Google is Flawed - You Can Influence Other Sites’ Rankings With Backlinks

by neil_patmore 551 replies
How do I know? Because I totally messed up 2 of my smaller money sites by creating backlinks to them recently.

I mean totally messed them up, last page of the serps in the supplemental index and not appearing in the search results when I search for the domain without the domain extension. All the hallmarks of a ‘last page of results’ AKA the ‘-950 Google penalty’.

It seemed like a good idea at the time, after all, you can’t hurt a site with backlinks right?

I didn’t just blast the sites with low quality backlinks, but I’m sure the way in which I created around 6k links caused such a drastic penalty.

Well, I could have kicked myself when the sites disappeared.

However I soon realised I've learnt a valuable lesson and possibly acquired something far more powerful than a small money site in #1 spot on Google.

I’ve since removed the backlinks and I’m currently waiting to see if the penalty expires and the sites bounce back. The penalty is an algorithmic penalty, a reply to a reinclusion request confirmed this.

In the wrong hands, this method of backlinking could create carnage for new sites in Google Serps.

Moral of the story? Don’t listen to those that say you can’t hurt a site with backlinks. Instead, be VERY careful with your backlinking.

Want proof? If you have site less than 6 months old, PM me your domain and main keyword and I'll give you the same backlinks.
#search engine optimization #backlinks #flawed #google #influence #rankings #sites’ #sites’
  • Profile picture of the author Doug Pretorius
    Amen brother. I picked one of the best performing pages on my site (it was in the top 10 but I can't remember where exactly) and decided to follow the backlinking advice on this forum to get it to #1. Instead it disappeared into total obscurity. It took 8 months for it to finally return to page 1, and that's in a very very low competition environment.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4560253].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BarryOnline
    What kind of back links did you use & how did you manage to remove 6k?
    Signature

    We are the universe contemplating itself - Carl Sagan

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4560287].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cagliostro
    Not true. It just can't happen. Use your logic please.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4560596].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dp40oz
      Originally Posted by cagliostro View Post

      Not true. It just can't happen. Use your logic please.
      Oh it absolutely can happen. Just a word of advice from a guy who has posted many threads with proof on the subject. You will be making the page more valuable in the end. You'll be able to knock a page out and into oblivion for awhile but heres the key… IT WILL ALWAYS COME BACK, and when it does those links will count. Ive shown this proof a ton of times on this forum.

      Google will penalize a page but all their penalties decay. How long does the penalty last? Depends usually between 30-60 days but sometimes can be up to 6-9 months. Just mark my words, you will be making this domain stronger in the long run.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4560959].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Cantbedone!
        Originally Posted by dp40oz View Post

        Oh it absolutely can happen. Just a word of advice from a guy who has posted many threads with proof on the subject. You will be making the page more valuable in the end. You'll be able to knock a page out and into oblivion for awhile but heres the key… IT WILL ALWAYS COME BACK, and when it does those links will count. Ive shown this proof a ton of times on this forum.

        Google will penalize a page but all their penalties decay. How long does the penalty last? Depends usually between 30-60 days but sometimes can be up to 6-9 months. Just mark my words, you will be making this domain stronger in the long run.

        Agreed. Any large amount of suspicious activity can prompt a google dance (temporary fluctuation or even disappearance from serps) but where linking is concerned, the sites always come back eventually and usually stronger than they were before.

        I wouldn't believe it either if I had not seen it so many times with my own pages that I blasted with links in the past. If you try to do this to your competition, you will only strengthen them in the long run. Give it time and I think you will see the same results.
        Signature

        To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.
        ~ Aristotle

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4571095].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author agmantz
        Originally Posted by dp40oz View Post

        Oh it absolutely can happen. Just a word of advice from a guy who has posted many threads with proof on the subject. You will be making the page more valuable in the end. You'll be able to knock a page out and into oblivion for awhile but heres the key… IT WILL ALWAYS COME BACK, and when it does those links will count. Ive shown this proof a ton of times on this forum.

        Google will penalize a page but all their penalties decay. How long does the penalty last? Depends usually between 30-60 days but sometimes can be up to 6-9 months. Just mark my words, you will be making this domain stronger in the long run.

        You are absolutely correct! Just continue backlinking.
        This scenario happened to me.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4986917].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author joulesverne
          Neil: Just curious now that it has been over six months if your sites ever came backs, and if they did, how long did it take / what did you do?

          Also, were your sites tanked for a single keyword or did you lose rank for all keywords? I noticed in the thread your theory was that google punishes individual pages for individual keywords, but it almost sounds as if your sites tanked for everything

          That same question goes for MDSEO.

          My two cents, from someone who has never posted on this forum but has been doing SEO for a while... it seems to me that a very unnatural link campaign can trip some sort of automatic google filter (obviously they are not watching your site individually, but their algorithms are and they keep track of keywords, keyword context, links, anchor text, anchor text context etc etc... why not speed / type of links?)

          As someone said previously, variation is key... naturalness is also key. Vary the keywords, let your campaign start fairly conservative and grow (it can grow quickly though, from my experience) and you can very rapidly start pummeling it with links without hurting it.

          I have used SENuke extensively. I have taken a brand new domain to second result for a keyword with 48,000 local monthly searches and 32 million competing websites in less than 2 months. No penalties, much dancing though. Sometimes it would drop for a week. The key was that I started with a second tier and hit that like crazy for a couple weeks. Then i started light campaigns against the main site. Then I started to really hit it hard for a solid month. Also, as this was one of my early endeavors I made the mistake of letting up on it after it was in the second result and it dropped pretty quickly to the second page until I started hitting it hard again. Took some time before it was securely there and I could ease up. This may mean that Google, interestingly, rewards large numbers of links all at once as long as they look natural. When you let up, it takes away that extra reward. If your links are very unnatural it seems it can and does punish you if your domain is not established.

          This also makes sense in the context of tiers. Everyone says you should only use heavy duty blasts against your second tier. Why is this? Obviously a website is a website. Your second tier should be no less susceptible to de-indexing than your first tier. Your second tier adds a layer of protection, but If blasting a site gets you deindexed, all of these people would be blasting out their second tier that they worked so hard to build... obviously it wouldn't make much sense. However, what do people usually build their second tier on? Wordpres, livejournal, hubpages, squidoo etc... all second tier pages are built on established, old, strong domains. They rarely get blasted out.

