Why the Value of Massive Spam links is constantly declining in power

[Mike Anthony]

I've been buckling down on research and teaching of SEO again and thought I would share a couple of very relevant SEO factors over the next few weeks that can really affect ranking of pages. One question that still comes up is whether massive backlinking works and whether it gets sites penalized.

Theres been enough debates on if that happens directly as a result of massive spam linking but there is another angle that hasn't been discussed often that pretty much guarantees that massive backlinking will eventually lose power across many sites.

Here's how that works

Its a known fact that Google DOES penalize sites that link to spam and that the power of links from those sites deteriorates as a result. You may not be responsible for who links to you but you ARE responsible for who you link to . Sites that don't keep out tools like Xrummer (link spam bot but there are others) eventually get hammered by a good amount of clearly spam links. Google then identifies these links and if the number of spam links reaches an undisclosed level begins to lower the value of the links FOR EVERYONE using that site and the page in the search engine falls.

So the reality is that the more people use these tools the more likely the kind of sites that allow them will have less and less power for everyone else linking from that site . Thats why you may not see any big changes in the algorithm from Google. Eventually the links get less and less power the more over run a site is with spam links. This degrading power is already built into the algorithm.

This is one of the reasons why people who advocate using mass backlinks have to tell you to always keep building links. They don't realize that the more they build (as a group) the less effective the links become.

What can you do? Don't spend your entire SEO link building campaign focusing on the kind of links that are targeted by these mass spam links (forums are the most targeted). For one a lot of the links are removed by the forum masters and then those admins that allow their site to be slammed by spam over and over again will have less and less link authority to give.

Funny thing about it is the spammers are destroying the power of the links they live by and its all designed into the algorithm. Some will object. third party source needed? Fine

Here's a quick cases study from a third party source but its nothing that every real SEO professional doesn't know

Google Page Level Penalty for Comment Spam – Rankings and Traffic Drop

Build your links with balance not just for ease. Avoid alleged SEOs/backlink gurus that don't create balance in links and who are always pushing mass spam links no matter how popular they may be. Long term the strategy is on a deepening downward trend - by design.

[shauryas]

Its a good article for power decline with massive backlinks.

[thebitbotdotcom]

The goal of all search engines is to provide us all with unique and relevant content. They will continue to pursue this until all B.H. tactics are rendered irrelevant.

[Tom Goodwin]

Originally Posted by thebitbotdotcom

The goal of all search engines is to provide us all with unique and relevant content. They will continue to pursue this until all B.H. tactics are rendered irrelevant.

Yup, just like blog comment spam not working, which has been around for how long None of these link building techniques are new. Xrumer wasn't created last month.

[Tom Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Here's a quick cases study from a third party source but its nothing that every real SEO professional doesn't know

Google Page Level Penalty for Comment Spam – Rankings and Traffic Drop

Something is just not right with this.

Take a look at the top 4 listings for the keyword "before", and then look at the top 4 listings for the keyword "after".

What do you notice? NONE of the top 4 results are the same.

Not one single listing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

It seems to me that perhaps Google underwent one of its infamous short-term Google ranking shuffles. I'm sure you've seen it, where all of the listings get shuffled around for a bit, and then come back to the way they were?

You would think the #1 listing (which even had 2 listings on page 1 and appears to be the main virtualbox site) could manage to be in the top 4 a couple of weeks later. Again, one possible reason is simply a short-term shakeup by Google of ALL the listings.

Now, of course, we both know that outgoing links can potentially hurt the power of a domain, although (1) I don't think it is as easy as saying when a site gets X % or X number of outgoing bad links or whatever from a domain then it will get penalized or devalued (at least when we are talking about authority domains, and (2) i'm not sure if this really is a good example of this case.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

This is one of the reasons why people who advocate using mass backlinks have to tell you to always keep building links.

Actually, that should be the standard advice for ALL types of backlinks. Backlinking should be a continual process for any page you wish to rank in Google. SEO 101 here.

Tom

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

Yup, just like blog comment spam not working, which has been around for how long None of these link building techniques are new. Xrumer wasn't created last month.

No one said it didn't work and won't work in moderation. However the fact that google devalue sites that allow spam links is not anything a A REAL SEO guy would deny.

He's merely pointing out the evolution and projecting a logical conclusion. On my part I am not even doing that. The realities I am talking about are in the algo here and now whether you like it or not.

Does Google penalize sites for Spam links on your site? Fact. Yes.

