- Don't disavow your links: Google has automatically ignored spammy backlinks for several years, disavow is useless in 99% of cases.
- Ignore third-party tools: Toxic link reports from Semrush, Ahrefs or others don't reflect Google's vision and can make you disavow good links.
- Negative SEO doesn't exist: Hundreds of cases analyzed by Gary Illyes show that no spammy link attacks have impacted the rankings of targeted sites.
- Only disavow in case of manual action: The tool only serves if Google has manually penalized you for buying or creating artificial links, and only to facilitate reconsideration.
- The tool will soon be removed: Google plans to gradually retire disavow because it causes more damage than benefits to webmasters.
Is the disavow tool still relevant in 2025?
Between 2016 and 2025, Google has continually downplayed the importance of the link disavow tool. John Mueller and Gary Illyes have repeated dozens of times that most sites don't need it and that Google automatically ignores spammy links.
Yet the tool still exists and some SEOs continue to use it extensively. This analysis reveals a clear evolution: Google has moved from cautious tolerance to an expressed willingness to gradually remove this tool deemed more harmful than useful.
The statements also show that Google does not recognize the notion of toxic links invented by third-party tools, and advises never to base a disavow strategy on these metrics.
How has Google's position on disavow evolved since 2016?
In 2016-2017, Google technically explained how disavow works: nofollow links didn't need to be disavowed, files had to be site-specific, and disavowing didn't negatively impact the listed sites. Search Console didn't show disavowed links to avoid excessive focus on backlinks.
Between 2018 and 2020, the discourse hardened. Gary Illyes stated in 2019 that he had analyzed hundreds of negative SEO cases with no real impact, and that the tool only served in case of manual action. John Mueller insisted: most sites don't have toxic links to disavow.
When did Google start actively discouraging disavow?
From 2021 onwards, statements became explicit. John Mueller recommended in July 2022 to completely remove the disavow file if no manual action had been received. Gary Illyes confirmed in March 2023 that more sites had harmed themselves with the tool than benefited from it.
In May 2024, John Mueller officially announced that Google planned to gradually retire the disavow tool. In April 2025, he clarified that it wasn't a normal maintenance tool and that Google automatically ignores questionable links.
Does Google contradict itself on the usefulness of the disavow file?
No, the message is remarkably consistent over 9 years. As early as 2017, Google indicated that disavow wasn't designed for negative SEO, but for sites that had actively created artificial links. This position has never varied.
The only evolution concerns the intensity of the discourse: initially neutral and technical (2016-2018), then clearly dissuasive (2019-2022), finally explicitly negative with the announcement of gradual retirement (2024-2025). But the substance remains identical: the tool is useless in 99% of cases.
Are there contradictions between Google spokespeople?
No major contradictions. John Mueller and Gary Illyes deliver the same message, although their formulations differ. Illyes is more direct and critical, stating he would remove the tool if it were up to him. Mueller adopts a more pedagogical tone but reaches the same conclusions.
The only nuance concerns Bing: in 2019, a Bing representative still recommended using disavow for their engine, contrary to Google. This confirms that each engine handles link spam differently.
Should you disavow your backlinks in 2025?
No, except in exceptional cases. Google is categorical: the algorithm automatically ignores spammy, paid or artificial links. Disavow only serves in case of manual action for link spam, meaning when you have actively created artificial links and Google penalizes you.
John Mueller confirmed in April 2025 that disavow is not a maintenance tool. Using it regularly to clean up your link profile is a waste of time, even counterproductive. SEOs who massively disavow often shoot themselves in the foot.
How to respond to negative SEO attacks?
Ignore them completely. Gary Illyes analyzed hundreds of cases and none had real impact. The Penguin team works specifically to make negative SEO transparent to the algorithm.
If thousands of spammy links suddenly point to your site, Google will automatically ignore them. Using disavow in this case is useless and John Mueller formally advises against doing it out of fear or anxiety.
Should we trust third-party tools that identify toxic links?
Absolutely not. John Mueller stated in May 2023 that it was terrible to disavow links based on third-party tool metrics. Google doesn't even recognize the notion of toxic links, a term invented by these tools.
In February 2024, Mueller was even more direct: ignore Semrush toxic link reports and let competitors waste time with these metrics. This time should be invested in actual site improvement.
In which exceptional cases does disavow remain relevant?
Only if you have received a manual action from Google for link spam. This means you or someone working on your site has created or bought artificial links. In this specific case, disavow helps clean up the profile before requesting reconsideration.
Another very rare case: if you've inherited a site with a documented history of massive link buying. But even there, Google advises removing the disavow file after resolving the manual action, as the algorithm then handles it automatically.
- Never disavow nofollow links, they transmit no signals
- Disavow is taken into account progressively during recrawl, not instantly
- The order of URLs in the disavow file has no importance
- Submitting a disavow file does not signal to Google that you're spamming
- Sites listed in your file are not penalized by Google
💬 Comments (0)
Be the first to comment.