Should we really ignore links from stat pages and external SERPs?

What types of links are affected by this statement?

Google specifically targets two categories of backlinks: links generated by public web statistics tools (SEMrush, Ahrefs, Moz, SimilarWeb, and others) that display data about your site, and links appearing in the results pages of lesser-known search engines.

These links share a common characteristic: they are automatically generated by systems, without any editorial intent. A stats tool creates a page for each analyzed domain and places a link to that domain. Similarly, a small search engine displays your URL in its results. These links can sometimes number in the thousands within a backlink profile.

Why has Google decided to ignore them?

The reasoning is straightforward: these links do not represent an editorial vote. No one has chosen to recommend your site. The link exists simply because a bot crawled your domain and created a data page.

Historically, Google built its algorithm on the idea that a link represents a human recommendation. Automatic links contradict this foundational principle. Rather than penalizing them, the algorithm completely neutralizes them in the PageRank calculation.

What does "ignored for a long time" actually mean?

This phrasing indicates that the filter applied is not a recent development, but a long-established practice within the algorithm. Mueller suggests that this treatment has been in place for several years, likely since the massive emergence of public SEO tools.

The crucial point: Mueller emphasizes that non-indexed pages have no impact. Many of these stats pages are never indexed by Google, making them doubly harmless. Even if they are, the algorithm identifies them and nullifies their influence.

• Links from public statistics pages (SEMrush, Ahrefs, etc.) are systematically neutralized by Google
• Links from the SERPs of other search engines suffer the same fate
• No disavow action is necessary for these categories of links
• The algorithm automatically detects these mechanically generated link patterns
• This neutralization practice has been in place for several years according to Mueller

Does this statement align with real-world observations?

In essence, yes. I have seen through hundreds of audits that sites with thousands of backlinks from SEO tools do not receive any artificial boost. Conversely, clients panicking about these links have never seen improvements after disavowing them. This supports the hypothesis that Google effectively filters them out.

The nuance: Mueller refers to "public statistics pages", but does not precisely define this category. Does a semi-automatic directory displaying stats fall into this definition? An aggregative page with editorial metrics? The boundary remains unclear. [To verify] depending on specific cases.

Can we really trust this automatic neutralization?

Google today has sufficiently mature pattern detection systems to identify these links on a large scale. The signals are evident: known domains, typical URL structures, lack of editorial context, mass generation.

The residual risk pertains to new or emerging tools or platforms that the algorithm may not yet have cataloged. In such cases, there might be an adaptation delay before Google incorporates these new patterns. However, historically, this update occurs swiftly once a tool reaches a critical mass.

When should you still be vigilant?

Mueller notes "non-indexed pages", but some stats pages are indeed indexed and rank on brand queries. If a competitor uses a tool to massively generate pages mentioning your brand with manipulated anchor text, the situation is different.

A second edge case: hybrid aggregators that mix automated data and editorial content. Google may not apply the same systematic filter to them. In these ambiguous configurations, monitoring your link profile remains advised, even if disavow is probably unnecessary.

What should you stop doing immediately?

Stop systematically disavowing backlinks from Ahrefs, SEMrush, Moz, SimilarWeb, or other analysis tools. This practice wastes time for no result. Many agencies still include these links in their "toxic backlinks" reports, creating unwarranted panic among clients.

Also, stop tracking these links in your netlinking KPIs. They artificially inflate the volume of backlinks detected by SEO tools but do not contribute to your actual authority. Filter them out in your dashboards for a clear view of your active links.

How to identify these links in your profile?

In Ahrefs, Search Console, or Majestic, filter by referring domain: semrush.com, ahrefs.com, siteprice.org, webstatsdomain.org, etc. Create a list of these domains to automatically exclude them from your future analyses. Most SEO tools allow you to save these filters.

Also, check for typical URL patterns: /website/yoursitedomain.com, /site-info/yoursitedomain, /serp/?q=yoursitedomain. These structures immediately reveal the automated nature of the page. If you spot a new pattern not yet cataloged, document it for your future audits.

Where should you focus your netlinking efforts now?

Redirect saved time towards acquiring contextual editorial links. These are the only ones that truly pass authority: mentions in articles, source citations, recommendations in industry guides. Quality now completely outweighs raw volume.

Audit your profile to identify real potential issues: links from penalized sites, over-optimized anchors, suspicious PBN patterns, links from recycled expired domains. This is where your vigilance should be directed, not on harmless stats pages.

• Remove SEO tool domains from your current disavow file if you have one
• Set up permanent filters in your backlink analysis tools to exclude these domains
• Clean up your client reports to no longer display these links as "problematic"
• Reallocate your time budget towards acquiring quality editorial links
• Document new stats tools that emerge to filter them as well
• Focus your link audits on truly risky signals (PBNs, spam, manipulated anchors)