Do bots like Xrummer allow spam to be pasted on multiple forums over and over again by different users in great quantity? Fact. Yes.

Does that then degrade the overall quality of all the links? FACT. Yes to anyone that really knows SEO beyond running a bunch of bots.

As for blog comment spam we've all seems blog commenting sites so over ran that the sites are so weak as to nearly be useless. thats the entire point. ever heard about link farms?

[Tom Goodwin]

You completely missed my point Mike. I was replying to thebitdotcom's's post. That is why I quoted him I disagreed with his point (about a long-term algo shift), and still do. Your point was different (perhaps overlooked by thebitdotcom..I don't know).

Tom

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

No one said it didn't work and won't work in moderation. However the fact that google devalue sites that allow spam links is not anything a A REAL SEO guy would deny.

He's merely pointing out the evolution and projecting a logical conclusion. On my part I am not even doing that. The realities I am talking about are in the algo here and now whether you like it or not.

Does Google penalize sites for Spam links on your site? Fact. Yes.

Do bots like Xrummer allow spam to be pasted on multiple forums over and over again by different users in great quantity? Fact. Yes.

Does that then degrade the overall quality of all the links? FACT. Yes to anyone that really knows SEO beyond running a bunch of bots.

As for blog comment spam we've all seems blog commenting sites so over ran that the sites are so weak as to nearly be useless. thats the entire point. ever heard about link farms?

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

You completely missed my point Mike. I was replying to that other poster's post. That is why I quoted him

Tom

Try and read better next time Tom. I know that. I said so right here.

He's merely pointing out the evolution and projecting a logical conclusion. On my part I am not even doing that.

he wasn't saying anything about now he was stating that its a natural aim of Google. You just get too excited (or as you might say hyped up)whenever anyone makes the logical point that google will eventually catch certain spam links. Ease up.

[Tom Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Try and read better next time Tom. I know that. I said so right here.

Then your reply to me was 100% useless as you just regurgitated stuff from your original post. You just had to chime in even if I wasn't talking to you.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

he wasn't saying anything about now he was stating that its a natural aim of Google. You just get too excited (or as you might say hyped up)whenever anyone makes the logical point that google will eventually catch certain spam links. Ease up.

No, I just get worked up when people post crap that doesn't make logical sense. Thinking that there will be a huge algo shift ranks (based on the history of Google's search engine) right up there with believing in Sasquatch or that the Detroit Lions will eventually have a good football team.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

Something is just not right with this.

Take a look at the top 4 listings for the keyword "before", and then look at the top 4 listings for the keyword "after".

What do you notice? NONE of the top 4 results are the same.

Not one single listing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Theres no conspiracy to deceive there. I think he probably took the screenshots after everything was straightened out. Notice its not a before and after of where his site was because he doesn't show his site in the second one just the first one. Its unlikely he took a shot before all of that happened. maybe not until everything had been straightened out.

The fact that his page came back as soon as he removed the spam links is indicative enough plus that was a link I read from this Seomoz article.

SEOmoz | All Links are Not Created Equal: 10 Illustrations on Search Engines' Valuation of Links

where Rand reveals his own research on this

I've been keeping an eye on some popular, valuable blog posts that have received similarly overwhelming spam and, low and behold, the pattern seems verifiable. Webmasters would be wise to keep up to date on their spam removal to avoid arousing potential ranking penalties from Google (and the possible loss of link value).

Just citing respected third party sources for thoroughness. This is pretty established SEO stuff.

Actually, that should be the standard advice for ALL types of backlinks. Backlinking should be a continual process for any page you wish to rank in Google. SEO 101 here.

Actually no it isn't. I don't know what SEO 101 class you took but thats patently false. You need to look around some more at the rest of the SEO world and not just the black hat techniques. There are ton loads of sites that reach the critical mass stage in their niche where they have people referring back to them naturally without self backlinking because people like and know and/or use their content . They can stop. They don't have to keep running bots.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

Then your reply to me was 100% useless as you just regurgitated stuff from your original post. You just had to chime in even if I wasn't talking to you.

Tom look up at the top of the page. I think you are confused and on the wrong board. I found your comments harsh so i responded to it. People comment on other people comments to others all the time on Warriors. None of us have the power on this board to say what others can't post unless it violates the rules. Calm down. and please don't try to derail the thread further because you don't like the conclusion the facts themselves draw. Thats all you have been doing.

[yukon]

You have to figure the source wasn't to bright leaving the blog comments on auto post to begin with. Didn't prove anything other than, don't leave comments on auto post.

