After penguin update -What if My Competitors Point Spammy Links to My Site?

[prabash82]

After penguin update - What if My Competitors Point Spammy Links to My Site?

[kviv23]

hey.. penguin was aimed primarily at onpage SEO factors. so... dont worry too much about that.

[scottmacair]

Originally Posted by kviv23

hey.. penguin was aimed primarily at onpage SEO factors. so... dont worry too much about that.

Complete nonsense

[Linerider]

After penguin update - What if My Competitors Point Spammy Links to My Site?

I just came on to Warrior to ask exactly the same question, but you beat me to it!

If I want to get rid of my competition, all I have to do is fire up Bookmarking Demon and blast out 5000 links to PR0 bookmarking sites with my competitors web address? Not that I am going to do this.

[cooler1]

Originally Posted by kviv23

hey.. penguin was aimed primarily at onpage SEO factors. so... dont worry too much about that.

PlanetSEO clearly has less knowledge about SEO than planet earth.

[looking4adsense]

easy Send more spam link at your competitors, I have actually de-ranked every top 5 site in my niche by negative SEO, now my site rank at #1, it used to be #6

[codecreative]

Originally Posted by looking4adsense

easy Send more spam link at your competitors, I have actually de-ranked every top 5 site in my niche by negative SEO, now my site rank at #1, it used to be #6

I have a "friend" who has a news report article written about him. It has had a negative effect on him finding work even though he has gone to the effort to get qualifications and a degree in archetecture.... he's asking if i can get it de indexed...

I started thinking this could be a business that I can roll out for people to help improve there lifes. For the better. Ironic google tries to eliminate seo and could end up creating a new industry..

WeDeIndexForYou.com

Need a site de indexing? No problem... $10,000

[codecreative]

and before everyone starts going mental it was just a joke

[elrae]

don't worry about it, part of the purpose of the penguin update was to neutralize low quality links in order to eliminate negative SEO (by your competitors).

and i will too backup the fact that kviv23 is absolutely wrong.

[sovereignn]

If you think someone is doing negative SEO to your website report it in the google webmaster tools ASAP

[cardine]

Penguin was a link devaluation update, not a link penalty update.

The problem is not that lots of spammy links will take down a site. The problem was when a site was ranking because of spammy links. Then when those spammy links lose their link juice, peoples rankings go tumbling down.

So if you are ranking from quality links there should be no reason to worry about a lot of low quality links being pointed at your site.

Originally Posted by sovereignn

If you think someone is doing negative SEO to your website report it in the google webmaster tools ASAP

Don't do that. The last thing you want to do is draw attention to low quality links being pointed at your site!

[Black Hat Cat]

Originally Posted by sovereignn

If you think someone is doing negative SEO to your website report it in the google webmaster tools ASAP

Especially if you want them to send you an email telling you to contact all those sites and ask them to remove your links, lol.

[tskailey]

Penguin was a link devaluation update, not a link penalty update.

The problem is not that lots of spammy links will take down a site. The problem was when a site was ranking because of spammy links. Then when those spammy links lose their link juice, peoples rankings go tumbling down.

So if you are ranking from quality links there should be no reason to worry about a lot of low quality links being pointed at your site.

Basically, it was an update which is not focused on improving search quality. But It was an update to devalue spammy site. The way I see it, Google just wanted to have a clean and spam free SERP.

[Seleyna]

Seriously webmasters, how should we counter attack a negative seo since external links are more or less beyond the control of the site owner?

Is it safe to assume that an authority site is less susceptible to these attacks?

[Linerider]

Penguin was a link devaluation update, not a link penalty update.

Are you sure? If there is no penalty, then why are Google advising people to get their spammy backlinks deleted in order to restore their rank in the search results?

[JK Nyerere]

Originally Posted by cardine

Penguin was a link devaluation update, not a link penalty update.

The problem is not that lots of spammy links will take down a site. The problem was when a site was ranking because of spammy links. Then when those spammy links lose their link juice, peoples rankings go tumbling down.

So if you are ranking from quality links there should be no reason to worry about a lot of low quality links being pointed at your site.

Don't do that. The last thing you want to do is draw attention to low quality links being pointed at your site!

I am inclined to disagree with you on this.

