Massive influx of links

Sorry for me being noob.

I now have a list of URL's to disavow. However, I use the domain property in GSC (domain.com). I have another property (https://www.domain.com) but I dont see any traffic on that property in GSC.

Should I disavow on this property?
And do I also need to disavow on http://www.domain.com and https://domain.com?
Only one version of your site should load.
Put both versions into your browser and see if they both load or if one redirects to the other.
Whichever loads, disavow that version and delete the other version.
 
Only one version of your site should load.
Put both versions into your browser and see if they both load or if one redirects to the other.
Whichever loads, disavow that version and delete the other version.
Thanks! The https://domain.com loads for my website. However, some links are pointed at the http version. Is it enough to disavow them only on the https://domain.com version (because this is the one to which the http version redirects)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Im with you on all of this so far... I have a site with exactly the same issues.

But what are you disavowing in this case?

The external links that point to broken URLs on your site?

If so where are you grabbing them from?
Hover over the link (404 or redirected URL) and click the magnifying glass next to the "last crawled" date. That will pull up the inspection panel for that URL and will give you the source (spam) URL. That's what I'm disavowing and recrawling. Obviously, you will have your own URLs worked in there for legit redirects, which you will ignore and not disavow.

Maybe this step is wrong. Maybe I'm an idiot. Totally possible. But that's what I'm doing for now until someone tells me to stop.... anyone?
 
Hover over the link (404 or redirected URL) and click the magnifying glass next to the "last crawled" date. That will pull up the inspection panel for that URL and will give you the source (spam) URL. That's what I'm disavowing and recrawling. Obviously, you will have your own URLs worked in there for legit redirects, which you will ignore and not disavow.

Maybe this step is wrong. Maybe I'm an idiot. Totally possible. But that's what I'm doing for now until someone tells me to stop.... anyone?
Got ya, I didn't realize you were pulling them manually.

Are you also pulling all the data from the GSC link report?
 
Got ya, I didn't realize you were pulling them manually.

Are you also pulling all the data from the GSC link report?

Yes. But, I'm finding it's not complete and it's a massive dataset. Here are a few issues I'm facing/steps I'm taking. If you (or anyone) has a suggestion on how to tackle this faster/differently I am ALL ears!

#1: Massive dataset with limited info

Maybe I'm using GSC wrong? When I just export from GSC I end up with a list of like 15k links. No toxicity, no risk category, no link status. Just links.

If I had a whitelist of all the domains I wanted to keep I could just filter out the "good links" and disavow the rest. But I don't want to risk filtering out potentially good links from domains I'm not familiar with. So manual checking seems like a requirement here (e.g. I have a few sites that look spammy but they are high DR journo/gov-related sites legit linking back).

To tackle this I'm going to identify all my other disavow links first (including massive lists from clearly spam sites - see #3 and #4 below) then remove duplicates and that should get me down to a reasonable level of around 1k - 2k links for manual review, I hope.

#2: Missing 90% of 404s/redirect issues

That's right. The GSC links report appears to be missing 90% of the URLs (and domains) that I'm manually pulling from the 404/redirects. I don't know if this has something to do with the fact that they are 404/redirect status and not an active backlink. But the point is the vast majority of these spam links (like those in the article Grind shared above) are not found in the export from GSC.

#3: Disavowing "Top linking sites" that are clearly spam

I have a few sites linking to my site with 200 - 1,500 links each. Spam garbage sites. Obviously. I will disavow those at the domain level, pull the unique URLs, add them to my disavow, and then filter those out of the main GSC export as mentioned above. I ran a quick check and it looks like only 10% or so of those are included in my current disavow via SEM+LRT+404/Redirects. So many more links incoming.

#4: Approach to GSC Link Export

I'm disavowing in waves. The final wave will be tackling the GSC link export, which I'll do after disavowing the obvious spam domains from my "Top linking sites". Then I'll be able to remove duplicates and that will hopefully get me down to a manageable number that I can manually review to make sure I don't accidentally disavow quality/relevant links.

Again, if anyone has suggestions on how to speed this up...

I've been at this for three weeks and I'm just executing @Grind's strategy on repeat and fixing around 9k internal anchors because he told me to. I'll provide updates and progress once I feel I have something concrete to share. On we march!
 
I would take a look at Opphive. I think it will speed things up for you.

But your approach sounds very thorough to me.

Top linking is a great idea for easily finding some spam.
 
I would take a look at Opphive
Any idea how it compares to LRT?

I ask because I connected GSC and SEM to LRT and ended up with a small sampling of total links and (like I said above) I've found another 10k links in GSC that LRT didn't identify.