          Conclusion: given very strict stipulations, Google may punish a domain. I think this is clear from all the people who see their domain drop for 6-9 months. This is obviously not a dance. You could argue it is an algorithm change, but that does not explain the people who get 'penalized' and abandon their site only to find that 60 days later it was where they started. I have seen this testimony from many (though I have never experienced it myself). If your site is fairly unestablished and new, and you build backlinks that are clearly unnatural (i.e. tons of the same type of links without varied enough keywords on low/no quality sites suddenly appearing) then you may be punished. However, these are very strict stipulations... and that makes sense - at this point computers are still dumb and very poor at pattern recognition. Google is not God, and the amount of processing power that it takes to do those things that we know for a FACT that they do (as mentioned above) is enormous. I think they have automatic systems in place, but it is very hard to implement an automatic system that does not punish the good guys. Therefore, under strict circumstances you can shoot yourself in the foot. Although, most of these things seem like they would be newbie mistakes anyway.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5751584].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    Barry, the links where from other properties I own on the internet.

    Cagliostro, do you have a site less than 6 months old that I can send links to?
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4560673].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author cagliostro
      Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post


      Cagliostro, do you have a site less than 6 months old that I can send links to?
      No need for you to do that, because i have done it myself already. Apart from some up and down, didn't do anything huge.

      I have send all kind of Fiverr EDU, Pyramids etc etc.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4560742].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Doug Pretorius
      Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

      Barry, the links where from other properties I own on the internet.
      I think that's the main issue. I've never seen a link coming from someone else have this effect. It's all this artificial link building stuff we do to ourselves, I think google can tell the difference between 10k people creating 1 link to your site each vs. you creating 10k links to your site. At best google ignores them, at worst they punish you for trying to manipulate the algo.

      However, google doesn't mind at all if you create a good internal link structure. Internal links are some of the best you can get too.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4560858].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author PatrickP
      Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

      Barry, the links where from other properties I own on the internet.

      Cagliostro, do you have a site less than 6 months old that I can send links to?
      NICE!

      It is called put up or shut up. Let him send you back links so you can find out for yourself.

      If you wont let him prove it then I guess you are afraid it actually COULD happen.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4560981].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author paulgl
        You people mix up cause and effect so many times....

        Backlinking causes your site to sink in ratings.

        Such BS.

        **You get piddly backlinks to your piddly sites, and come
        up with all sorts of hallucinations.

        Please. Stop backlinking. You will make the internet a better place,
        and the rest of us will benefit from your lack of effort.

        People just can't get over the fact that google owes you nothing,
        could care less about you and your sites. And they don't
        take you personally. Period. They don't have a man behind the
        curtain following your every move. No matter how important on
        the internet you think you and your websites are.

        Anybody who peddles this nonsense is just pushing more voodoo
        SEO.

        You people need to get a grip on reality.

        Repeat: Please. Stop backlinking.

        Google is flawed - to the tune of billions of dollars in record profits.
        If only they would hire their engineers from here....they would be so much
        more successful....silly flawed google...

        Paul

        **Feel free to copy this anywhere.
        Signature

        If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561032].message }}
        • Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

          You people mix up cause and effect so many times....

          Backlinking causes your site to sink in ratings.

          Such BS.

          **You get piddly backlinks to your piddly sites, and come
          up with all sorts of hallucinations.

          Please. Stop backlinking. You will make the internet a better place,
          and the rest of us will benefit from your lack of effort.

          People just can't get over the fact that google owes you nothing,
          could care less about you and your sites. And they don't
          take you personally. Period. They don't have a man behind the
          curtain following your every move. No matter how important on
          the internet you think you and your websites are.

          Anybody who peddles this nonsense is just pushing more voodoo
          SEO.

          You people need to get a grip on reality.

          Repeat: Please. Stop backlinking.

          Google is flawed - to the tune of billions of dollars in record profits.
          If only they would hire their engineers from here....they would be so much
          more successful....silly flawed google...

          Paul

          **Feel free to copy this anywhere.
          Copy and paste. / quote.

          Thanks for posting it Paul
          Signature
          Get ALL the SEO software YOU CANT afford:
          Ultimate SEO Pack
          SENuke & Grscraper, and dozens more! $40 a month!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4563425].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MaverickUK
          Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

          You people mix up cause and effect so many times....

          Backlinking causes your site to sink in ratings.

          Such BS.

          **You get piddly backlinks to your piddly sites, and come
          up with all sorts of hallucinations.

          Please. Stop backlinking. You will make the internet a better place,
          and the rest of us will benefit from your lack of effort.

          People just can't get over the fact that google owes you nothing,
          could care less about you and your sites. And they don't
          take you personally. Period. They don't have a man behind the
          curtain following your every move. No matter how important on
          the internet you think you and your websites are.

          Anybody who peddles this nonsense is just pushing more voodoo
          SEO.

          You people need to get a grip on reality.

          Repeat: Please. Stop backlinking.

          Google is flawed - to the tune of billions of dollars in record profits.
          If only they would hire their engineers from here....they would be so much
          more successful....silly flawed google...

          Paul

          **Feel free to copy this anywhere.
          Wow, it's safe to say that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, Paul. Go back to your article and forum marketing and leave the SEO'ers to their profitable businesses.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4578513].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author guitarjosh
            Originally Posted by MaverickUK View Post

            Wow, it's safe to say that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, Paul. Go back to your article and forum marketing and leave the SEO'ers to their profitable businesses.
            Wow. That was constructive.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4578532].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MaverickUK
              Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post

              Wow. That was constructive.
              Oh right and I suppose his post was? This thread is full of people who seemingly don't have a clue what they're talking about, frustration has apparently got the better of me.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4578561].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MDSEO
          i spent 1,000s of hours building backlinks etc... and now sites that have like 2 backlinks rank higher then me, this just happend within the past like 4 weeks my site dropped from 1 on some of my top keywords to like 45... F U google!
          go figure i have a new baby "and now my business has had like zero calls over the past 3 weeks due to this latest panda update" google really did a number this time....... im pissed


          Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

          You people mix up cause and effect so many times....

          Backlinking causes your site to sink in ratings.

          Such BS.

          **You get piddly backlinks to your piddly sites, and come
          up with all sorts of hallucinations.

          Please. Stop backlinking. You will make the internet a better place,
          and the rest of us will benefit from your lack of effort.

          People just can't get over the fact that google owes you nothing,
          could care less about you and your sites. And they don't
          take you personally. Period. They don't have a man behind the
          curtain following your every move. No matter how important on
          the internet you think you and your websites are.

          Anybody who peddles this nonsense is just pushing more voodoo
          SEO.

          You people need to get a grip on reality.

          Repeat: Please. Stop backlinking.

