Google’s John Mueller recently made strong statements against SEO companies that offer negative SEO services and link disavow services outside the tool’s intended purpose. He accused these companies of exploiting clients who are not well-informed.
The Issue with Negative SEO and Link Disavow Services
Mueller and other Google representatives have consistently advised against using the link disavow tool, except in specific circumstances. Despite this, many SEO professionals continue to recommend its use liberally, often misapplying it, which can cause more harm than good.
What Sparked Mueller’s Criticism
The conversation began with a tweet by Ryan Jones (@RyanJones), expressing his surprise at how many SEOs frequently disavow links. He stated:
“I’m still shocked at how many SEOs regularly disavow links. Why? Unless you spammed them or have a manual action, you’re probably doing more harm than good.”
Jones’ surprise stems from Google’s longstanding advice to use the disavow tool only for paid or spammy links that the site or its SEO is responsible for.
The Evolution of the Link Disavow Tool
In the mid-2000s, the market for paid links was booming until the Penguin Update in April 2012, which targeted such practices. The update led to a collapse in the paid link industry and forced many websites to contact those they had purchased links from to have them removed.
After much pressure, Google introduced the disavow tool in October 2012, specifically for sites that received a manual spam action due to unnatural links. Google’s announcement was clear: the tool should be used only if a manual spam action notification had been received. Despite this clarity, misuse of the tool has become widespread, with SEOs using it to disavow random or “spammy looking” links.
Misuse of the Link Disavow Tool
There are anecdotes of sites regaining rankings after using the disavow tool. However, Mueller has clarified that the disavow process takes months to have any effect. Immediate changes in rankings following a disavow are likely unrelated.
In a Webmaster Hangout, Mueller explained:
“With regards to this particular case, where you’re saying you submitted a disavow file and then the ranking dropped or the visibility dropped, especially a few days later, I would assume that that is not related… So if you’re saying that you saw an effect within a couple of days and it was a really strong effect then I would assume that this effect is completely unrelated to the disavow file.”
Mueller’s Stance on Negative SEO and Link Disavow Services
The discussion around negative SEO and link disavow services heated up when an SEO professional responded to Ryan Jones, arguing that disavowing links was necessary to combat negative SEO. This professional claimed that agencies build spammy links to competitors to harm their rankings and that disavowing these links was a way to mitigate this.
Mueller’s response was unequivocal:
“That’s all made up & irrelevant. These agencies (both those creating, and those disavowing) are just making stuff up, and cashing in from those who don’t know better.”
Mueller further advised against wasting time on disavowing links, suggesting instead to focus on building up one’s site.
Conclusion
John Mueller’s statements highlight a clear stance: those selling negative SEO services and misusing link disavow services are exploiting clients’ lack of knowledge. His advice is to concentrate on constructive activities that enhance the quality and authority of your site rather than getting caught up in unnecessary link disavow processes. This approach aligns with Google’s long-standing recommendations and ensures more sustainable SEO practices.