But the bigger issue is that none of these tools (including GSC) are recognizing the 404/redirects, which are the most time-consuming part of the process.

So it feels like manually going through the process via GSC is the only surefire way to get all the links I'm after. Happy to be proven wrong though.
 
Are the exports we get from GSC complete? They seem to be 1MB max for both of these options?
b.png

Also, what is the difference between the two?

@Smith Opphive is just a tool that allows you to easily combine, filter, check etc millions of links. I dont think it actually provides any link data for you.
 
Last edited:
Are the exports we get from GSC complete? They seem to be 1MB max for both of these options?
Wondering the same thing.

Also, what is the difference between the two?
I get the same number in both reports. I think theoretically, "More sample links" is supposed to provide you with a bigger sampling while "Latest links" is just supposed to be the most recent. Not sure what kind of numbers would be needed in terms of links for that differentiation to kick in.

Also, thanks for the Opphive clarification. I think at this point sheets is all I need. But maybe I'll look at something like that in the future.
 
Yes, Opphive just makes filtering, sorting and disavowing easier it doesn't provide link data.

Im shit with excel, so for me its really useful but its not essetial

No link export is complete, including GSC, so the more data sets you can use the better.

I gather all mine into one, dedupe and then disavow.

I export Sample and Latest from GSC just in case but so far they have been identical.
 
Hey guys. It's been two months since this thread has been opened. Has anyone recovered 100%? 50%? 25%?

I hate to be the devil's advocate but I have doubts about disavowing. First off, Google has more data sources than just text and links. They have user data from Chrome, Android, SERP CTR, etc. This product data allows them to know a lot about what users want. When Gary said that links don't matter as much today, he might really mean that its weight went from 20 pts to 5pts, since they have so many more data points from all their products.

On the other hand, Google's core algorithm is links and maybe the new updates are refinements of that core algorithm. The issue is that LLMS are a non-links based technology and I'm sure Google has implemented LLMs into their algorithm, so content must have increased in importance as well as search intent and fulfilling search intent.

Finally, @Grind 's positive screenshot could have just been noise.

I mean, I can generate a URL level disavow file and get google to reindex them with GSA/Scrapebox links. That's no issue. The issue I have is if I tell this to clients who got hit and put my reputation on the line.

The fact that this thread has been going on for two months without anyone stating they've recovered is worrying.

And to let you know, I'm generating my URLs for disavow on a small site right now. It has 50 good .edu links and thousands of spam links that all point to a 19 domain that I redirected to my main site. I'm turning those 19 domain level redirects off, downloading the backlinks of all 19 domains, and disavowing them all. I'll tell you if those 50 good, white hat .edu links can carry my site now.
 
Last edited:
The Disavow tool maxes out at 100,000 lines or 2mb with a txt file. @Grind if you advise doing URL level disavows, what do you do here? Seems like the max URLs you can disavow is 100,000.

I'm just going to do domain level disavow, remove these redirects, and build links to the disavowed URLs to let Google know. i think its the same thing.
 
@Fat Harry White Yeah I agree.

Well, my 1 year old site got hit and it's the perfect case study. I have 19 expired domains that I redirected to the money site. Google specifically said it'll nerf expired domains. I also have 50 real linkes that I earned on the domain. What I did is downloaded all pages of the 19 expired domains on Majestic, turned off the 301 redirects, and then built GSA SER or forum or comment spam links to those pages. The total is 40k pages. The 19 domains are disavowed at the domain level.

I see no reason why you'd wait 72 hours to notify google that the links are off now. Let's see if it recovers.

Here's the graph so far.
qb2DMvr.jpeg


As much of a controlled experiment as we can get, since I only did 2 link building types.
 
I see no reason why you'd wait 72 hours to notify google that the links are off now. Let's see if it recovers.
Hope this works, just FYI every single disavow source recommends waiting 48-72h (including LinkResearchTools, a full business built on disavows).

Would send more links after 72 hours as Grind / Carter advise in this thread, just to be safe
 
It's been two months
My day zero is April 1. So I'm 3 weeks out since starting.

As you said, small gains could be noise... or maybe it's the algo readjusting or some other factor. Too many variables and too much volatility to attribute short-term gains to anything in particular just yet.

So, I'm not sharing anything until I have a clear trend... otherwise, it's just a waste of time discussing/hypothesizing over initial results with everyone.

Now, if I'm still in here talking about and implementing @Grind's strategy after 3 weeks of chasing it down (including many late nights of sorting through massive datasets) and you want to know if I think it's working....
 
