experience with disavowing spammy backlinks on aged site

experience with disavowing spammy backlinks on aged site
This is something that doesn't really come up much here. I have an 8 year old Ecommerce site, and throughout the years it is managed to accumulate various spammy links, many of them outside of my control.
++++++++++++++
list of top cheapest host http://Listfreetop.pw

Top 200 best traffic exchange sites http://Listfreetop.pw

free link exchange sites list http://Listfreetop.pw
list of top ptc sites
list of top ptp sites
Listfreetop.pw
Listfreetop.pw
+++++++++++++++
as well as building really rich High da niche backlinks, as in da of 80 or more, I did a backlink audit in Moz and ahrefs and sent off a nicely pruned disavow file on my Google console.

I'm just curious as to people's experiences with ranking after disavowal crappie links, while building beautiful ones. the content on my site is premium, with very few on page corrections to make. Just curious as to your experience...
Bump. Come on someone's got to know something
Folllwing Bruh !
Don't do anything. Don't use disawov tool until you get a msg from google in search console. All of us have tons of shitty backlinks which we had nothing to do with.

Most who have used disavow tool have seen their serp get worse
Don't disawov until google report it. Some are spammy but might be helping you're website to rank.

If you see negative impect then only you should think of disawov.
The reason why I asked is that it is affecting my rankings. I neglected the site for a number of years, and it went from the twenties and thirties, to over a hundred. So these shity links are not helping me at all, in fact they are hurting me. I was just wondering what other people's experiences are
In this case, you need to disavow them.
I disavow when my organic traffic in Analytics hits the same limit every day. My hunch is that Google throttles your daily search impression share when you have too much spam in your link profile. The effect is that you get pretty much the same amount of traffic every day when previously you've received much more than the limit on a regular basis.

I find spam links by going into GSC and downloading the website's link profile. I then investigate each link that I've not seen before (I keep a whitelist and a blacklist because GSC shows a limited proportion of total links).

I've been disavowing since Penguin 1.0 and there is no long term negative impact that I've experienced - the sites are ranking at number one for competitive, high volume money keywords.

The observation that when you disavow things get worse in my opinion is because you're disavowing links that otherwise would help you. But as you say, you can overcome that by being proactive in acquiring more links.
I disavow when my organic traffic in Analytics hits the same limit every day. My hunch is that Google throttles your daily search impression share when you have too much spam in your link profile. The effect is that you get pretty much the same amount of traffic every day when previously you've received much more than the limit on a regular basis.

I find spam links by going into GSC and downloading the website's link profile. I then investigate each link that I've not seen before (I keep a whitelist and a blacklist because GSC shows a limited proportion of total links).

I've been disavowing since Penguin 1.0 and there is no long term negative impact that I've experienced - the sites are ranking at number one for competitive, high volume money keywords.

The observation that when you disavow things get worse in my opinion is because you're disavowing links that otherwise would help you. But as you say, you can overcome that by being proactive in acquiring more links.
Thank you, this is what I wanted to hear!
You don't need to disavow those links if your rankings are not suffer, just ignore them.
I disavow when my organic traffic in Analytics hits the same limit every day. My hunch is that Google throttles your daily search impression share when you have too much spam in your link profile. The effect is that you get pretty much the same amount of traffic every day when previously you've received much more than the limit on a regular basis.

I find spam links by going into GSC and downloading the website's link profile. I then investigate each link that I've not seen before (I keep a whitelist and a blacklist because GSC shows a limited proportion of total links).

I've been disavowing since Penguin 1.0 and there is no long term negative impact that I've experienced - the sites are ranking at number one for competitive, high volume money keywords.

The observation that when you disavow things get worse in my opinion is because you're disavowing links that otherwise would help you. But as you say, you can overcome that by being proactive in acquiring more links.
This is a really fascinating share. I'm really curious if anyone else has noticed this traffic throatalling and fixed it in this way.
It requires your website to have a reasonable amount of traffic. If your site has a lot of daily volatility, it will be less obvious.
I think disavowing is unlikely to be necessary for websites that were started after 2012, when Penguin was introduced. I would guess that most BHW members have websites started in the last few years.

Before 2012, Google told us only to focus on acquiring quality links, but didn't act against types of links it thought were low quality. So most website owners did join as many directories (for example) as possible - partly for the SEO value of the link and partly because at that time directories still gave traffic. The same is true of article syndication, which started as a legitimate means of sharing content to find visitors, and which quickly became just a method of acquiring a link.

Even now, there are people who start directories. When I see them, I can't believe that the owners think that somehow visitors will find them, yet directories spring up. The ones I most commonly see are geographically local or industry specific, and they are often populated by using other older directory information. In other words, if you once signed up to a directory website and your website is still going, you're more likely to be placed into a new directory than a new website is. And to make matters worse, the new directory is likely to use the same old information you signed up to the older directory with.

a hosting system
make money from surveys
www.mainstreetadz.info
domain zone
hosting zdjec
brandmetool.com
host snl
hosting xmas dinner

The other type of link I disavow regularly is one that is given as a result of my website being an authority. Lots of people still create pages that follow the formula of having a link to their money site and one or two links to an authority site. If your niche is relatively small, you don't need to have as authoritative a website as Wikipedia to be the authority within it. I find this is the case particularly if an article on my website has been linked to by other subject relevant websites - possibly because the other webmaster rewrites the page from the other website, and that page happens to link my website. I don't disavow every site like this I come across - just the worst quality ones that tend to be web 2.0s.