Who am I to disagree with the seo pro?

The goal of all search engines is to provide us all with unique and relevant content. They will continue to pursue this until all B.H. tactics are rendered irrelevant.

That will never be finished (ever)!

As long as you have white hat, you'll have BH.

[bgmacaw]

I agree with the premise that sites that are essentially "free for alls" when it comes to linking will suffer in some way over time. I've seen several FFA .edu sites have their outgoing links totally devalued while the domain PR and ranking remains intact.

This doesn't mean that all comment and profile links are bad. With proper use they can still be quite potent. On the flip side, mass automated backlinks from known unmoderated sites probably won't be counted or at least not counted long.

I think Google grabs the low lying fruit here. All they have to do is buy those popular "link packets" and such incognito to get a list of FFA sites and devalue their link juice and put them in the visual inspection queue. They don't even have to search them out via special algorithms, they just follow the money, so to speak.

[paulgl]

Not helping does not mean hurting.

I'd like to see the google algorithm that declares a blog reply
as spam, and rates another one as not spam.

Not liking blog comments overall is one thing. That I do think they
are going to. They tried the nofollow. People abused that and used
it in very inappropriate places.

Too many people look at backlinks, spam or not, and come to some
perception that google raises or lowers a site's SERPS on those links.
I don't think you can ever make that assumption. There are so many
other intangibles that go into the mix of why a site is #1 or #500.

As I said, I "kinda" agree with the premise that blog comments,
as far as helping rankings, are going the way of the 8-track.

Do I do them? You betcha!

Paul

[Adam Roy]

Back to the first, initial topic for a minute

I read an article on Google's Webmasters Blog...I'll come back and post a link in a minute...just have to find it.

They say, almost to a T, "There is almost nothing any webmaster can do, to harm another Webmaster's ranking in Google's search engine."

Key word there, 'almost'.

An incoming link to your site, will not devalue your site in any way. Worst case scenario, it just doesn't count for anything.

Google did this because at one point, 1 webmaster could just build a bunch of spam links to their competitors and wipe them off the first page.

Now, as mentioned on their official blog, EXTERNAL LINKS from your site, to a 'spam' site or site that violates Google's content guidelines, will devalue your site.

So, notice before, how they said 'almost'...

When you end up with a 'spammy' link pointing from your site, that can in fact devalue your site and rankings.

So, when a site gets consistently bombarded with spammish, irrelevant backlinks, that site becomes devalued.

Since that website becomes devalued, the outgoing links are also devalued.

Therefore, following massive spam patterns using bots and otherwise, will decrease in value now, and the backlinking you've done in the past will also become devalued thus lowering your rankings.

I have to go find those blog posts on the Google Webmasters Blogspot blog.

[Tom Goodwin]

There has been a lot of debate on the use of the word "almost" in that referenced blog post.

A lot of people, including myself, feel that in fact they were the word "almost" as a means of being an agnostic on the issue, as a competitor could, for instance, hack into your site, and install malware for instance. In such a circumstance, a competitor could actually hurt your site. Of course, such a circumstance is so far off the radar for most people and website owners that they need not be concerned with it. But, by using the word "almost" Google is in essence issuing a CYA for these freaky instances.

Originally Posted by friend

Back to the first, initial topic for a minute

I read an article on Google's Webmasters Blog...I'll come back and post a link in a minute...just have to find it.

They say, almost to a T, "There is almost nothing any webmaster can do, to harm another Webmaster's ranking in Google's search engine."

Key word there, 'almost'.

An incoming link to your site, will not devalue your site in any way. Worst case scenario, it just doesn't count for anything.

Google did this because at one point, 1 webmaster could just build a bunch of spam links to their competitors and wipe them off the first page.

Now, as mentioned on their official blog, EXTERNAL LINKS from your site, to a 'spam' site or site that violates Google's content guidelines, will devalue your site.

So, notice before, how they said 'almost'...

When you end up with a 'spammy' link pointing from your site, that can in fact devalue your site and rankings.

So, when a site gets consistently bombarded with spammish, irrelevant backlinks, that site becomes devalued.

Since that website becomes devalued, the outgoing links are also devalued.

Therefore, following massive spam patterns using bots and otherwise, will decrease in value now, and the backlinking you've done in the past will also become devalued thus lowering your rankings.

I have to go find those blog posts on the Google Webmasters Blogspot blog.

