Negative SEO and Disavowing

[RacingJim]

Just a quick question, I have noticed a number of negative SEO attacks on my sites in the last couple of months. It seems that people are more and more resorting to dirty tactics nowadays, which is a sad sign of the times I suppose.

I use the Google disavow file for such things, I was just wondering do any of you lot regularly update the disavow file? Is there an accepted time period that is ok to keep it updated? e.g. once a week, once a month?

I've been picking up iffy links pretty much every week, someone's been on my case but they have their sites carefully privacy protected so i can't be sure who is behind it, but the links are certainly not the sort that I want as they are keyword heavy from very low authority, brand new sites.

Do you write notes in your disavow file? I have no actual penalties in Webmaster Tools, but am wondering if putting notes in might be worthwhile e.g. 'negative SEO attack' next to the bad links. Plus is there any official way of reporting a negative SEO attack to Google?

[wonderpunter]

You will find a lot of new sites link back to higher authority sites.. if the sites look ok leave them alone.. if they look like junk link spam, pirate, porn sites etc disavow

[sweetbet]

In 2007, Google’s Webmaster site had this statement: "There’s almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index."

Then they tell us that the disavow tool is an advanced feature and should only be used with caution.

Then they tell us that Google already knows about these websites and deals with them appropriately on an algorithmic level.

Which one is it?

(1) If there is nothing that a competitor can do to harm my ranking, then why do I need a disavow tool?

(2) If Google already knows about these websites and deals with them appropriately on an algorithmic level, then why doesn't Google automatically discount their effects on other sites?

[wonderpunter]

In 2007, Google’s Webmaster site had this statement: "There’s almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index."

Then they tell us that the disavow tool is an advanced feature and should only be used with caution.

Then they tell us that Google already knows about these websites and deals with them appropriately on an algorithmic level.

Which one is it?

(1) If there is nothing that a competitor can do to harm my ranking, then why do I need a disavow tool?

(2) If Google already knows about these websites and deals with them appropriately on an algorithmic level, then why doesn't Google automatically discount their effects on other sites?

The majority of people that used the disavow tool were people buying links.. and yes at the same time negative SEO would of been a big problem.. but does that still exist in 2015? I have never had to disavow a link, yet i do get some links "sitw wide too" from useless sites re posting my content with a link.,, but I can say it has not affected my rankings.. maybe years ago it was a problem.. but does anyone have recent research to confirm this still affects sites?

[baldidiot]

In 2007, Google’s Webmaster site had this statement: "There’s almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index."

A heck of a lot has changed since 2007 though, so that statement probably no longer applies. I think Cutts even said something to that effect at one point.

[RacingJim]

So most of you don't use the disavow tool?

[Christiaan]

I use the disavow tool. The tool does have effect. I check my main sites about once a month. But if you have a lot of negative SEO you should check more often.

If you ever had a penalty the penalty is removed if you add the "bad" sites to the disavow. So it does work...

[Scampi]

It is my understanding that links will either have a positive effect or a neutral effect, so any idiots who try to damage a rival site with bad links are only wasting their own time.

[JohnA]

(1) If there is nothing that a competitor can do to harm my ranking, then why do I need a disavow tool?

It's because it's bullshit. The statement that a competitor cannot do anything to damage your site is false.

It it were true, then at the same time it would be true that webmasters themselves could not harm their own sites even if they employ black hat SEO methods.

If you can buy a bunch of low quality links to your site that can get you penalized, then someone else can do exactly the same.

There is no way for Google to know that those links were purchased by someone else and not by the website owner itself. Knowing this for a third party is not possible.

And yes, negative SEO is real. Just because you haven't been affected by it it does not mean that it does not exist.

It is my understanding that links will either have a positive effect or a neutral effect, so any idiots who try to damage a rival site with bad links are only wasting their own time.

Not sure how people can say anything like this.

Then why are still thousands of websites penalized by Google for low quality links? - Ever heard of unnatural link penalty or Penguin?

If links can either have a neutral effect or positive effect then all I have to do is to nuke my site with 100,000 links hope that at least 100 will stick and the other will just be ignored?

[wonderpunter]

So here is my question again, it may have been a problem 3-4 years ago.. but Google has advanced a lot .. to say set in stone that it still is a problem with no research or evidence to back it up in 2015 for me does not convince me, Why? because I do no backlink building " I have maybe 5 built" So the way I look at it "My site is recent" that backlinks are no longer as important so why should they affect the rankings? Anybody in 2015 have a high ranking site "Recently built" based on backlink building? Because I differ on negative SEO on a recent site for rankings in 2015.. And I am basing everything on my experience,