Backlink audit and disavow decision for travel and property

Most of these audits end with a disavow file of under forty lines, and about one in four end with no file at all. If a tool has handed you four thousand links scored as toxic, that is the scoring model talking, not evidence that Google is acting on your site. Search ranking systems ignore the great majority of low-quality links without being asked. So the question worth paying for is narrower: which links form a pattern a human reviewer would read as manipulation you benefited from, and which are debris to be left exactly where it is. What accumulates in these sectors: Hotel groups and short-let operators collect a recognisable sediment. Expired affiliate microsites. OTA syndication that outlived the contract and now sits on parked domains. Directory bundles bought by an agency three procurement cycles ago, still renewing on someone's card. Developers and estate agencies collect a different one: sitewide footer links from portal partnerships, reciprocal links traded with architects and interior studios, and listing syndication that republishes the same property description across two hundred domains with the same anchor text. Those two profiles look identical to a scoring tool and completely different to a reviewer, and I treat them differently. How the review runs: Referring domains come from the Search Console links export, Ahrefs, Majestic and, on older properties, Bing Webmaster Tools. The four sets disagree, and the disagreement is usually where the interesting links are. Every candidate is opened by hand. I look at whether the page still exists, whether the link sits in body copy or in template furniture, whether the anchor is a commercial phrase nobody on your team would ever have written, and whether the domain belongs to a cluster carrying the same footprint as thirty others pointing at you. One ugly link is not a finding. Thirty with one footprint is. Security and Manual Actions gets checked before anything else. If there is no manual action and no history of bought links, I will usually tell you to submit nothing at all, in writing, rather than manufacture a deliverable that matches the invoice. What you receive: A decision per cluster, with the reasoning: keep, disavow, or pursue removal. The file itself as plain text, one domain entry per line, and confirmation it went to the right Search Console property. A disavow submitted against the https www variant does not cover the other three, and that is the most common reason this work quietly does nothing. An inventory of what has been aimed at the domain over its life, dated, so the next person who asks does not start from zero. Where a manual action exists, the reconsideration request, written as a narrative with dates, evidence and what changed. Not included: Removal outreach at volume. Mailing three hundred webmasters returns almost nothing and Google asks for evidence of it only when a manual action is in play. Toxicity scores; I do not use them and will not reprint them under my name. Recovery as a promise. Disavowing a link removes its ability to help as well as harm, and on a clean profile the honest expected effect is nothing. Who should not buy this: Anyone whose traffic fell on a date that matches a core update, with no manual action and no purchased links in their history. That is a content and intent problem wearing a link costume, and an audit of the profile will delay finding it by six weeks. Also not for anyone who has already decided the file needs to be long.