I had intensely used several of the popular blog networks and link building WSO's only for those pages that were already in the top 20 by whitehat methods. Using the spammy links on such sites just pushed the sites' rankings to the top 3 in nearly all the cases I did so (20-30).

After penguin, all of these pages that were formerly in the 1st two pages in the SERPs are now not even in the top 100. A third of them are not even in the top 300. If the spammy links were just devalued, I think that my penguined pages would still be somewhere in the top 30 or even 100.

I am led to believe by my current SERP rankings that it was a penalty and not a devaluation, unless of course all the methods that I assumed were whitehat, are actually now also frowned upon by Google.

[wilsonm]

If you have a few high quality links, that will give you all the protection you need.

[jwmann2]

Google will eventually figure out how to distinguish if another competitor is trying to de-rank the other. The algorithm is becoming more advanced by the day. I believe in karma. Why not just dedicate that time in getting your own website to the top rather than tearing down someone elses?

[Enfusia]

For all the naysayers who blither that negative SEO is a myth you are wrong and not just from a Penguin stand point, but always have been.

4 years ago I met a guy at a meeting that would tank peoples sites for money. It was a large part of his business. He lived in one of those countries that could care less and would point Kiddie P and snuff movie links at your site and viola you would go bye bye (no I don't have his contact info, I would not partake in those types of activities, so don't even ask).

So, don't let anyone fool you negative seo has been around for a while.

There really is nothing you can do about it. And yes, Google has just made negative seo easy for people and yes it's real.

How do I know?

I have a few hundred sites. On many of them the home page may be on page 30, 40, 50 or what have you. However the contact us page or about us page etc.. are on page 2, 3, 4 etc.. They don't even contain the keyword.

If it were just devaluation my home page which does contain the keyword would be above them.

And don't say "see I told you it was an on page devaluation" because that's just not true. Otherwise sites with NOTHING on the page would not be sitting at #1 page 1 for good keywords. And crappy spammy sites would not be at the top, but they are.

In one niche I'm in the top site has a footer with the keyword he's ranking for over 300 times in basically a solid block of just that keyword.
If this were an on page devaluation he would be nowhere in site.

I know some of what I've just said may ruffle some feathers of those that just can't believe that Google has made a boo, boo but trust me, this is the way it is.

Patrick

[Enfusia]

Originally Posted by jwmann2

Google will eventually figure out how to distinguish if another competitor is trying to de-rank the other. The algorithm is becoming more advanced by the day. I believe in karma. Why not just dedicate that time in getting your own website to the top rather than tearing down someone elses?

Yes, I agree with you! Going around being bad won't get you anything good.

You know it would be morally wrong so why would you even consider it. Unless you are morally bankrupt that is.

Patrick

[Linerider]

Seriously webmasters, how should we counter attack a negative seo since external links are more or less beyond the control of the site owner?

If someone has tried to tank your site with spammy links then it would definitely be worth mentioning it here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...THZkaTBQbkE6MQ

I suspect they wouldn't fix things on a case by case basis, but in the long run it will help all of us.

[guest]

Originally Posted by cardine

Penguin was a link devaluation update, not a link penalty update.

Exactly right! Negative SEO is total bullsh*t!

If you buy 1000's of links pointing at your competition -- all your doing is wasting your money! It wont hurt the competition site at all.


The reason so many people have been hit by panda/penguin - is they have lots of spammy backlinks - and now they are worth nothing - they have dropped down to the rank based on the value of the real quality links

[adamv]

Originally Posted by jwmann2

Google will eventually figure out how to distinguish if another competitor is trying to de-rank the other. The algorithm is becoming more advanced by the day. I believe in karma. Why not just dedicate that time in getting your own website to the top rather than tearing down someone elses?

How is Google going to tell the difference between someone building links to their own sites and some other person building links to their sites?

The algo may be getting "more advanced by the day" but there is no way for them to tell if I am making links to my own sites, if I'm paying someone else to make links to my sites, or if some third party is building links to my site.

[avajo71]

What you need to is just delete them..

[dburk]

Hi Warriors,

@kviv23 @guest @adamv,

It nice to see at least a few warriors have retained their common sense.

I congratulate you for seeing past the nonsense and recognizing the reality of this latest update. I was beginning to think that the "Warrior Forum" was going to have to change their name to the "Chicken Little Forum". All these "the sky is falling" posts are total BS and becoming insufferable. You guys give me hope that this forum will not circle the bowl and go down with a flush.

