A site should submit a disavow file primarily in two narrow circumstances: when it has received a manual action from Google specifically citing unnatural links, or when a site owner has direct knowledge of a past unnatural link-building campaign, a previous SEO vendor’s paid-link scheme, an old reciprocal-linking network, that they want to proactively disclose ahead of a reconsideration request. Outside of those situations, Google’s own guidance explicitly discourages using the disavow tool reactively against ordinary spammy-looking links with no manual action attached, since Google states its systems already discount the vast majority of low-quality or manipulative links automatically, and using disavow unnecessarily can occasionally do more harm than good.
Why Google built the tool for a narrow use case, not routine maintenance
Google’s “Disavow links” Search Central help documentation is explicit on this point: it states plainly that most sites don’t need to use this tool at all, and frames it as intended for specific situations rather than as a periodic link-profile-maintenance task. This framing is consistent with repeated statements from Mueller and other Google representatives over the years, describing Google’s algorithmic systems, including its dedicated link-spam-detection systems, as already identifying and discounting the overwhelming majority of low-quality, paid, or manipulative links without any action required from the site owner. The practical implication of that framing is that submitting a disavow file for links a site owner merely finds suspicious-looking, in the absence of any manual action or known history of deliberate manipulation, is very likely disavowing links Google’s systems had already discounted on their own, providing no actual benefit.
This is the specific misconception the “2025” framing of the question is getting at: Google has been saying versions of “we already handle most of this algorithmically” for years, and that guidance hasn’t changed, meaning treating disavow as routine hygiene, something to run through a link audit and clean up periodically regardless of whether there’s an actual manual action, misunderstands what the tool is for and what problem it actually solves.
The two legitimate use cases
A manual action citing unnatural links. If a site receives a manual action in Search Console specifically identifying unnatural or artificial links (either pointing to the site or a pattern of links the site itself built out), Google’s guidance is that the site should identify and attempt to get the specific problematic links removed at the source first, and use the disavow tool for the links that can’t reasonably be removed through direct outreach. This is the clearest, most well-defined circumstance for using the tool, because it directly addresses a specific violation Google has explicitly flagged, rather than acting preemptively on links Google hasn’t indicated any concern about.
Proactive disclosure of a known past manipulation history. A site that has changed ownership, changed SEO vendors, or is aware of a specific past campaign that built links through paid placements, link networks, or other schemes, even without having yet received a manual action, can reasonably use disavow to proactively disclose that history, particularly if planning ahead of an anticipated reconsideration request or wanting to get ahead of a known risk before it triggers action. This differs from the first case in timing (proactive versus reactive to an existing manual action) but shares the same underlying justification: specific, known knowledge of a genuinely manipulative link-building history, not general suspicion about individual links that look somewhat spammy.
What doesn’t qualify
Ordinary link-profile “cleanup” in the absence of either circumstance above doesn’t qualify as a legitimate reason to disavow, according to Google’s own guidance. This includes: disavowing links from low-authority or spammy-looking directories a site never built or paid for, disavowing links that simply look odd or low-quality without evidence they’re part of a deliberate manipulation campaign, or running a periodic disavow “audit” as a routine SEO maintenance task the way one might audit broken links or site speed. Google’s guidance is specific that these situations, in the absence of a manual action or known deliberate scheme, are exactly the population of links its algorithmic systems are already designed to discount on their own, making disavow action against them redundant at best.
Why careless disavow use can backfire
Google’s guidance also warns that disavowing incorrectly, particularly disavowing large numbers of links without genuine cause, or accidentally including legitimate, valuable links in a disavow file, can remove signal value the site was legitimately benefiting from. Because disavow is a blunt instrument (it tells Google to disregard specified links or domains entirely for that site), using it against links Google’s systems weren’t actually treating as harmful in the first place has no upside and carries downside risk if the file is imprecise or overly broad.
A worked example of the two scenarios
Picture a site, Site X, whose backlink-audit tool flags 200 low-authority directory links it never built or paid for as “toxic.” No manual action exists in Search Console, and no one at the company has any knowledge of a past link-building campaign. Under Google’s own guidance, disavowing those 200 links is unnecessary, they’re exactly the population Google’s algorithmic spam systems are already positioned to discount on their own, and disavowing them carries only downside risk if the file is imprecise. Now suppose Site X instead receives a manual action in Search Console explicitly citing “unnatural links,” and a review of the flagged links reveals 15 came from a paid link network a previous SEO vendor used two years earlier. That’s a legitimate case for disavow: Site X should first attempt outreach to get those 15 links removed at the source, then disavow whichever ones can’t reasonably be removed, because this scenario matches a use case Google’s tool was actually built for, unlike the first.
Practical implication
Before submitting a disavow file, confirm the situation actually matches one of the two legitimate use cases: an active manual action citing unnatural links, or genuine, specific knowledge of a past deliberate link-manipulation campaign tied to the site. If neither applies, and the concern is simply that a backlink profile audit surfaced links that look spammy or low-quality, the more defensible action under Google’s own guidance is to do nothing and trust that Google’s algorithmic systems are already handling it, reserving disavow for the narrow, evidence-based circumstances it was actually built for.
