where all tax cheaters are allowed to come forward and pay 5% or some token amount on their undeclared assets and all will be allegedly forgiven.

It goes without saying that those who step up to take the bait live to regret their decision.

[jimmyn]

Interesting post from Mueller on this webmaster central thread.

https://productforums.google.com/for...yoE/discussion

Gives a list of sites to disavow.