          Google is flawed - to the tune of billions of dollars in record profits.
          If only they would hire their engineers from here....they would be so much
          more successful....silly flawed google...

          Paul

          **Feel free to copy this anywhere.
          Signature

          ……(\_/)
          ……( ‘_’)
          …./”"”"”"”"”"”"\======░
          /”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”\
          \_@_@_@_@_@/

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4854104].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author zannix
            I don't know if you can get your site penalized by building low quality backlinks, but I do know this:

            I've stopped building backlinks to my site for quite some time, and after ranking #1 for its keyword for 4 months, it started going nowhere and back, every 2 weeks or so. And this is not a "Google Dance", because "Google Dance" occured earlier in the link building process, after which my rank has been stable.

            Yesterday, it's rank #1 again. And I'm not doing absolutely anything...

            There's something to consider.

            Kind Regards,
            Zannix
            Signature
            All you can do is all you can do - Art Williams
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4855852].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author timpears
      Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

      Barry, the links where from other properties I own on the internet.

      Cagliostro, do you have a site less than 6 months old that I can send links to?
      I have a hard time believing this. So how do these blog networks do so well? Matt LeClare makes a bundle with his WSO getting people on the first page of Google. And there are two people named Mike, not sure of their last names though, who do similar. A few long threads on private blog networks were here recently and they were very interesting.

      I think if you had just left the links, your site would have done fine. You were probably just doing the Google dance. Usually from what I hear, the sites that do that will return and end up higher in the SERP. You just didn't wait long enough.

      But believe what you want. It is up to you. The logic just doesn't support your theory though.
      Signature

      Tim Pears

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4564124].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TheAdsenseGuy
        Originally Posted by timpears View Post

        But believe what you want. It is up to you. The logic just doesn't support your theory though.
        Belief has nothing to do with it. Have you ever done SEO before? I have. I know what he's saying is true because I've actually tested it.

        Maybe you should too?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4564163].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
          Originally Posted by TheAdsenseGuy View Post

          Belief has nothing to do with it. Have you ever done SEO before? I have. I know what he's saying is true because I've actually tested it.

          Maybe you should too?
          I say otherwise from my own experience. You go ahead and believe what you want to believe. I have so many new sites that I have ranked using massive links that it really makes this entire thread look silly.

          I'm not going to get into how many links we can generate in an hour but given the fact we now have 35 servers and 5000 site blog network you can do the math from there. But the amount is considerable.

          Given our fire power you would think I would know whether or not it was possible to torch a competitors site.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4564216].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author dp40oz
            Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

            I say otherwise from my own experience. You go ahead and believe what you want to believe. I have so many new sites that I have ranked using massive links that it really makes this entire thread look silly.

            I'm not going to get into how many links we can generate in an hour but given the fact we now have 35 servers and 5000 site blog network you can do the math from there. But the amount is considerable.

            Given our fire power you would think I would know whether or not it was possible to torch a competitors site.
            Try using a scrapebox blast auto approve list around 120,000 blogs with 90% of the same anchor text and I assure you there will be a penalty on a site 6 months our younger. Guaranteed, no doubt… Do it, come back to this thread and be honest.

            Yea 5000 blogs with a good reputation isn't anything thats gonna ring a ton of bells.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4564649].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Garrett Rogers
      Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

      Barry, the links where from other properties I own on the internet.

      Cagliostro, do you have a site less than 6 months old that I can send links to?
      Yes, I am looking for a good backlinking method. Please respond. Thanks.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4571608].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    I think that's the main issue. I've never seen a link coming from someone else have this effect. It's all this artificial link building stuff we do to ourselves, I think google can tell the difference between 10k people creating 1 link to your site each vs. you creating 10k links to your site.
    You'd think so wouldn't you? But the inbound links came from sites hosted in a completely different Geo-location, on a different IP address and using a different CMS platform to the 2 money sites. All sites have Whois Guard and there is absolutely nothing linking the sites together.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4560894].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author unnatural
      Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

      You'd think so wouldn't you? But the inbound links came from sites hosted in a completely different Geo-location, on a different IP address and using a different CMS platform to the 2 money sites. All sites have Whois Guard and there is absolutely nothing linking the sites together.
      Whois Guard doesn't do any good for protecting against Google's eyes - they are a registered domain registrar.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561266].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    Oh it absolutely can happen. Just a word of advice from a guy who has posted many threads with proof on the subject. You will be making the page more valuable in the end.
    Thanks dp40oz.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4560973].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    Wow Paul, I sense a stressed man behind your post.

    A tad harsh, not to mention pointless don't you think? Is your blood pressure and the risk of a stroke not important to you?

    Same offer to you my stressed little friend. Give me a site less than 6 months old and lets find out.

    Oh and just so you and I are clear, I've never once claimed that Google owed me or my 'piddly' little site anything. If you carefully read back over my initial post, maybe take a deep breath and relax before you do though, you'll see that this isn't a rant about how my life is now doomed because my 'piddly little site' has vanished.

    I have no interest in how many billions 'silly flawed Google' has made either.

    I do however, have a huge amount of interest in wether or not I can have a direct impact on competitors rankings for personal profit and gain.

    Just so we are clear.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561132].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      Google does not give as many "penalties" as people dream up.
      Very seldom, if ever, anything resembling a penalty even comes
      up.

      But people use these fantasies as an excuse for any search results
      being changed. Google changes on split second basis. The results
      are dynamic. There is nobody watching and making sure your site
      falls. Even though many people think they are that important to
      the web. They're not.

      Cause and effect are so friggn' mixed up here...it's pathetic.

      It can't be because google discovered better sites at the moment.

      It can't be because other sites got updated.

      It can't be because dynamics in searching changed.

      It can't be because a tweak in an algorithm.

      It can't be anything else except google penalizing my site.

      Dream on. Google does not take a personal interest in YOUR site no
      matter how important you think you are.

      It just has to be that big, bad, flawed google *sniff* I just know I
      have the best site *whimper* and if they don't like it, I must be
      *wiping tear drop* getting penalized!

      Paul
      Signature

      If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561228].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dp40oz
        Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

        Google does not give as many "penalties" as people dream up.
        Very seldom, if ever, anything resembling a penalty even comes
        up.

        But people use these fantasies as an excuse for any search results
        being changed. Google changes on split second basis. The results
        are dynamic. There is nobody watching and making sure your site
        falls. Even though many people think they are that important to
        the web. They're not.

        Cause and effect are so friggn' mixed up here...it's pathetic.

        It can't be because google discovered better sites at the moment.

        It can't be because other sites got updated.

        It can't be because dynamics in searching changed.