[Adam Roy]

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

There has been a lot of debate on the use of the word "almost" in that referenced blog post.

A lot of people, including myself, feel that in fact they were the word "almost" as a means of being an agnostic on the issue, as a competitor could, for instance, hack into your site, and install malware for instance. In such a circumstance, a competitor could actually hurt your site. Of course, such a circumstance is so far off the radar for most people and website owners that they need not be concerned with it. But, by using the word "almost" Google is in essence issuing a CYA for these freaky instances.

I totally agree.

[chini]

HIGH QUALITY CONTENT BEATS ANYTHING IN THE LONG RUN!!!!!!!!

[4morereferrals]

Google Page Level Penalty for Comment Spam – Rankings and Traffic Drop

Prove it.

replicate those results similarly more than once in a controlled environ - else this guys blog post is just an anecdotal coincidence... similar to the "sandbox" penalty and duplicate content theory.

Silly... Serious SEO's pffft ....

[Adam Roy]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

Google Page Level Penalty for Comment Spam – Rankings and Traffic Drop

Prove it.

replicate those results similarly more than once in a controlled environ - else this guys blog post is just an anecdotal coincidence... similar to the "sandbox" penalty and duplicate content theory.

Silly... Serious SEO's pffft ....

I knew it! As I stated before regarding 'outbound' crappy links coming from your site.

And the fact that this is in fact a method in which competition 'can' in a sense, hurt the competition.

Thankfully, according to that post you shared, the problem can be fixed in such a situation! That's really cool, the proof is in the pudding on that one.

Thanks for the share.

Hey guys!!!! Attention....The link he just posted is ''''''LINKBAIT!!!''''''' Haha, just figured I'd throw that out there. 'natural link building'

[Google.me]

know this is funny

lets go spam twitter weeee

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

Google Page Level Penalty for Comment Spam – Rankings and Traffic Drop

Prove it.

..

Been there done that. Its essentially the same metrics that affect link farms and links spam that everyone who knows even elementary SEO is aware of and has seen multiple times. Stop asking for more and more evidence when you can't present a single piece of evidence against the full weight of the existing proof.

You dispute something so well established then go ahead. go to your site (make sure its one of your money sites) and fill your site with links to Porn, Viagra and gambling .

EVERYONE knows that although you aren't responsible for who links to you you are responsible for what you link to. Trailblaze the way to a new understanding of SEO and put up your counter evidence to the massive evidence thats against your treasured practice.

LOL. So far the only ones taking issue with the reality that spam links on a page en masse can hurt a site is those who are known to push massive link spam. Who woulda thunk? They come out to any thread that suggests that Google has ANY penalty for ANY kind of spam.

is it really that hard to accept that a little moderation might help everyone? Th evidence is clear and overwhelming. Asking for more and more when you don't have any to offer in rebuttal is just hand waving and distraction.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by friend

Thankfully, according to that post you shared, the problem can be fixed in such a situation! That's really cool, the proof is in the pudding on that one.

Hey guys!!!! Attention....The link he just posted is ''''''LINKBAIT!!!''''''' Haha, just figured I'd throw that out there. 'natural link building'

Friend the link he posted is the same link in the OP and he's disputing it not offering it up as a solution. Its not his linkbait.

[4morereferrals]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Been there done that. Its essentially the same metrics that affect link farms and links spam that everyone who knows even elementary SEO is aware of and has seen multiple times. Stop asking for more and more evidence when you can't present a single piece of evidence against the full weight of the existing proof.

You dispute something so well established then go ahead. go to your site (make sure its one of your money sites) and fill your site with links to Porn, Viagra and gambling .

EVERYONE knows that although you aren't responsible for who links to you you are responsible for what you link to. Trailblaze the way to a new understanding of SEO and put up your counter evidence to the massive evidence thats against your treasured practice.

LOL. So far the only ones taking issue with the reality that spam links on a page en masse can hurt a site is those who are known to push massive link spam. Who woulda thunk? They come out to any thread that suggests that Google has ANY penalty for ANY kind of spam.

is it really that hard to accept that a little moderation might help everyone? Th evidence is clear and overwhelming. Asking for more and more when you don't have any to offer in rebuttal is just hand waving and distraction.

I dont really care what your objective is that you wish to try and push forward mike. the issue is the example used hardly proves it.

the blog post referenced - Page Level rankings dropping and increased overnite for comment spam and removal of it - on a single page, that then rose the very next 24 hr period because he removed it.