The latter might be case for you, if as you say, your website has premium content on it.

Lastly, as far as I can understand (from reading and from experience), disavowing is equivalent to labeling a link as nofollow. Disavowing doesn't stop the link from being in your profile, which means that it still has an effect on whether your anchor text is over-optimised. That means that not only could disavowing stop any link juice from passing (if you judge the requirement to disavow wrongly) but it won't prevent your page from continuing to rank poorly because of anchor text over-optimisation.
It requires your website to have a reasonable amount of traffic. If your site has a lot of daily volatility, it will be less obvious.

@Dr. Mary

I think disavowing is unlikely to be necessary for websites that were started after 2012, when Penguin was introduced. I would guess that most BHW members have websites started in the last few years.

Before 2012, Google told us only to focus on acquiring quality links, but didn't act against types of links it thought were low quality. So most website owners did join as many directories (for example) as possible - partly for the SEO value of the link and partly because at that time directories still gave traffic. The same is true of article syndication, which started as a legitimate means of sharing content to find visitors, and which quickly became just a method of acquiring a link.

Even now, there are people who start directories. When I see them, I can't believe that the owners think that somehow visitors will find them, yet directories spring up. The ones I most commonly see are geographically local or industry specific, and they are often populated by using other older directory information. In other words, if you once signed up to a directory website and your website is still going, you're more likely to be placed into a new directory than a new website is. And to make matters worse, the new directory is likely to use the same old information you signed up to the older directory with.

The other type of link I disavow regularly is one that is given as a result of my website being an authority. Lots of people still create pages that follow the formula of having a link to their money site and one or two links to an authority site. If your niche is relatively small, you don't need to have as authoritative a website as Wikipedia to be the authority within it. I find this is the case particularly if an article on my website has been linked to by other subject relevant websites - possibly because the other webmaster rewrites the page from the other website, and that page happens to link my website. I don't disavow every site like this I come across - just the worst quality ones that tend to be web 2.0s.

The latter might be case for you, if as you say, your website has premium content on it.

Lastly, as far as I can understand (from reading and from experience), disavowing is equivalent to labeling a link as nofollow. Disavowing doesn't stop the link from being in your profile, which means that it still has an effect on whether your anchor text is over-optimised. That means that not only could disavowing stop any link juice from passing (if you judge the requirement to disavow wrongly) but it won't prevent your page from continuing to rank poorly because of anchor text over-optimisation.
Absolutely brilliant share. Again , this is the type of experience that I was looking for. thank you so much, as it was great to hear your insights into this issue.
It requires your website to have a reasonable amount of traffic. If your site has a lot of daily volatility, it will be less obvious.

@Dr. Mary

I think disavowing is unlikely to be necessary for websites that were started after 2012, when Penguin was introduced. I would guess that most BHW members have websites started in the last few years.

Before 2012, Google told us only to focus on acquiring quality links, but didn't act against types of links it thought were low quality. So most website owners did join as many directories (for example) as possible - partly for the SEO value of the link and partly because at that time directories still gave traffic. The same is true of article syndication, which started as a legitimate means of sharing content to find visitors, and which quickly became just a method of acquiring a link.

Even now, there are people who start directories. When I see them, I can't believe that the owners think that somehow visitors will find them, yet directories spring up. The ones I most commonly see are geographically local or industry specific, and they are often populated by using other older directory information. In other words, if you once signed up to a directory website and your website is still going, you're more likely to be placed into a new directory than a new website is. And to make matters worse, the new directory is likely to use the same old information you signed up to the older directory with.

The other type of link I disavow regularly is one that is given as a result of my website being an authority. Lots of people still create pages that follow the formula of having a link to their money site and one or two links to an authority site. If your niche is relatively small, you don't need to have as authoritative a website as Wikipedia to be the authority within it. I find this is the case particularly if an article on my website has been linked to by other subject relevant websites - possibly because the other webmaster rewrites the page from the other website, and that page happens to link my website. I don't disavow every site like this I come across - just the worst quality ones that tend to be web 2.0s.

The latter might be case for you, if as you say, your website has premium content on it.

Lastly, as far as I can understand (from reading and from experience), disavowing is equivalent to labeling a link as nofollow. Disavowing doesn't stop the link from being in your profile, which means that it still has an effect on whether your anchor text is over-optimised. That means that not only could disavowing stop any link juice from passing (if you judge the requirement to disavow wrongly) but it won't prevent your page from continuing to rank poorly because of anchor text over-optimisation.
Very detailed review mate! Thanks for the time:D
It requires your website to have a reasonable amount of traffic. If your site has a lot of daily volatility, it will be less obvious.