        It can't be because a tweak in an algorithm.

        It can't be anything else except google penalizing my site.

        Dream on. Google does not take a personal interest in YOUR site no
        matter how important you think you are.

        It just has to be that big, bad, flawed google *sniff* I just know I
        have the best site *whimper* and if they don't like it, I must be
        *wiping tear drop* getting penalized!

        Paul
        Paul you are just straight up wrong about this! If you really believe this then put up or shut up. I will guarantee I can get a page on one of your sites penalized easily. Give me any page that is less then 9 months old. Lets do it, because you are SOOOO CONFIDENT!

        You can sit behind your computer and keep making irrelevant, uneducated posts that blatantly lie with no factual basis to other members of this forum or you can do actual tests and show results. Google absolutely does penalize websites. They do it constantly. This has been proven many times and you have commented on these particular threads as well saying the same old "blah blah blah proof means nothing, Google is rich and the most brilliant thing in the world and is never wrong, they owe you nothing, stop whining and just do nothing to promote your websites because it bothers me blah blah".

        JESUS man you even admit that you don't build backlinks yet somehow you are an authority on how Google reacts to link building. You never offer anything constructive to anyone here. You complain that everyone is wrong and you never prove any of your points other then just screaming your cranky old man opinions. If you want to keep spreading lies fine. If you want to help others out and tell them the truth, give me a page and let me show these other guys how a penalty really works sir. I am confident I will prove my point. I am also so confident that not only will you be penalized but a month or so from now you'll be thanking me for the ranking boost. I KNOW THIS AS FACT BECAUSE IVE TESTED IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561401].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
          Wow! 6 months!

          I blasted my site with scrapebox and it disappeared for a couple of days.. Then came back stronger than ever!
          I'd just like to point out that this wasn't the result of any sort of blast, Xrumer, Scrapebox/board or anything similar.

          The site was around 6 months old, QDF effect had long died off, Google dance from initial backlinking had settled and the site was enjoying a steady #1 ranking in Google.

          You can see from the stats below that the site flatlined from around 400 uniques per day to 0. Pretty amazing really!! It's not a google dance where you'd expect to see some spikes here and there. Also, searching for the domain without the suffix doesn't show the site in the results:

          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561488].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author rahmanpaidar
          Originally Posted by dp40oz View Post

          I am also so confident that not only will you be penalized but a month or so from now you'll be thanking me for the ranking boost. I KNOW THIS AS FACT BECAUSE IVE TESTED IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
          You complain about Paul is confident while you are also yourself confident

          Ok, let's take a breath. Seriously I think this can't be called "penalize".
          As you stated you can penalize a page for a month then it will boost.
          So I won't call it penalize. This seems to me an algorithmic ways of google life.

          The similar situation is also happening for Google +1 in GWT. When a new
          visitors vote your pages, you will see a fallen down to zero graph for a
          few days in GWT then all things get back to normal leaving you a few more votes
          showing up in the graph.

          People are right to name this unnamed phenomenas as "penalize", "google dance",
          and any other fancy names they like since google was unable to name them
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4562628].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author dp40oz
            Originally Posted by rahmanpaidar View Post

            You complain about Paul is confident while you are also yourself confident

            Ok, let's take breath. Seriously I think this can't be called "penalize".
            As you stated you can penalize a page for a month then it will boost.
            So I won't call it penalize. This seems to me an algorithmic ways of google life.

            The similar situation is also happened for Google +1 in GWT. When a new
            visitors vote your pages, you will see a fallen down to zero graph for a
            few days in GWT then all things get back to normal leaving you a few more votes
            showing up in the graph.

            People are right to name this unnamed phenomenas as "penalize", "google dance",
            and any other fancy names they like since google was unable to name them
            I see your point but it is a penalty. Since when does a penalty have to last forever to be a penalty? I use the timeframe of a month just as an example. Sometimes it can last 6 months. Sometimes 4 months depends. It is Googles version of jail. Thats the same way it works in the regular world. You do your time then you go back to where you started. Why can't this be called a penalty? Also a month is a huge amount of time when one of those pages is making you $50-60 a day.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4562675].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author rahmanpaidar
              Originally Posted by dp40oz View Post

              You do your time then you go back to where you started. Why can't this be called a penalty? Also a month is a huge amount of time when one of those pages is making you $50-60 a day.
              Let's not forget that our sites are part of a network of billions websites
              and pages. Your ranking is dependent on other sites ranking.
              When a site linking to your site lose its ranking, your site will also hit
              depends on how your site is dependant to that site. This is one of the
              reasons why people can not see any improvement after a lot of hard
              working.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4562709].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Nero Arcnumé
              Originally Posted by dp40oz View Post

              It is Googles version of jail. Thats the same way it works in the regular world. You do your time then you go back to where you started. Why can't this be called a penalty?
              The reason it can't really be called a penalty is that you get to "keep the spoils garnered from the crime" so to speak. If you rob a bank in real life and get out of jail, can you just go on with your life and enjoy the millions you stole? Usually not. But after you get out of Google's prison, you get to keep the power of the backlinks as the profits start trickling in.

              I suppose it could be seen as a penalty if you're blasting a page from #10 to #8, seeing only a marginal increase in profits eventhough you had a month or more downtime. But if you're going from #3 to #1, I'd say a month or in some niches even months of downtime can be worth the increased visitors, profits and the potential for expanding the website.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4562861].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author PatrickP
        Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

        Google does not give as many "penalties" as people dream up.
        Very seldom, if ever, anything resembling a penalty even comes
        up.

        See here is proof they do not. A google employee telling how it really is so don't blame google.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561625].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author jasonthewebmaster
        Banned
        Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

        Google does not give as many "penalties" as people dream up.
        Very seldom, if ever, anything resembling a penalty even comes
        up.

        But people use these fantasies as an excuse for any search results
        being changed. Google changes on split second basis. The results
        are dynamic. There is nobody watching and making sure your site
        falls. Even though many people think they are that important to
        the web. They're not.

        Cause and effect are so friggn' mixed up here...it's pathetic.

        It can't be because google discovered better sites at the moment.

        It can't be because other sites got updated.

        It can't be because dynamics in searching changed.

        It can't be because a tweak in an algorithm.

        It can't be anything else except google penalizing my site.

        Dream on. Google does not take a personal interest in YOUR site no
        matter how important you think you are.

        It just has to be that big, bad, flawed google *sniff* I just know I
        have the best site *whimper* and if they don't like it, I must be
        *wiping tear drop* getting penalized!