... I walked by a black cat on friday and a certain page on my site went from slot #7 on page 5 to #4 on page one for 24 hrs. So now part of my seo strategy is to find asmany black cats as i can on Firdays - and pass on by.

Whether your MAIN PREMISES is accurate or NOT [ remains to be seen ] The blog post used is poor example of proof ... how could the author have controlled :

A. what google may have been doing for that slice of 24 hrs
B. what competitors may have been doing to rank for that term

Yes ... throwing around basic seo 101 principals as if they are advanced techniques and knowledge around here where no one else knows the difference - and then positing it all in such a way - with snyde remarks like "even the most sophmporic seo's know ..." is an interesting approach.

I know youre not one to even try and win any friends or build relationships here or anywhere - but must you always be such a freakin know it all douche bag? Sorry you're not always going to be the smartest guy in the room/thread ...

For example ... its pretty well accepted that if your site is purely a grotesque SPAM farm - with boatloads of "do follow" [ that is NOT rel=nofollow"] outbound juice - your site wont likely RANK well, and could become de-indexed. As such - its pretty well known as well - Google's hammer hits the whole site - they just come in and de-index the whole domain, not a single page - as the blog post example posted focus' on.

You actually believe google "penalized" a single page on a large site like that for 24 hrs from comment spam?

[jbtooloo]

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

Something is just not right with this.

Take a look at the top 4 listings for the keyword "before", and then look at the top 4 listings for the keyword "after".

What do you notice? NONE of the top 4 results are the same.

Not one single listing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

It seems to me that perhaps Google underwent one of its infamous short-term Google ranking shuffles. I'm sure you've seen it, where all of the listings get shuffled around for a bit, and then come back to the way they were?

You would think the #1 listing (which even had 2 listings on page 1 and appears to be the main virtualbox site) could manage to be in the top 4 a couple of weeks later. Again, one possible reason is simply a short-term shakeup by Google of ALL the listings.

Now, of course, we both know that outgoing links can potentially hurt the power of a domain, although (1) I don't think it is as easy as saying when a site gets X % or X number of outgoing bad links or whatever from a domain then it will get penalized or devalued (at least when we are talking about authority domains, and (2) i'm not sure if this really is a good example of this case.



Actually, that should be the standard advice for ALL types of backlinks. Backlinking should be a continual process for any page you wish to rank in Google. SEO 101 here.

Tom

You are right Tom, backlinking is a continual process. Quick pumps/shots of backlinks are OBVIOUS to Google and they WILL shot any domain that are found guilty of doing so.

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by Google.me

know this is funny

lets go spam twitter weeee

Tweets for commercials are in effect, spam. But twitter
is not backlinks. So yes, we should spam, ....er....tweet.

Originally Posted by chini

HIGH QUALITY CONTENT BEATS ANYTHING IN THE LONG RUN!!!!!!!!

No reason to scream something that is absolutely untrue.

Paul

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

I dont really care what your objective is that you wish to try and push forward mike. the issue is the example used hardly proves it.

On its own no - in connection with SEOs all over the world yes it does. Google is your friend . This isn't hard stuff to grasp. its basic SEO (thats right I said it again). We both know that your main objection is because you advocate mass backlinking. You and a few others jump on just about any thread that points out the possible downsides of such spam activity. I don't even call for the end of all such links just some moderation because of the effects of it.

Want more evidence here - Google "linking to spam". Scroll through. Now its your turn to come with some proof to the contrary. I pointed to more than just one example and now you can sift through and find lots more.

I know youre not one to even try and win any friends or build relationships here or anywhere

Don't be silly. We both know nothing of each other to say when or where we build relationships. Granted I may be a little different in that when I state things I don't try to run with a pack and make recommendations just to get a JV. You get my honest opinion.

I have many friends here and elsewhere - just not many mass spamming friends I give you that. You don't like what I have to say is all. In this thread I am probably not even the smartest. There have been only two posters in it that have objected to the BASIC SEO principle that outbound links to spam from your site can affect ranking. If I am smarter than the two then so are a lot of other people in this thread.

Keep on the subject and stop trying to derail into personal attacks like you have so many times before. Last time I checked this wasn't the board to be defending massive link spam anyway.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by paulgl

No reason to scream something that is absolutely untrue.

Paul

If we are talking about written content then I might agree its not totally true but if you are talking about all content that can make up a site's web presence I'd still say he is right. It should be the goal of every web entrepreneur to reach a point in their niche where they get links naturally even if they can't achieve that right away

[jhonsean]

Why there are still using massive spam links, Is there anything that will benefits on this. Search Engine like google doesn't like this its more likely to deliver unique and quality content.