To rest of you wimpy Chicken Little disciples: Get a grip!

The sky hasn't fallen, you just got sucked into the dark side of SEO.

Stop your spamming, and stop complaining that Google sunk your website. Google did exactly what they were suppose to, they devalued your web spam. You have been repeatedly warned by Google, and preached to about the risk of relying on web spam on this forum.

And to those who are at a loss about what to do, it is simple, follow Google's Webmasters Guidelines, stick to Google sanctioned SEO and

web promotional techniques

and ignore the siren song of the web spammers.

[dracoboar]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi Warriors,

@kviv23 @guest @adamv,

It nice to see at least a few warriors have retained their common sense.

I congratulate you for seeing past the nonsense and recognizing the reality of this latest update. I was beginning to think that the "Warrior Forum" was going to have to change their name to the "Chicken Little Forum". All these "the sky is falling" posts are total BS and becoming insufferable. You guys give me hope that this forum will not circle the bowl and go down with a flush.

To rest of you wimpy Chicken Little disciples: Get a grip!

The sky hasn't fallen, you just got sucked into the dark side of SEO.

Stop your spamming, and stop complaining that Google sunk your website. Google did exactly what they were suppose to, they devalued your web spam. You have been repeatedly warned by Google, and preached to about the risk of relying on web spam on this forum.

And to those who are at a loss about what to do, it is simple, follow Google's Webmasters Guidelines, stick to Google sanctioned SEO and web promotional techniques and ignore the siren song of the web spammers.

Not everyone who got hit was hit because of spam. Of the 50 sites I maintain only 1 got hit and it used the same link building techniques as all the others.

The OP asked about how o defend himself against a negative seo attack, which your post didnt address.

Negative seo is a serious issue unless oyu just stick your head in the sand and drink the google kool-aid

[dracoboar]

Originally Posted by cardine

Penguin was a link devaluation update, not a link penalty update.

The problem is not that lots of spammy links will take down a site. The problem was when a site was ranking because of spammy links. Then when those spammy links lose their link juice, peoples rankings go tumbling down.

So if you are ranking from quality links there should be no reason to worry about a lot of low quality links being pointed at your site.


Don't do that. The last thing you want to do is draw attention to low quality links being pointed at your site!

That is only part of the story and not on point to the OP penguin also PENALIZES for anchor text over optimization.

If all your links are devalued you will only fall to where you would naturally rank w/o links, but people are falling alot farther than that due to the PENALTY associated with overoptimization, whoich is what the OP is talking about.

[dracoboar]

Originally Posted by wilsonm

If you have a few high quality links, that will give you all the protection you need.

Completely untrue. Anchor text overoptimization can take down a site even with a sterling link reputation.

[dracoboar]

Originally Posted by Seleyna

Seriously webmasters, how should we counter attack a negative seo since external links are more or less beyond the control of the site owner?

Is it safe to assume that an authority site is less susceptible to these attacks?

the authority sites homepage yes, its urls are just as vulnerable as everyone else as the anchortext overoptimization penalty is done at the PAGE level.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by dracoboar

the authority sites homepage yes its urls are just as vulnerable as everyone else as the anchortext overoptimization penalty is done at the PAGE level.

Actually Google has denied comment on whether or not Penguin impacts individual pages or entire sites.

[ogenox]

Originally Posted by Enfusia

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwmann2

Google will eventually figure out how to distinguish if another competitor is trying to de-rank the other. The algorithm is becoming more advanced by the day. I believe in karma. Why not just dedicate that time in getting your own website to the top rather than tearing down someone elses?

Yes, I agree with you! Going around being bad won't get you anything good.

You know it would be morally wrong so why would you even consider it. Unless you are morally bankrupt that is.

Patrick

Posted from Warrior Forum Reader for Android

[dracoboar]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Actually Google has denied comment on whether or not Penguin impacts individual pages or entire sites.

Thats fine but since my site that got hit got hit at the page level and that is what is being told to me by other webmasts it is very clear that it is happening on page level.

As I mention before I lost only about 3% of my income and this was due to just one site which had 2 or 3 pages affected, that same site had 4 or 5 pages that were NOT affected.