        Paul

        I totally agree. The "Penalties" everyone complains about are usually not true. In fact, Google has NEVER publicly said their algorithm's penalize sites... yet everyone thinks they do.

        The fact is, your backlinks probably have nothing to do with your loss in rankings. It could be a million other factors. Most likely, your competition is doing something right that you are not, and that is why your site is now lower in rankings.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4562777].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author outwest
          Originally Posted by jasonthewebmaster View Post

          I totally agree. The "Penalties" everyone complains about are usually not true. In fact, Google has NEVER publicly said their algorithm's penalize sites... yet everyone thinks they do.

          The fact is, your backlinks probably have nothing to do with your loss in rankings. It could be a million other factors. Most likely, your competition is doing something right that you are not, and that is why your site is now lower in rankings.
          Rightttttttttttttt
          you are ranking 1, or 2 for 6 months all the sudden you drop to page 100

          must be something your competitors ALL decided to do at the same moment
          all 100 pages of competitors, this cant be a google penalty, hahahaha

          do you know how dumb that sounds
          Signature
          Tech article writing .Native English Speaker(with Proof)
          specializing in SmartPhones , Internet security, high tech gadgets, search engines, tech shows, digital cameras.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5753395].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 36burrows
    Look I know there are mixed opinions on this so I can only provide my own experience.

    I had also had a site ranked on page 1 getting over 600 visitors per day. I decided to try an "Xrumer" blast to try and solidify the ranking.

    Within 24 hours after the "Xrumer" blast, my site was gone. All my traffic was gone as well.

    It stayed this way for about 6 months before it finally returned.

    Call it "Google Dance" or whatever you want, but the fact is that the site vanished and therefore all revenue stopped for 6 months and the only cause is the xrumer blast.

    So anyone claiming that these backlink blasts don't affect your site, I'm sorry but you're wrong.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561254].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author satrap
      Originally Posted by 36burrows View Post

      ...Call it "Google Dance" or whatever you want, but the fact is that the site vanished and therefore all revenue stopped for 6 months and the only cause is the xrumer blast...

      I am just trying to understand this, how would you determine that the only cause is the xrumer blast?

      I mean, the explanation could be as simple as a " coincidence", couldn't it?...

      Of course, I couldn't prove that either, but you see what I mean though!Since, I dont know how exactly Google works, I am not taking anyone's side here. But from a logical point of view, what you said is a bit puzzling to me. Although I can understand and see why, you would think that.
      Signature
      60 Awesome Ways to Make Money Without a Job
      .................................
      Check out my blog Survey Satrap featuring honest reviews of paid survey sites.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570712].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    Unnatural, thank you. That is something I didn't know.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561294].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ryanjk13
    Wow! 6 months!

    I blasted my site with scrapebox and it disappeared for a couple of days.. Then came back stronger than ever!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561362].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
    The premise of the OP is utter nonsense. We have run over 5000 successful seo campaigns in the last 15 months and nothing we have seen supports the claims being made by OP.

    It is impossible to be penalized by Google from backlinking. Period.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561534].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dp40oz
      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

      The premise of the OP is utter nonsense. We have run over 5000 successful seo campaigns in the last 15 months and nothing we have seen supports the claims being made by OP.

      It is impossible to be penalized by Google from backlinking. Period.
      Really, would you like me to show you proof?

      Did a Massive Senuke run in 1 day after no link building for weeks. I did this run on June 10th and July 10th.



      On June 28th I was testing an auto approve Scrapebox list.



      Article Marketing robot blast all in 1 day on June 13th after very little link building the last few months.



      This my friends is what they call the "Sandbox". These gentlemen don't have to believe it but it does exist and it is very real. Also notice the last example. I put this in just to show how once the penalty does "decay" you get the link power from those links that penalized you.

      The misconception is that there is a "link penalty", there is only an "unnatural link building penalty". You get penalized for building links unnatural and its like going to the penalty box in hockey. They keep you locked up for a little bit then let you loose, the type of links you build will never effect your site its how fast and when you build those links.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561656].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    The premise of the OP is utter nonsense. We have run over 5000 successful seo campaigns in the last 15 months and nothing we have seen supports the claims being made by OP.
    The amount of campaigns you've executed is irrelevant. You no doubt have tried and tested methods that work.

    Same offer goes out to you and your comrades my friend. Give me a domain to target. One that's ranking #1 and less than 6 months old and lets find out.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561604].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
    Before talking **** about a topic you obviously know very little about you should at least learn how to resize your images so they fit the formatting of the thread.

    It will make your argument at least look intelligent.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561792].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author PatrickP
      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

      Before talking **** about a topic you obviously know very little about you should at least learn how to resize your images so they fit the formatting of the thread.

      It will make your argument at least look intelligent.

      100% true. If you don't know how to resize pics then you obviously do not know what you are talking about. harumpffffffffffff
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561806].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
        Originally Posted by PatrickP View Post

        100% true. If you don't know how to resize pics then you obviously do not know what you are talking about. harumpffffffffffff
        And the fact that I have grabbed 5000+ page one rankings in 15 months obviously proves I know very little on the topic.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561820].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author dp40oz
          Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

          And the fact that I have grabbed 5000+ page one rankings in 15 months obviously proves I know very little on the topic.
          No, its the fact that you say there is absolutely no such thing as a link penalty which is not true, there is. That does not diminish your skills at SEO 1 bit. You are clearly accomplished just not fully accurate in this 1 instance. Thats all. Just like resizing an image shows nothing about someones intelligence when it comes to link building penalties.

          I too have hundreds of page one rankings, not thousands just yet but I swear to god I still don't know exactly what an RSS feed really does in the real world even though I deal with them everyday. Its just 1 thing I am not that well versed in. Doesn't really make me any less competent.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561863].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author trytolearnmore
      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

      Before talking **** about a topic you obviously know very little about you should at least learn how to resize your images so they fit the formatting of the thread.

      It will make your argument at least look intelligent.

      Easy there Matt... there is no need for this language (even if he is wrong).

      King regards,
      Andrii
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561815].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

      Before talking **** about a topic you obviously know very little about you should at least learn how to resize your images so they fit the formatting of the thread.

      It will make your argument at least look intelligent.
      No offense, but didn't I see you asking people in another thread just a few days ago how to embed a video into a message? And I believe that people were all too quick to jump in and help you out.

      I don't think the size of the image or layout of the thread had anything to do with the argument.
      Signature
      SEO Myths
      SEO, PPC, Geo-Fencing, and Social Media Marketing Services - Get a Free Quote
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4562739].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    Resizing my image will add to an argument about SEO?

