On July 26, 2024, I exported all “toxic” and “potentially toxic” backlinks to our three blog posts from a well-known SEO tool. There are 129 URLs in total, which I rejected in Google Search Console.
After denying it, Traffic (as reported by GSC) dropped 7.1%:
Side note.
Google started rolling out core updates on August 15th, which is why I shortened the experiment to just 20 days. My plan was to leave it running for a full month, but I figured less than three weeks would be enough time to see results anyway.
According to GSC, traffic to these posts was trending before the denial slightly up:
After denial? Slightly downward:
However, Ahrefs’ organic traffic estimates tell a slightly different story. Visibility slightly reduced forward deny…
… and back deny:
I asked Patrick Stokes how he explained this. This is what he said:
I personally check out the Ahrefs profile here. Average search volume in Ahrefs will show whether it affects rankings and visibility, although our data may update more slowly than GSC. GSC may involve factors such as seasonality, luck, etc., so it is not measured consistently.
Makes sense. In this case it looks like Denials have little to no impact on overall ranking/visibility. But let’s take a closer look at the data…
test page
The data above is the sum of all three pages, so let’s look at what’s happening on each page individually.
This page is Our SEO Pricing Guide.
In the 20 days before rejection, the post received 574 organic visits. Over the next 20 days (when the denial was in effect) the number of visits dropped 12% to 505.
Prior to the denial, organic traffic to this post had been flat:
After the denial, the situation remained dull:
Ahrefs’ data tells a slightly different story…
Estimated organic traffic is trending before denying it slightly down:
After the denial, things fell flat:
Long story short? deny possible had a small positive impact, But I believe the long-term downward trend is more likely to eventually level off.
This page is Our list of popular YouTube searches.
In the 20 days before rejection, the post received 291 organic visits. Over the next 20 days (when the rejection was in effect), visits dropped 8.25% to 267 visits.
Prior to the denial, the post’s organic traffic was trending upward:
After denial, it trended downward:
Ahrefs data tells the same story…
Before the denial, estimated organic traffic was trending upward:
After denial, its trend is downward:
The result looks clear: Denial can have negative consequences——Especially around ten days when traffic is expected to drop significantly.
This page is Our list of popular Bing searches.
In the 20 days before rejection, the post received 156 organic visits. Over the next 20 days (when the rejection was in effect), visits increased by 12.82% to 176 visits.
Prior to the denial, organic traffic to this post was trending upward:
After the denial, it’s still trending upward:
Ahrefs tells a slightly different story here…
Before denying it, traffic is estimated to be on a slight downward trend (very small indeed!):
After the denial, it was the same story:
so, Denial seems to have little or no impact here…
What does this all mean?
My interpretation of these results is that denying toxic backlinks has essentially no effect. It seems like one page hurts a little, perhaps Helping others a little has no impact on others.
In short, blindly denying “toxic backlinks” reported by SEO tools is unlikely to have much of a positive impact – at least according to our data.
Is this a surprise? Not really. Google has explain This lasts almost forever:
That said, while denying the most likely outcome essentially accomplishes nothing, it certainly still carries risks. Disavowing “toxic backlinks” can cause your traffic to drop, as shown in this response to John on Reddit:
does this mean denial always A bad idea? Can’t.
Google Recommend this…
Backlinks should only be disavowed if:
You have a lot of spammy, artificial, or low-quality links pointing to your site.
and
These links have caused manual actions on your site, or may cause manual actions.
…and so too Mary Haines:
There are two situations where we recommend that clients conduct a thorough link review and then issue a disavowal:
- This site has manual actions for unnatural links in GSC.
- The site has a large number of links which we believe the spam team will consider “manipulative”.
If that’s not you, rejecting “toxic backlinks” (especially those reported by SEO tools) may not be the best idea or use of your time. as mary haines explainit’s unlikely they’re actually poisonous anyway:
What I’ve discovered is that the really toxic links… those that could algorithmically harm your site are rarely returned by SEO tools.
That said, many SEOs disagree with this advice and believe that rejecting “toxic backlinks” would help. If that’s you and you’re seeing good results from denial, that’s awesome! Don’t let me stop you 🙂
For others, it might not be the best idea…
This isn’t the first time we’ve looked at this issue, either. My colleague Patrick deny all Links to these three posts in 2021——Traffic volume dropped sharply:
We’re not explicitly disavowing “toxic” backlinks here, but links obviously still help page rankings. If an SEO tool mistakenly marks some of these useful links as “toxic” and you disavow them, it could hurt your traffic.
My advice? take your time Improve your SEOdon’t deny “toxic backlinks” that might actually help you!
Have questions? disagree? contact me LinkedIn (or X If you insist!