Also since my site was niche related other pages on the site ranked for the terms that were hit as well, and they did not fall in the serps for those terms. if it were a site wide penalty all the pages on that site wuld be hammered.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by dracoboar

Thats fine but since my site that got hit got hit at the page level and that is what is being told to me by other webmasts it is very clear that it is happening on page level.

As I mention before I lost only about 3% of my income and this was due to just one site which had 2 or 3 pages affected, that same site had 4 or 5 pages that were NOT affected.

Also since my site was niche related other pages on the site ranked for the terms that were hit as well, and they did not fall in the serps for those terms. if it were a site wide penalty all the pages on that site wuld be hammered.

Ok. But you are making assumptions based on one site.

I'm not saying it is right or wrong. I'm just saying this has not been confirmed by anyone credible.

[dracoboar]

Originally Posted by ogenox

Posted from Warrior Forum Reader for Android

Google will never figure out who is building negative seo links as they will never have the data to do so. How can Google ever know if it was me or if it was you that pushed a button.

The only solution to fix this problem (and in fairness google may not care about this problem, in fact probably doesnt) is to remove off page penalties and ignore spam.

[dracoboar]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Ok. But you are making assumptions based on one site.

I'm not saying it is right or wrong. I'm just saying this has not been confirmed by anyone credible.

Very legitimate point. I understand the conversations I have with other webmasters in our weekly meeting is also anecdotal and thin as well.

However if it were sitewide penalties I dont think other pages and posts would be able to rank top 30 for the same keyword that theaffected page is now ranking 500th for.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by dracoboar

Very legitimate point. I understand the conversations I have with other webmasters in our weekly meeting is also anecdotal and thin as well.

However if it were sitewide penalties I dont think other pages and posts would be able to rank top 30 for the same keyword that theaffected page is now ranking 500th for.

True.

But there are also plenty of sites ranking for terms with nothing but spammy backlinks that technically shouldn't be ranking at all after the Penguin update.

Like I said, I'm not saying you are wrong. Just right now most of the evidence is little more than hearsay until someone with a significant database of information comes out and proves it one way or the other.

[dracoboar]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

True.

But there are also plenty of sites ranking for terms with nothing but spammy backlinks that technically shouldn't be ranking at all after the Penguin update.

Like I said, I'm not saying you are wrong. Just right now most of the evidence is little more than hearsay until someone with a significant database of information comes out and proves it one way or the other.

I dont know anything about low quality backlinks and dont make comments about whether or not that affects ranks currently as I simply dont know.

There is substantial data to suggest keyword overoptimization penalties however do exist. Since google cannot possible know who creates link at this point in time it would be impossible to protect a url from an anchortext attack unless that url has thousands of diverse links.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by dracoboar

Not everyone who got hit was hit because of spam. Of the 50 sites I maintain only 1 got hit and it used the same link building techniques as all the others.

Hi dracoboar,

The Penguin update, did indeed target spam.

If you had a page that took a hit, it likely relied on PR and trust from a page that was hit by the update. PR and Trust factors are dynamically updated and rely on the upstream value of links in the web your page is part of. Google doesn't isolate those values to just pages on your website, or just pages that directly link, but to all pages within the web, to about 40 levels of links indirectly linked to your page.

Originally Posted by dracoboar

The OP asked about how o defend himself against a negative seo attack, which your post didnt address.

True, I didn't address that part of the OP's post. I ignored that aspect of his question, as that is exactly what he should do. My recommendation is to not buy into myths based on Cargo Cult Science. So may advice on that aspect of his post is now complete.

Originally Posted by dracoboar

Negative seo is a serious issue unless oyu just stick your head in the sand and drink the google kool-aid

I think it depends on how you define that term "negative SEO". There have always been ways that a highly motivated competitor could sabotage your website. Most, if not all of those methods, are illegal, or at least litigious. The latest myths that have been going around are mostly over-hyped bunk based on hysterical cargo cult science.

In my opinion, it is a complete waste of time focusing on things that you cannot control and that, for the most part, will not ever effect you. Else you better hire body guards, because you know your competitors would love to rub you out, and that is probably just as likely.

[dracoboar]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi dracoboar,

The Penguin update, did indeed target spam.