    Thank you for your constructive addition to this thread.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561814].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author commoditytrainer
    Google doesn't penalize many sites as so many claim, but one thing I would never ever do is get 6000 backlinks to a site in six months. I don't care how great it is, my buddy does the same and runs into some trouble with Google Serps.
    Signature
    If you want insurance quotes then check out one of the best ways to compare at http://www.autoinsuresavings.org and your insurance costs could be reduced to more than you think?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561831].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PatrickP
    Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

    And the fact that I have grabbed 5000+ page one rankings in 15 months obviously proves I know very little on the topic.

    WHAT?

    I was agreeing with you ya guru you.

    We gotta get rid of the damn sh1t talkers Mark. Together we can clean up WF!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561835].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    Here you go Boss Man. I hope this meets with your approval:



    If you click on it something really really clever happens :-)

    Do you want me to add a little unsharp mask to the image? Maybe a bit of Gaussian Blur or perhaps you'd like me to convert it to duotone to print on a two colour lithographic press?

    Anything else you'd like just ask :-)

    Do you have a domain for me yet?
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561841].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
      Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

      Here you go Boss Man. I hope this meets with your approval:



      If you click on it something really really clever happens :-)

      Do you want me to add a little unsharp mask to the image? Maybe a bit of Gaussian Blur or perhaps you'd like me to convert it to duotone to print on a two colour lithographic press?

      Anything else you'd like just ask :-)

      Do you have a domain for me yet?
      Much better. See how easy it is to learn something new?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561849].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author wolfmanjack
      Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

      Here you go Boss Man. I hope this meets with your approval:



      If you click on it something really really clever happens :-)

      Do you want me to add a little unsharp mask to the image? Maybe a bit of Gaussian Blur or perhaps you'd like me to convert it to duotone to print on a two colour lithographic press?

      Anything else you'd like just ask :-)

      Do you have a domain for me yet?
      I thought his original images were better. i did not have to click on them to see what they were about.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4571656].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author billaaa777
    Sorry to tell that your logic is wrong. If Google would penalize a site for blasting to many backlinks in a short period, there would be blasting wars taking place.

    All you would have to do is send a few Xrumer blast at your competitors to take them do. Google doesn't penalize sites for too many links too quickly for that reason.
    Signature
    Acid Reflux Diet - A GREAT product, mega-huge market, poor to no competition, low cost PPC words.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561930].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dp40oz
      Originally Posted by billaaa777 View Post

      Sorry to tell that your logic is wrong. If Google would penalize a site for blasting to many backlinks in a short period, there would be blasting wars taking place.

      All you would have to do is send a few Xrumer blast at your competitors to take them do. Google doesn't penalize sites for too many links too quickly for that reason.
      For new sites with not much trust it does. Send me some of your competition for easy to medium keywords i'll let you know if there is some I can knock out for you. It does work, ive done it. Like I said though they usually come back stronger when the penalty decays. I originally learned that the hard way.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561979].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author theverysmartguy
        The people who are saying that they get a penalty from blasting a bunch of links towards a page see it drop off. Sure it does, then it comes back even STRONGER; which is what you were saying as well.

        How is that really a penalty? Sure, it drops off for a bit; that is what people call "the google dance".

        I have never seen "the google dance" happen with a consistent building of high quality links.I've only seen a steady increase in rankings, never a downward spiral. And with these quality links that I build, I see myself rise higher than the ones with thousands or even tens of thousands of links. Most of those links are obviously low quality, which is what you get with those link blasts anyways.

        So if you don't want to see yourself get "sandboxed" or a drastic dip in rankings, then why not just get high quality links to your site instead of these link blasts?

        -- Jeff
        Signature

        "Doing nothing is worse than doing it wrong."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4562148].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author cagliostro
          I always enjoy such posting as the original.

          Reminds me of threads like "if i don't check my adsense account for days ... it seems i get more clicks and money".
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4562221].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    The only thing that you'll get is short term SERP bounce from crappy backlinks, so what's the big deal?

    50 hand built PR5+ backlinks will counter the silly link blast of profiles, & bring the page right back to page #1 in the SERPs.

    As far as the OP challenge, If a site is six months old or less & ranking #1 in the SERPs for their keyword, that tells me the keyword was easy to rank for to begin with. That also tells me that chances are very high they didn't have to do much work building the backlinks it took to rank #1 in the SERPs.

    So your going to bounce a site that already has weak backlinks?

    It's not a penalty!
    Signature
    Be your best self. - Darryl Philbin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4561955].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      The only thing that you'll get is short term SERP bounce from crappy backlinks, so what's the big deal?

      50 hand built PR5+ backlinks will counter the silly link blast of profiles, & bring the page right back to page #1 in the SERPs.

      As far as the OP challenge, If a site is six months old or less & ranking #1 in the SERPs for their keyword, that tells me the keyword was easy to rank for to begin with. That also tells me that chances are very high they didn't have to do much work building the backlinks it took to rank #1 in the SERPs.

      So your going to bounce a site that already has weak backlinks?

      It's not a penalty!
      Coming in very late, but MMO took less than 6 months to hit #1, FWIW.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4599163].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 36burrows
    I don't think we will come to a conclusive agreement here. Too many mixed opinions.

    But I think we can all agree on this: don't buy 20k spammy backlinks and expect anything good to come out of it.

    consistent quality links > short-cut spammy links
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4562809].message }}
    • Originally Posted by 36burrows View Post

      I don't think we will come to a conclusive agreement here. Too many mixed opinions.

      But I think we can all agree on this: don't buy 20k spammy backlinks and expect anything good to come out of it.

      consistent quality links > short-cut spammy links
      Those spammy links can be great as a 2nd or 3rd tier of backlinks though...
      Signature
      Get ALL the SEO software YOU CANT afford:
      Ultimate SEO Pack
      SENuke & Grscraper, and dozens more! $40 a month!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4563939].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kiril S
    It is because people only get low quality backlinks that are mostly spam, and that influences their sites rankings.

    Google is smart, and if a steady website that is already getting high quality natural backlinks gets bombarded by his competitor with spammy backlinks, he will experience a small Google dance which will probably improve his ranking. The key here is diversity.
    Signature
    - Offer here -
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4562873].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author beakon
    This has been a controversial topic for me over the past few months post panda. Im still doing some extensive testing but so far I have not been able to identify a pattern that obviously hurts a site that I wouldn't attribute to just a dance.