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

... I walked by a black cat on friday and a certain page on my site went from slot #7 on page 5 to #4 on page one for 24 hrs. So now part of my seo strategy is to find asmany black cats as i can on Firdays - and pass on by.

Stop being so primitive.

Instead, get these money, protection and good luck charms to really solve your SEO problems!

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

Stop being so primitive.

Instead, get these money, protection and good luck charms to really solve your SEO problems!

Lol

how do you come up with all these classic youtube videos BG? Lucky charm for IM? Hmmm At least worth a $97 WSO.

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

If we are talking about written content then I might agree its not totally true but if you are talking about all content that can make up a site's web presence I'd still say he is right. It should be the goal of every web entrepreneur to reach a point in their niche where they get links naturally even if they can't achieve that right away

Half, maybe.

But you are never going to get links naturally without ______________.

And even semi-decent content can get them.
In fact, downright bad content can get them.
Case in point: ezinearticles

Paul

[tryinhere]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

What can you do? Don't spend your entire SEO link building campaign focusing on the kind of links that are targeted by these mass spam links (forums are the most targeted). For one a lot of the links are removed by the forum masters and then those admins that allow their site to be slammed by spam over and over again will have less and less link authority to give..

i am not a seo's backside and do not make out i am one , but i do manage a forum for a mate who is slammed by these pest driven paid forum posters constantly.

It is a relentless task cleaning up their rubbish, / can i ask you write those who allow this / how or what ways are there to prevent these and new spammers coming back ? it is not that we allow them / they just seem to breed like rabbits.

That with also looking to start my own forum shortly what recommendations do people have to curb these clowns or is it a daily struggle and from reading what you said is it correct even if you keep cleaning these clowns / posts out your still penalized ?

Appreciate any advice you may be able to share on the topic / one way i thought was paid membership before allowing a Sig link to cut the crap but i am unsure if vb allows that function ?

Pete

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by tryinhere

Appreciate any advice you may be able to share on the topic / one way i thought was paid membership before allowing a Sig link to cut the crap but i am unsure if vb allows that function ?

Pete

Yes you can have that easily. or you can require a certain amount of posts. Vbulletin went nofollow last major upgrade as well which made a lot of sites useless for backlinks (the same crew howled loudly when I posted about that too). Problem is because of bots some spammers don't even know they are spamming links that will be useless . Change your captcha system to one that requires human intelligence rather than images. Most bots are not set up to handle that particularly well. better if the answer for the captcha is something about the site itself etc. Saw one not too long ago where you had to enter in the admin's name or some location that the forum is about.

Quite a few admins are not so stingy as to allow no one to post a backlink but its the bot practice that is causing more and more of them to shut down just like the experience you related.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by paulgl

Half, maybe.

But you are never going to get links naturally without ______________.

And even semi-decent content can get them.
In fact, downright bad content can get them.
Case in point: ezinearticles

Paul

Too true. every now and again I click on a search result and reverse full throttle when I see its an ezinearticle. They are more often than not horrible or unreliable. However I don't fault the writers. Its whitehat and I agree that sites starting out can't have this field of dreams "if I build it they will come" attitude.

However the other extreme to this is that you have guys pushing guru status because they run a bot over as many sites they can possibly break captcha on. The bots will get faster and more sophisticated and the more people who start feeding this the more sites will get slammed until someone - just like with email spam - decides to tuck backlinking into some anti defacement law and thats the end of that unless you want to live with the plug being pulled on your income at any moment.

[Jacob Martus]

Originally Posted by tryinhere

i am not a seo's backside and do not make out i am one , but i do manage a forum for a mate who is slammed by these pest driven paid forum posters constantly.

It is a relentless task cleaning up their rubbish, / can i ask you write those who allow this / how or what ways are there to prevent these and new spammers coming back ? it is not that we allow them / they just seem to breed like rabbits.

That with also looking to start my own forum shortly what recommendations do people have to curb these clowns or is it a daily struggle and from reading what you said is it correct even if you keep cleaning these clowns / posts out your still penalized ?

Appreciate any advice you may be able to share on the topic / one way i thought was paid membership before allowing a Sig link to cut the crap but i am unsure if vb allows that function ?