Hope this works, just FYI every single disavow source recommends waiting 48-72h (including LinkResearchTools, a full business built on disavows).

Would send more links after 72 hours as Grind / Carter advise in this thread, just to be safe
The premier Disavow community on the internet says wait 48 hours for Google to properly process the file. I added 24 hours to be safe because I'm pushing them through some fairly dirty shit. Sometimes I wait 96 hours if I'm busy.

If your unearned link profile trips SpamRank and you tier into it before the disavow file is processed, how do you imagine that looks?

https://www.linkresearchtools.com/blog/how-to-disavow/

Small gains...you guys are fucking ridiculous tbh.

Comparison date is when disavow/recrawl and internal links went from exacts to natural. The latter half of this equation is still ongoing.

Top term shows negative because it's seasonal. $300-$2000 price tag terms, no idea why some of the terms don't show CPC, there's ads on them when I search them.

The urge to change my password without looking and log out grows stronger.
7b74169d-0302-4019-a171-13716c7ac6a3.jpeg
 
Small gains...you guys are fucking ridiculous tbh.

SkGrZ8H.jpeg

I'm starting to suspect he might be a troll, but it's such fine line, maybe he's just impatient.

My suspicion started when he made this comment:

At the least, if I were to invest in you, I’d like to see a CMO, COO, CPO, CEO, and CTO.

$2-3+ million in salaries for a product/service that hasn't even launched yet. Maybe he's just really energetic and needs to step away from a while cause he's in too deep.

And we've all been down this road before - you can post results, screenshots, you can post video testimonials, and there simple will be people that DO NOT WANT to believe. They'll come up with every excuse in the book to put their head in the sand.

Right now even after Gary says "I shouldn't have said that" - there are people still saying what he said before "links don't matter" is the correct way. WHAT?

it's simply cognitive dissonance. They are so invested in "Google doesn't lie to us" that they'll put their heads in the sand as Google continues collapsing their traffic.

Here is my question - what's the alternative? It's either do something or do nothing.

How can you win at anything by doing nothing and standing still?

I didn't want to get into this nonsense, but here we go:

On the other hand, Google's core algorithm is links and maybe the new updates are refinements of that core algorithm. The issue is that LLMS are a non-links based technology and I'm sure Google has implemented LLMs into their algorithm, so content must have increased in importance as well as search intent and fulfilling search intent.

What does ChatGPT's latest crazy have to do with Google Algorithms? You're confusing 2 different things AGAIN.

Google has been implementing LLMs into their algo since 2017 - it says it right on the wikipedia page. Do you think it accelerated because of ChatGPT? Makes zero sense.

I see no reason why you'd wait 72 hours to notify google that the links are off now. Let's see if it recovers.

You are going to nuke your site if you don't wait for Google to process your disavow file. It's simple - if you are on a battle field do you let the horsemen go first or the infantry men? If you let the infantry men first won't they get ran over by the horsemen from behind when they go? You guys have to figure out the analogy there.

The reality is guys we are in the TRENCHES - there is no guidance from SEO gurus telling you to do this and that. This is what it's like to be on the front-lines of a serious battle.

Shit takes time and energy until we get traction, complaining and whining that there is no "perfect guide" that you are used to - who wrote those guides? SEO gurus. What are they telling you to do right now? "Do nothing".

Does someone telling you to "Do Nothing" sound like a person in the trenches or on the front-lines?

You can wait or you can jump into trench warfare, but the people that make real impacts in the world are always on the edge/trenches/front-lines and putting on work aka TAKING ACTION.

"Do nothing" is not taking action.
 
I'm starting to suspect he might be a troll, but it's such fine line, maybe he's just impatient.
I'd like to submit evidence towards the troll argument - he's not so nice behind closed doors:

[REMOVED PER RULES]

Back on topic - finally disavowed 43,000 links after spending days trawling through LinkResearchTools.

Clock's ticking on that, now working on culling a lot of dead content before the final assault on 11,000 internal links alongside two great VAs.

Will keep you guys updated
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here we are on page 4 of a thread about examining internet excrement so we can all hop up and start making snitch lists for google.
I've been convinced to give it a try, you guys are to earnest to ignore.
Something about this really bothers me on a fundamental level but I'm gonna follow the advice in this thread and submit a big old disavow file.

My submission for the in thread blogger club.

As of today the domain I'm working on has 0 front page rankings outside of branded search.
Should note that the domain in question has been subjected to some negative seo campaigns other than spammy backlinks, including the 404s thing carter just posted, the fake lcms with chrome agents stuff, intermittent ddos, and ctr botting.
Historically its had some small bursts of great long tail traffic with financial value.
I also have a couple of big 301 redirects from sites with uppers 100s of real backlinks that also send real traffic in thousands of real visitors per month.
Looks like I will be disavowing something in the neighborhood of 1-200k urls spread across 5000 domains between everything.