    Ive managed to sandbox a few of my sites, but I have no clue what did it as there were many plausible variables.
    Signature


    Niche Keyword Supplier - Browse through our list of hundreds of low competition, untapped keywords.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4563371].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Williamson
    I won't recycle what Paul, Matt, and Yukon have said already (I agree with them completely on this), but here's some math for you folks...

    Having a math degree, there are a couple things that come to mind related to this topic, the first being a "conditional" statement in regards to propositional logic. As Matt said, the OP assumes a false premise. The main thing to remember is that correlation does not imply causation.
    Signature
    The Google Adwords Keyword Tool is hiding your valuable keywords!
    OFFLINERS, Start using this simple technique and these 6 "weapons" today to get more clients and skyrocket your conversions! - FREE, no opt-in.
    Make some money by helping me market this idea.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4563444].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dp40oz
      Originally Posted by John Williamson View Post

      I won't recycle what Paul, Matt, and Yukon have said already (I agree with them completely on this), but here's some math for you folks...

      Having a math degree, there are a couple things that come to mind related to this topic, the first being a "conditional" statement in regards to propositional logic. As Matt said, the OP assumes a false premise. The main thing to remember is that correlation does not imply causation.
      Ugghh Im bowing out of this. People love to chime in without looking at facts. Just because you've never been penalized does not mean they don't exist.

      Look at the 3 examples I posted. This isn't any sort of correlation/causation BS its cold hard facts. I can show you the link building campaigns I did and I can show you the next days ranking penalties. It is what it is. Whatever it is, believe what you want. Doesn't matter anything in the end. What works for me works for me, what works for you guys works for you.. As long as we're all making money, thats what matters. As for the gentlemen ive argued with in this thread, I am pretty sure we all are, so whatever it is it is.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4564079].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
      boring... so who wants to spam out links for me? I'll take the free juice.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4848450].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cantbedone!
      Originally Posted by John Williamson View Post

      I won't recycle what Paul, Matt, and Yukon have said already (I agree with them completely on this), but here's some math for you folks...

      Having a math degree, there are a couple things that come to mind related to this topic, the first being a "conditional" statement in regards to propositional logic. As Matt said, the OP assumes a false premise. The main thing to remember is that correlation does not imply causation.
      And if I may...

      This vehement paroxysm has undoubtedly exacerbated my ingeminated attempts to reach a definitive conclusion and have thus catalyzed a chord of dismal failure....
      Signature

      To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.
      ~ Aristotle

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5752556].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Cantbedone!
        But seriously folks..

        It looks like the links were not the problem after all. This does not surprise me. I have had pages tank in the serps before without any visible ryme or reason. It has happened numerous times and I was not even building links at the time so there are definitely other factors that are not easy to pinpoint. Additionally, I have used many linking services ranging from ultra spam to high quality and I have never seen a negative impact that did not eventually go away.

        I'm not going to tell anyone what to believe but I certainly don't buy that backlinking is going to destroy your site. It never hurt any of mine. If anything, it will waste your time and money by providing you with no measurable benefit. Any sinking in the serps is either temporary or was caused by something else in pretty much every case I've observed.
        Signature

        To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.
        ~ Aristotle

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5752664].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author cssitkt
          Just to add a bit more heat to this debate:

          3 of my sites received the following message from Google which coincided with a complete loss of rankings. Around 50% of the links were created by Matt's service and at the time of the penalty/filter/message, whatever you want to call it, the link building service active was Matt's. The sites were all at least a year old, had PR 4 and between them had 65 keywords on page 1.

          Google Webmaster Tools notice of unnatural links detected to yoursite.com/ February 26, 2012

          Dear Site Owner or Webmaster of yoursite.com,

          We've detected that some of your site's pages may be using techniques that are outside Google's Webmaster Guidelines.

          Specifically, look for possibly artificial or unnatural links pointing to your site that could be intended to manipulate PageRank. Examples of unnatural linking could include buying links to pass PageRank or participating in link schemes.
          We encourage you to make changes to your site, so that it meets our Quality Guidelines. Once you've made these changes, please submit your site for reconsideration in Google's search results.

          If you find unnatural links to your site that you are unable to control or remove, please provide the details in your reconsideration request.
          If you have additional questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support.

          Yours sincerely,

          Google Search Quality Team
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5753335].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TryBPO
    Paul's a little rough/abrasive and a bit of a jerk in his posts, but I think he's spot-on in this case. It seems a bit self-absorbed to say that Google in any way focuses on what you (we) are working on. When you think of the MASSIVE amount of data Google is trying to categorize it helps put it in perspective, I think.

    Still, the OP could argue that Google wasn't doing anything to them particularly and that they may have a built-in penalty into one of their many algorithms that penalizes this or that. Again though...same rule applies...why wouldn't we just do this to all of our competitors and put ourselves on top?

    OP, I could take you up on that challenge maybe...there are quite a few competitors I'd like to do away with...I won't give you my site...I'll give you theirs!
    Signature
    Website Brokers - We can help you sell businesses making $500 to $50K per month.

    Free Website Valuation - How much is your website really worth? Find out here, free.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4563922].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheAdsenseGuy
    Yes, a ton of crappy links can penalize your site!

    I actually can prove it. In the past I've built over a hundred websites and ranked most of them on page 1 of google using my own strategy of backlinking. So about 5 months ago, I bought a WSO and decided to try out his backlink method. BAD IDEA.

    I had 10 new (less than 2 months old) Amazon type sites and most of them were already ranking on page 2 to 3 of Google search after using my own backlinking method.

    So the jist of this WSO's method was to buy 2500 forum profile backlinks and blast my sites with them. So I did that to all 10 at the same time. I blasted the homepages of all the sites.

    Then, within a week, 7 out of the 10 sites completely dissapeared from Google search (they were all on page 2-3). For about 3 months the sites were completely gone from Google search and I was even building high pr backlinks to try to get the sites back, but it wouldn't work.

    Finally after about 3 months, all 7 sites mysteriously came back in Google. They came back in about the same spot they were before they dissapeared (page 2-3). Having a site dissapear for 3 months is not the Google Dance, it's a penalty!

    Now I can guarantee you, if I had a 1 year old site and blasted it with shi**y forum profile backlinks nothing would happen to my site. Google trusts older sites. But a new site has to earn googles trust - with age.

    So is that a good enough "cause and effect" case study for you??? I did exactly the same thing with all 10 sites and 7 of them got penalized. There were no other issues that could have caused this.

    I agree with the OP. If you have a new website and you don't believe Google does this -- give him your url. Your site will get penalized - and after about 3 months your site will come back.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4564136].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Now ask yourself this, instead of crappy profile links what do you think would have happend to your new site with 2500 PR5+ backlinks?

