Disavowgate! (a candid Q&A with Josh Bachynski)

January 21, 2015: SEO and heated controversy seem to go hand in hand. This is probably healthy and normal; after all, SEO is a relatively new profession whose rules are constantly changing, whose professional ranks are subject to rapid churn, and whose personalities are often colorful and highly opinionated.

In many respects the SEO profession resembles dentistry in the 19th Century: a vital field of practice which nonetheless remains a para-profession — not a true discipline — because it lacks a binding bible of best practices governing professional conduct.

The latest dispute to split the industry into warring camps took place when 2015 was just a few hours old. Over on Moz.com, Josh Bachynski, a Moz contributor, posted a Whiteboard Friday video discussing the methods used by webmasters and SEOs seeking to recover from Google’s Penguin, an anti-spam algorithm taking aim at poor-quality inbound links. Was there, Mr. Bachynski  asked, any empirical evidence to support the notion that webmasters need only submit a disavow file to Google in order to avoid Penguin?

Or was such a notion merely an “SEO myth?”

Using data gathered from 12 sites claiming to have recovered from Penguin using a disavow-only tactic, Mr. Bachynski analyzed their pre-recovery and post-recovery link profiles. He concluded that because such sites also showed link loss in their profiles, it was impossible to establish that merely uploading a disavow file was both a necessary and sufficient condition for Penguin recovery.

“So, what does that tell us?,” Mr. Bachynski asked. “Well, unfortunately, it tells us that I cannot confirm the hypothesis. After 12 tries, the hypothesis that you can just use the disavow file to escape Penguin, I was not able to confirm that hypothesis. The examples, the evidence that people sent me trying to prove this hypothesis proved to be false. So I say myth busted or at the very least myth not confirmed. I was not able to confirm it after 12 plus tries to do so.”

While some commentators on Moz applauded Mr. Bachynski’s attempt to test the “disavow-only” hypothesis, others were not so pleased. On Moz.com, and also on several other SEO-related sites, his methods, motivations, and even his character were questioned. On at least one comment board, angry words threatened to spill over into physical fisticuffs.

Because Didit is no stranger to SEO controversy, we wanted to reach out to Mr. Bachynski to get his take on why so many people have gone ballistic over his tests. He kindly submitted to the following e-mail interview:

A Candid Interview With Josh Bachynski

Didit: Your recent video post on Moz Whiteboard Friday generated a great deal of controversy. Why are people so angry? What accounts for the firestorm that ensued? Were you surprised at all?

Josh Bachynski:  People were angry for a number of reasons: 1) I called out unethical people selling a solution with no proof it works. 2) I challenged the doctrinal position. 3) I was not overly self-effacing about it — apparently the mark of intelligence these days is pandering for empathy.

I was not surprised I caused a stir. I was surprised at the personal attacks, the stalking (of) my personal accounts, and the outright slander and lies that came out from other authors on other blogs.

But given that I made them look very stupid, and they have small lives, their attempts at sabotage are understandable.

Didit: We happen to agree with your argument that those who argue that a disavow-only strategy is enough to thwart Penguin should provide some evidence. Have you gotten any such evidence from your detractors yet? Why not?

Josh Bachynski: I have tested 40+ sites now, none of them show a disavow-only approach works – all of them show link loss. All of them merely committed cause/correlation fallacy: “I disavowed and then rankings changed – therefore it was the disavow that did something.”

“I am not here to make friends. And people’s businesses are on the line…”

NONE of them are in a position to say that. That was ALL I was testing / saying. One even posted an apology article of types, admitting they could not prove a pure disavow did anything good but STILL recommends it as a practice. (This person) is still considered a “well respected” industry leader. Unfathomable.

As I said, being respectful seems to be the mark of intelligence these days other than being intelligent.

Didit: Given that it appears that there’s considerable confusion about how Penguin (and Google’s other algorithms) actually work, would it be reasonable to use as many tools as possible (e.g. link removal requests, plus disavow, plus anything else available) rather than just one tool?  What is required for successful Penguin recovery?

Josh Bachynski: No. Because if the evidence suggests it does nothing, then it wastes time and money to do it, AND increases risk to do it. There is evidence from Cyrus Shepard that it could actually HURT your rankings to use it.

Didit: You mentioned in one a comment thread on one article discussing this issue that the world hasn’t heard the last from “disavowgate.” What can you tell us about what’s next?

Josh Bachynski: “Disavowgate” is over. Such as it was. I set out to show there was no evidence for a pure disavow, and if anybody had any to put-up-or-shut-up, and call-out those unscrupulous (or simply negligent) SEOs and companies who continue to sell it (even though they claim now they don’t) and have no evidence to prove it is worth doing or safe to do. Judging from the knee-jerk childlike rants that resulted, and people now claim they don’t do it, I have succeeded calling it into question. Now that is done, I am turning my sites on to much more important people and issues.

Let’s just say if you thought disavowgate was a hoopla, just wait…

Post-interview comment from the SEO team at Didit  

Prior to his “sabbatical” Matt Cutts mentioned that disavow should be a last resort after link removal was attempted.  Webmaster tools messaging reinforces that. So, it is likely that many sites looking to repair damage from unnatural looking links are following Google’s policy and attempting link removal before resorting to disavow. 

One thing remains clear.  Regardless of whether links deemed poor quality or suspicious by Google are the result of over-aggressive SEO, random chance, or even negative SEO, there will be teams of SEO professionals at the ready to charge marketers for their particular advice and services.  Smart marketers will educate themselves and make use of external teams and agencies as needed based on the ebbs and flows of their SEO housecleaning and proactive SEO/content marketing needs.