Appreciate all the bros in this thread working through the details.
This stuff totally sucks. Can't resent google enough right now.
Public school never managed to stick me with this amount of busy work.

Thanks for reading my blog. Will post back with updates as things happen.
 
Last edited:
SkGrZ8H.jpeg

I'm starting to suspect he might be a troll, but it's such fine line, maybe he's just impatient.

My suspicion started when he made this comment:



$2-3+ million in salaries for a product/service that hasn't even launched yet. Maybe he's just really energetic and needs to step away from a while cause he's in too deep.

And we've all been down this road before - you can post results, screenshots, you can post video testimonials, and there simple will be people that DO NOT WANT to believe. They'll come up with every excuse in the book to put their head in the sand.

Right now even after Gary says "I shouldn't have said that" - there are people still saying what he said before "links don't matter" is the correct way. WHAT?

it's simply cognitive dissonance. They are so invested in "Google doesn't lie to us" that they'll put their heads in the sand as Google continues collapsing their traffic.

Here is my question - what's the alternative? It's either do something or do nothing.

How can you win at anything by doing nothing and standing still?

I didn't want to get into this nonsense, but here we go:



What does ChatGPT's latest crazy have to do with Google Algorithms? You're confusing 2 different things AGAIN.

Google has been implementing LLMs into their algo since 2017 - it says it right on the wikipedia page. Do you think it accelerated because of ChatGPT? Makes zero sense.



You are going to nuke your site if you don't wait for Google to process your disavow file. It's simple - if you are on a battle field do you let the horsemen go first or the infantry men? If you let the infantry men first won't they get ran over by the horsemen from behind when they go? You guys have to figure out the analogy there.

The reality is guys we are in the TRENCHES - there is no guidance from SEO gurus telling you to do this and that. This is what it's like to be on the front-lines of a serious battle.

Shit takes time and energy until we get traction, complaining and whining that there is no "perfect guide" that you are used to - who wrote those guides? SEO gurus. What are they telling you to do right now? "Do nothing".

Does someone telling you to "Do Nothing" sound like a person in the trenches or on the front-lines?

You can wait or you can jump into trench warfare, but the people that make real impacts in the world are always on the edge/trenches/front-lines and putting on work aka TAKING ACTION.

"Do nothing" is not taking action.
Excuse me. I am taking action. I expressed doubt and I went and tested it myself. Speaking of taking action, @CCarter What sites do you run? Were they hit? Let us know.

As for building links to the disavowed links 72 hours later, it doesn't matter with my site. I built these links to 19 domains and redirected the domains to the money site. I simply turned off the redirects. The links don't exist anymore. Building comments to these broken links now won't affect my money site.

I think you guys are all in over your heads and were offended that I even dared to point out flaws in your one hope for recovery. Even if you are unable to let it go, I'm posting a perfect case study to test this method. I'm actually helping you out. My site has only two lnk building campaigns. Natural links to the site and unnatural links through 19 redirect domains. If I recover, then we know this method works. I'm confused as to why I get called a troll for testing, as that's what any good SEO would do.

@MinstrelJunkie Oh wow, that's a private conversation. Ok, you cut out the bottom part, where you agreed with me, that you are fucked. How rude.
 
submit a big old disavow file.
Just one quick note for you (and anyone else on this path)... I feel like my recovery is currently being limited by my internal anchors. So, I'm pushing hard to get that part of the project done as well to make sure I get the most out this push.

If I recover, then we know this method works
Your recovery attempt, fail or pass, doesn't reflect whether this strategy works. It's one site, one data point, and from what I remember you were spinning up content with low-cost labor and AI... which doesn't sound like it's on the level with most of the guys on here.

And let's get real for a second.... who gives a fuck about testing? I'm not testing. I'm out here making fucking money. Like Carter said, in the trenches. This isn't some joke Baker, this is hand-to-hand combat. We're all waving fucking swords and following the warplan of General Grind and you want to sit down and do research. RESEARCH! You're not serious.

You want a data point? My on-page conversions (top of funnel) are up 200% in the past few days (NOT a typo). I don't know if it's going to stick. But what I do know is something is happening... but instead of sitting around and scratching my head trying to figure out what IT is, I'm just going to keep charging down the battlefield like a fucking lunatic until this project is complete. Because THAT is how you win!
 
Back