@Dr. Mary

I think disavowing is unlikely to be necessary for websites that were started after 2012, when Penguin was introduced. I would guess that most BHW members have websites started in the last few years.

Before 2012, Google told us only to focus on acquiring quality links, but didn't act against types of links it thought were low quality. So most website owners did join as many directories (for example) as possible - partly for the SEO value of the link and partly because at that time directories still gave traffic. The same is true of article syndication, which started as a legitimate means of sharing content to find visitors, and which quickly became just a method of acquiring a link.

Even now, there are people who start directories. When I see them, I can't believe that the owners think that somehow visitors will find them, yet directories spring up. The ones I most commonly see are geographically local or industry specific, and they are often populated by using other older directory information. In other words, if you once signed up to a directory website and your website is still going, you're more likely to be placed into a new directory than a new website is. And to make matters worse, the new directory is likely to use the same old information you signed up to the older directory with.

The other type of link I disavow regularly is one that is given as a result of my website being an authority. Lots of people still create pages that follow the formula of having a link to their money site and one or two links to an authority site. If your niche is relatively small, you don't need to have as authoritative a website as Wikipedia to be the authority within it. I find this is the case particularly if an article on my website has been linked to by other subject relevant websites - possibly because the other webmaster rewrites the page from the other website, and that page happens to link my website. I don't disavow every site like this I come across - just the worst quality ones that tend to be web 2.0s.

The latter might be case for you, if as you say, your website has premium content on it.

Lastly, as far as I can understand (from reading and from experience), disavowing is equivalent to labeling a link as nofollow. Disavowing doesn't stop the link from being in your profile, which means that it still has an effect on whether your anchor text is over-optimised. That means that not only could disavowing stop any link juice from passing (if you judge the requirement to disavow wrongly) but it won't prevent your page from continuing to rank poorly because of anchor text over-optimisation.

Okay, you've brought up another important issue. I believe that I have anchor over optimization. I'm guessing that this was from some sort of negative attack years and years ago. these were all junk links, a few of them p***. if what you're saying is true, and one cannot undo over optimization of anchor text from doing disavowal requests, and the super high da links I'm building are relatively few in comparison, what would be your strategy for rectifying this? it seems that negative attacks could really hurt somebody. one could just get some cheap spammy links that have naked urls or brand mentions 2 equal everything out. I'm just trying to dissect the algorithm here, I'm not promoting spammy links. I would really appreciate your ideas with this as well.
The links date from before negative SEO was possible.

In my experience, disavowing has no effect on an over-optimised anchor text profile. Your options are: (a) get the links pointing at your site removed (very time consuming but possible for some types of link with outreach and financial incentive), (b) dilute the anchor text with brand text and naked URLs (challenging with heavily over-optimised URLs because of the volume of links needed, but not impossible for less heavily over-optimised pages), (c) remove the URL altogether, creating a 404 error message (nuclear option because you lose the good links but this really works).

The only URL you can't 404 easily is the root domain. One answer for that page is to build brand links. Profile links are good for that, as are (not too many) good quality comments on topically relevant blogger blogs.

You then need to get all the pages with the links, or the pages you've removed reindexed (or recrawled several times) in order for Google to acknowledge that there has been a change.

If you're home page is over-optimised, another solution might be to transfer the site to another URL, redirecting on a URL by URL basis those URLs which are not over-optimised. That way you lose everything to the home page, and have the possibility to start again from a clean slate.
The links date from before negative SEO was possible.

In my experience, disavowing has no effect on an over-optimised anchor text profile. Your options are: (a) get the links pointing at your site removed (very time consuming but possible for some types of link with outreach and financial incentive), (b) dilute the anchor text with brand text and naked URLs (challenging with heavily over-optimised URLs because of the volume of links needed, but not impossible for less heavily over-optimised pages), (c) remove the URL altogether, creating a 404 error message (nuclear option because you lose the good links but this really works).

The only URL you can't 404 easily is the root domain. One answer for that page is to build brand links. Profile links are good for that, as are (not too many) good quality comments on topically relevant blogger blogs.

You then need to get all the pages with the links, or the pages you've removed reindexed (or recrawled several times) in order for Google to acknowledge that there has been a change.

If you're home page is over-optimised, another solution might be to transfer the site to another URL, redirecting on a URL by URL basis those URLs which are not over-optimised. That way you lose everything to the home page, and have the possibility to start again from a clean slate.
Brilliant, thank you for the very well-thought-out plan. This is what I had in mind, but I wanted to pass it by someone who had experience with this. Have a great evening!
I can scrape up and filter super high quality comment links based on Loop lines technique with scrapebox. Maybe I can get some high-quality directory links and profile links as well. These links were made I believe between 3 and 4 years ago , because this is when I last checked. this is totally doable. A lot of food for thought
This is a very interesting case. I will follow you to see further what happened.