If you had a page that took a hit, it likely relied on PR and trust from a page that was hit by the update. PR and Trust factors are dynamically updated and rely on the upstream value of links in the web your page is part of. Google doesn't isolate those values to just pages on your website, or just pages that directly link, but to all pages within the web, to about 40 levels of links indirectly linked to your page.



True, I didn't address that part of the OP's post. I ignored that aspect of his question, as that is exactly what he should do. My recommendation is to not buy into myths based on Cargo Cult Science. So may advice on that aspect of his post is now complete.



I think it depends on how you define that term "negative SEO". There have always been ways that a highly motivated competitor could sabotage your website. Most, if not all of those methods, are illegal, or at least litigious. The latest myths that have been going around are mostly over-hyped bunk based on hysterical cargo cult science.

In my opinion, it is a complete waste of time focusing on things that you cannot control and that, for the most part, will not ever effect you. Else you better hire body guards, because you know your competitors would love to rub you out, and that is probably just as likely.

Ignoring attacks will not make them go away, the links are being indexed as evidenced by webmaster tools, and since they anchor text counts it is compltely viable be the victim of an attack. The proof for the penalties involved for anchortext overoptimization is very solid and neither myth nor fantasy. In fact i believe google itself even said they did penaliz sites for anchortext overoptimization, I dont know how this can be denited.

The OP asks a legitimate question which many of the above posts shrugged off and dismissed with poor advice and misinformation

[dracoboar]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Ok. But you are making assumptions based on one site.

I'm not saying it is right or wrong. I'm just saying this has not been confirmed by anyone credible.

now that i think about this some more there are also several people who have had success with url redirects to fix penguin related issues. If the penalties were site wide this would not be possible.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by dracoboar

Ignoring attacks will not make them go away, the links are being indexed as evidenced by webmaster tools, and since they anchor text counts it is compltely viable be the victim of an attack. The proof for the penalties involved for anchortext over optimization is very solid and neither myth nor fantasy. In fact i believe google itself even said they did penaliz sites for anchortext overoptimization, I dont know how this can be denited.

The OP asks a legitimate question which many of the above posts shrugged off and dismissed with poor advice and misinformation

Hi dracoboar,

I believe that is simply not true. You can believe whatever you want.

I do not believe Google ever said that "sites" would be penalized for over optimization. You cannot "over optimize" that is just an oxymoron. Optimal is optimal, anything less than optimal is not optimal. Anything that exceeds optimal is excessive and typically referred to as web spam by Google.

The whole notion of penalties for anchortext over-optimization is, in my opinion, bunk. It is classic case of incorrectly assuming correlation equals causation. Web spam is devalued by Google, and web spammers tend to use the keywords they are targeting in their web spam anchortext. That correlation does not equal causation. Is it the anchortext that makes content web spam? If it is irrelevant anchortext, then yes. If it is relevant anchortext, then no, relevant anchortext does not make your content into spam.

Of course there are other factors that could get your content classified as web spam, however the over-optimization of anchortext myth is just that, a myth based on an invalid conclusion through the use of cargo cult science.

What matters to Google is what matters to users. It all about relevance and usefulness. You cannot have too many relevant and useful backlinks and you cannot have over-optimization from the use of relevant and useful anchortext on those relevant and useful backlinks. Google is not going to penalize you for using relevant anchortext too much or too often, that notion just seems silly to me. Nor have I ever seen any evidence that suggests that to be true.

Just because web spammers tend to use the same anchortext repeatedly, doesn't mean that repeatedly using the same anchortext makes relevant and useful content into web spam. To think so is to confuse correlation with causation.

[dracoboar]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi dracoboar,

I believe that is simply not true. You can believe whatever you want.

I do not believe Google ever said that "sites" would be penalized for over optimization. You cannot "over optimize" that is just an oxymoron. Optimal is optimal, anything less than optimal is not optimal. Anything that exceeds optimal is excessive and typically referred to as web spam by Google.

The whole notion of penalties for anchortext over-optimization is in my opinion, bunk. It is classic case of incorrectly assuming correlation equals causation. Web spam is devalued by Google, and web spammers tend to use the keywords they are targeting in their web spam anchortext. That correlation does not equal causation. Is it the anchortext that makes content web spam? If it is irrelevant anchortext, then yes. If it is relevant anchortext, then no, relevant anchortext does not make your content into spam.