Pete

It all depends on what you want to do with your forum. Do you want your members to be able to have backlinks in their signatures? If so, you can set it up so that only after a certain amount of posts they are allowed to include links in their signature. If you don't mind taking signature links away from everyone, then just don't allow users to put links in their sig at all. People actively interested in your forum won't mind. For example, I don't have any links in my sig here. I come here solely to learn and teach what I can.

Another thing you can do to prevent a lot of it is to make forum members profile pages not publicly viewable. As an example, our Warriorforum profile found here is publicly viewable, meaning everyone including search engine spiders can see it. If you make member profiles private then spiders won't be able to see it, making it useless for people to put links in.

If you're having trouble with people making posts for their backlinks, you can institute the idea above. Make users have at least 50 posts before they are able to include links in their sig. It won't stop everyone, but I'd say at least 99% of people won't even bother if they have to make 50 posts to get links in their sigs.

Also, if you've got a really healthy forum, like this one, people will do a lot of your job for you by using the report function on spam posts.

[Jacob Martus]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

until someone - just like with email spam - decides to tuck backlinking into some anti defacement law and thats the end of that unless you want to live with the plug being pulled on your income at any moment.

That might stop some people but definitely not many. If it did, there would be a hell of a lot less email spam. Hell, just yesterday or the day before someone hacked Aweber and got a bunch of emails to spam.

The real hardcore spammers aren't going to let a law (that probably wouldn't be enforced very thoroughly or efficiently) stop them.

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

The bots will get faster and more sophisticated and the more people who start feeding this the more sites will get slammed until someone - just like with email spam - decides to tuck backlinking into some anti defacement law

Cool! Now I can not only get my competitors sites deindexed but I can send them to jail too! Excellent!

But seriously, I do think more regulation is coming to the Internet although I think in the US it will have more to do with limiting and controlling political speech and protecting old mainstream media outlets than it does dumping 10000 links to your knitting needle site on unsuspecting forum and blog owners.

[Tom Goodwin]

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

Cool! Now I can not only get my competitors sites deindexed but I can send them to jail too! Excellent!

I better start on this now, as i'm sure this is just around the corner, along with the massive Google algo changes.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

Cool! Now I can not only get my competitors sites deindexed but I can send them to jail too! Excellent!

how are you going to get your competitors sites deindexed if they don't allow you to link to spam on their site. Most sites are not setup for you to leave links on their site. This isn't about linking to them its about them having links to spam.

But seriously, I do think more regulation is coming to the Internet although I think in the US it will have more to do with limiting and controlling political speech and protecting old mainstream media outlets than it does dumping 10000 links to your knitting needle site on unsuspecting forum and blog owners.

Well I don't see it happening any time soon but we do have some congressman that do all kinds of crazy things in their bills. More likely is what already happened. More and more of the platforms just start going no follow. Vbulletin did so already and quite a bit of links disappeared. Still lots left but sheesh why is it so difficult to respect peoples sites when they are offering you a backlink.

[Dennis Wilson]

has something changed in the warrior rules again? I haven't seen this kind of argument since people had stuff to sell. co-ink-e-dink? doubt it, like watching infomercials at this stage.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

I better start on this now, as i'm sure this is just around the corner, along with the massive Google algo changes.

Doubt it which is why no one has said that it was around the corner. Don't start playing chicken little . What is already here and been proven is that a site can be penalized by having links to spam - right now. So the argument that hitting a site with a whole lot of spam bursts doesn't hurt the site is false and a lie. The guy was ticked at having to clean up the bot junk. I can see with him.

Now there are some people who don't give a rip about other people's property so they will just run it over as long as its legal but those are the people that can and should be reported to Google (the law on their own search engine). when your "values" or lack thereof don't stop you from doing that to sites then theres nothing to complain about when and if you get reported and Google acts on it.

Which is why for most mainline business terms where established businesses are operating you rarely see sites propped up by nothing but spam links taking top spot.

So the reporting factor is yet another reason why links placed by mass bots are eventually weakened.

Besides face it any site you see ranking on that kind of link building is basically screaming - "look you can beat us. Just run xrumer as well".

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Dennis Wilson

has something changed in the warrior rules again? I haven't seen this kind of argument since people had stuff to sell. co-ink-e-dink? doubt it, like watching infomercials at this stage.

talk of xrumer never stopped on this forum and recently there have been quite alot of pushing and defending mass baclinking in several threads. heres just two out of scores of threads

I Learned My Lesson Building Backlinks too Fast!