Of course there are other factors that could get your content classified as web spam, however the over-optimization of anchortext myth is just that, a myth based on an invalid conclusion through the use of cargo cult science.

What matters to Google is what matters to users. It all about relevance and usefulness. You cannot have too many relevant and useful backlinks and you cannot have over-optimization from the use of relevant and useful anchortext on those relevant and useful backlinks. Google is not going to penalize you for using relevant anchortext too much or too often, that notion just seems silly to me. Nor have I ever seen any evidence that suggests that to be true.

Just because web spammers tend to use the same anchortext repeatedly, doesn't mean that repeatedly using the same anchortext makes relevant and useful content into web spam. To think so is to confuse correlation with causation.

Hello Dbunk,

There are very credible sources that have shown a link between anchortext over-optimization and ranking penalties, also I bel;ieve goog ehas said in its own words that they penalize over-optimized anchortext.

Also devaluation would not explain site falling below their natural rankings before linkbuilding.

webspam links may have been devalued I have not seen anythign from google that says this (not saying it doesnt exist I am just saying I have yet to see it).

[dburk]

Originally Posted by dracoboar

Hello Dbunk,

Hi dracoboar,

Really?

You resort to name calling? What next, innuendo, slurs?

I actually like that name, just call me dburk the debunker!

Originally Posted by dracoboar

There are very credible sources that have shown a link between anchortext over-optimization and ranking penalties, also I bel;ieve goog ehas said in its own words that they penalize over-optimized anchortext.

As I have yet to see any credible evidence, kindly cite a source of credible evidence!

Originally Posted by dracoboar

Also devaluation would not explain site falling below their natural rankings before linkbuilding.

Why not?, It seems totally plausible to me, in fact it seems to explains it precisely.

Sites generally do not rank without links, in fact they may not not even get indexed without links.

Originally Posted by dracoboar

webspam links may have been devalued I have not seen anythign from google that says this (not saying it doesnt exist I am just saying I have yet to see it).

I agree, I base this on what I have seen repeatedly over the past 12 years.

Here is Google's official statement on this matter:

In the next few days, we’re launching an important algorithm change targeted at webspam. The change will decrease rankings for sites that we believe are violating Google’s existing quality guidelines. We’ve always targeted webspam in our rankings, and this algorithm represents another improvement in our efforts to reduce webspam and promote high quality content. While we can't divulge specific signals because we don't want to give people a way to game our search results and worsen the experience for users, our advice for webmasters is to focus on creating high quality sites that create a good user experience and employ white hat SEO methods instead of engaging in aggressive webspam tactics.

They cite specific examples and then make this statement:

Sites affected by this change might not be easily recognizable as spamming without deep analysis or expertise, but the common thread is that these sites are doing much more than white hat SEO; we believe they are engaging in webspam tactics to manipulate search engine rankings.

I think what they are saying here is that you need to have an expert do a "deep analysis" to understand why your pages were devalued. It isn't just what is on your page, but what is on the pages that link to your pages, and what is on the pages that link to the pages that link to yours. Any web spam found, and devalued, in the web your page is part of will trickle down to the pages on your website.

I am not saying those links have a negative effect, just that the positive effect of that web spam has been removed from your extended web. As a result, your page will now have less authority and could drop in ranking.

Source: Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Another step to reward high-quality sites

[smodha]

Man there's some naive peeps on this forum.

If you don't believe in Negative SEO then let me prove it to you. Send me the link to your best performing money site. I will have it de-indexed in 48 hours max.

NB - I don't do this for a living. This is to prove a point that SEO works both ways...

[Vivers]

This had me wondering as well. Seems google would figure this out and I was hoping the answer was going to be what I have read here. There are some ruthless people out there!

[nexblanc01]

I am hit by the penguin and there's no doubt its a big ass penalty. I am pretty sure right now people are spamming the crap out of there competitors.

This new Google penguin fad wont last. Google will get just as much spammy links as they did before. But this time honest Joes will get hurt.

just my prediction

[kaluuu]

Originally Posted by looking4adsense

easy Send more spam link at your competitors, I have actually de-ranked every top 5 site in my niche by negative SEO, now my site rank at #1, it used to be #6

Take care of the KARMA