Angela/Paul's Backlinks versus Xrumer

The arguments only break out if you state there is a downside to such practices.

[Dennis Wilson]

That's fine but you were posting here every day when you had something to sell as soon as that was against the rules the posts stopped which i think says it all really. Anyway I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say I just think your timing is suspicious.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

talk of xrumer never stopped on this forum and recently there have been quite alot of pushing and defending mass baclinking in several threads. heres just two out of scores of threads

I Learned My Lesson Building Backlinks too Fast!

Angela/Paul's Backlinks versus Xrumer

The arguments only break out if you state there is a downside to such practices.

[Fraggler]

Google Bowling has never happened in the past.

Sites have never been removed from the Google index before, either.

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by Dennis Wilson

has something changed in the warrior rules again? I haven't seen this kind of argument since people had stuff to sell. co-ink-e-dink? doubt it, like watching infomercials at this stage.

I don't know of any warrior rules....like that...

Whenever Mike Anthony starts a thread, he REALLY starts a thread!

Paul

[Tom Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Dennis Wilson

has something changed in the warrior rules again? I haven't seen this kind of argument since people had stuff to sell. co-ink-e-dink? doubt it, like watching infomercials at this stage.

Well....Allen did PM a regular (not me) WF member telling him that backlinking products were generally OK now, as they didn't want to be the "net nanny". Of course, i doubt they will broadcast that.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Dennis Wilson

That's fine but you were posting here every day when you had something to sell as soon as that was against the rules the posts stopped which i think says it all really. Anyway I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say I just think your timing is suspicious.

Suspicious of what? LOL. I'm about to rob a bank or something by posting? I think I remember you now and can understand why you have the issue. As I recall you never liked anyone bad mouthing backlinking spam bots either so your bias is obvious. But theres bias and then there is lying.

First almost everyone who sold link related products here reduced their level of posting. In a discussion with tom the other day he said as much. I could reel off the sellers and I rarely see them start a thread or participate as much anymore. Frankly the only ones that continued much were obviously doing signature link selling redirecting viewers to their own site so they coudl sell their stuff - which is perfectly in order and nada is wrong with that. I had other things doing.

Second Go look at my stats. I've been posting here. You don't know what you are talking about and the evidence is there that I have been posting. I did not stop. thats just plain lying to make a point you can't make. The stats show me with ton loads of pages upon pages of posts since The rules were changed. I think when someone makes up things to make a point - that says it all.

But you know what really says it all. With my pages and pages of posts over the last few months you can't even fill one page but you are chiding me for participating less. ROFL. Almost like you were sent to this thread.

[Tom Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

First almost everyone who sold link related products here reduced their level of posting. In a discussion with tom the other day he said as much.

I did say that, but not because of any "selling" here at WF. I've never had a backlink product (other than a link to my forum) in my WF signature, pre- or post- WSO shakeup. I participated here because there were good discussions here. In fact, I don't put any selling crap in my signature over at BF either.

The reasons for my comment was two fold. First, a large number of active posters have migrated over to backlinksforum where they are regular contributors. Obviously Terry, but also people Like Kok Choon, Pat Jackson, etc. are to be included. Second, the level of discourse here, IMHO, has degraded in the past year or so (which no doubt is compounded by the fact that many regular contributors either left, or just spend less time here). I can only handle so many "Oh my god...i'm banned from Google" threads before I need to close down the forum in my browser.

Call me crazy, but I would rather discuss the ins and outs of domain buying for SEO purposes than explain to 100 people each day that checking backlinks in Google using the "link:" command is useless.

I was here because my "friends" were here, so to speak. No, almost all of them have left the ship, so to speak...so... Not to mention there are only so many hours in the day.

Tom

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

The reasons for my comment was two fold. First, a large number .............

That was a fine ad but its not part of this thread topic. This is about the third or fourth time some mass spammer has derailed the thread with personal attacks and innuendos. I was merely responding to it not opening the door for an ad for your link spam site .

I have no qualms with you marketing for yourself and Terry as you always have. Its just not honest though to claim that because the product was never in your name you were not involved in selling it. I have seen it. Plus you have always had a signature link Tom. never seen you without one WHICH I want to make clear again is fine except for the pretending that you have never been deeply involved in selling on Warriors even as you are right now.

Sheesh a little honesty goes a long way. At any rate this thread is about the subject of the opening post. Not whether someone who questions link spam is suspicious, what happens elsewhere or who or what goes on there when and if I build relationships online or offline or any other derailing strategy.