      Do you really think the new site/page would vanish from the SERPs? :rolleyes:

      I can tell you right now it wouldn't vanish, the reason is the high PR backlinks are trusted pages. The PRn/a profiles are pages that Google has never seen before your backlinks were blasted.

      It's not a penalty, it's Google trying to figure out your new position with backlink pages that havn't been given a PR yet.

      You would be better off blasting your backlinks at 2500 PR0 than all PRn/a pages. At least Google has already judged the PR0 pages & knows they exist. Still, sooner or later all the PRn/a profiles will be indexed & cached, it just takes more time because the profile page sucks & Google knows it considering most profile pages have zero backlinks outside of it's own domain.




      Originally Posted by TheAdsenseGuy View Post

      Yes, a ton of crappy links can penalize your site!

      I actually can prove it. In the past I've built over a hundred websites and ranked most of them on page 1 of google using my own strategy of backlinking. So about 5 months ago, I bought a WSO and decided to try out his backlink method. BAD IDEA.

      I had 10 new (less than 2 months old) Amazon type sites and most of them were already ranking on page 2 to 3 of Google search after using my own backlinking method.

      So the jist of this WSO's method was to buy 2500 forum profile backlinks and blast my sites with them. So I did that to all 10 at the same time. I blasted the homepages of all the sites.

      Then, within a week, 7 out of the 10 sites completely dissapeared from Google search (they were all on page 2-3). For about 3 months the sites were completely gone from Google search and I was even building high pr backlinks to try to get the sites back, but it wouldn't work.

      Finally after about 3 months, all 7 sites mysteriously came back in Google. They came back in about the same spot they were before they dissapeared (page 2-3). Having a site dissapear for 3 months is not the Google Dance, it's a penalty!

      Now I can guarantee you, if I had a 1 year old site and blasted it with shi**y forum profile backlinks nothing would happen to my site. Google trusts older sites. But a new site has to earn googles trust - with age.

      So is that a good enough "cause and effect" case study for you??? I did exactly the same thing with all 10 sites and 7 of them got penalized. There were no other issues that could have caused this.

      I agree with the OP. If you have a new website and you don't believe Google does this -- give him your url. Your site will get penalized - and after about 3 months your site will come back.
      Signature
      Be your best self. - Darryl Philbin
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4564254].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TryBPO
    TheAdsenseGuy.

    I think this is where people get confused as to cause/effect. See, you're SURE that it was due to these backlinks from the WSO's you purchased, but let me bring up a few points you might (or might not have) considered. I'm not saying any of these points are valid, I just doubt that you've X'd them all off the list of possibilities:

    1. Algorithm change - How do you know it wasn't a broad change on Google's end?
    2. Your previous backlinking strategy - Are you sure all of your previous backlinks were indexed/realized? Maybe it was from YOUR strategy? (Not likely, but a possibility)
    3. Your sites not as relevant - Maybe the sites that were outranking yours temporarily were better, had work done, etc?
    4. Why only 7? If you're sure it's the backlinks that did it, why would it only apply to 7 and not 10?
    5. What other backlinks (natural or otherwise) were created to the sites around the same time period that you may or may not be aware of?

    Think about it this way...let's say you were responsible for moving 20 tons of sand to create/design a man-made beach. You have to find a way to collect the sane, transport the sand, sort through it to clean it up, level it out on your new beach, etc.

    Your websites are 10 grains of that sand. Why were 7 of them left behind on the first truckload and then brought in the next batch? It's definitely not likely that the guy designing the man-made beach had any interest or thought in your particular grains...

    (Ok, not the best analogy, heh)
    Signature
    Website Brokers - We can help you sell businesses making $500 to $50K per month.

    Free Website Valuation - How much is your website really worth? Find out here, free.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4564200].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author StoneWilson
    Have seen soooooo many threads argue about this topic, no comment.
    Signature
    Looking for godaddy renewal coupon? Check GodaddyRenewal.com!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4564791].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
      Banned
      If you want to know how much faith some folks have in their argument, simply scroll through the thread and see who has put up a site for the OP's challenge. Pretty much says all that needs to be said.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4564963].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
        OK, so lets get this thread back on topic.

        The links I buiilt were not blasts from Xrumer, Scrapebox, Scrapeboard or similar. Like some of you, I've been there, done that. I've built 20 million #1 rankings, yada, yada, yada and all that BS.

        I may only have 100 or so posts since I joined 2 yrs ago but that's because I contribute only when I have something to say, I have 2 ears and once mouth and unlike some of you, I know how to use them proportionally. I don't have a Maths degree, I do know how to resize images and more importantly, I think I've stumbled across a backlinking technique that WILL negatively affect a site less than 6 months old.

        So the question is, which one of you non believers is going to give me a domain to try?

        It can't be a competitors domain, otherwise I'd just go ahead and do this myself and that's not really on. I think its for the greater good of the community don't you?

        Surely some of you who have built 16 million #1 rankings and couldn't possibly be wrong have a teeny wheeny iddle piddle 6 month old domain ranking #1 for a given keyword going spare??

        Or do you just talk the talk on IM forums, getting hot headed when people disagree with what you believe, because you've read it somewhere else online???
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4565242].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author PatrickP
        Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat View Post

        If you want to know how much faith some folks have in their argument, simply scroll through the thread and see who has put up a site for the OP's challenge. Pretty much says all that needs to be said.
        Here is a guy who has been here since 2006. So not a troll or a newbie.

        I agree 100%
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4566952].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
        Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat View Post

        If you want to know how much faith some folks have in their argument, simply scroll through the thread and see who has put up a site for the OP's challenge. Pretty much says all that needs to be said.
        ****...okay I'm game. I'll create a new site today and will post the link here on this thread once it is set up. Then I'll begin driving it to page one. I dare anyone to try to stop it.

        It will have all unique content with no outbound links to link farms. Want to see how fast it will reach page one?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567503].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
          In fact I already have a new site ready we just created:

          Welcome to Weight Loss Diet Tips

          The keywords we are targeting are fairly robust. After we tweak the on page optimization this afternoon I'll let everyone know what the keywords are.

          Once the site gets to page one I will have proven my point. Right?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567546].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
            Once the site gets to page one I will have proven my point. Right?
            Not quite. My sites tanked after about 3 weeks of creating the links. Once you're ranking #1 I'll add the links and let you and everyone else know they've been added. The we wait 3 weeks or so and see what happens. If your site doesn't tank then yes, you will have proved your point and I'll be the first to say well done, you was right.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567602].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
              Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

              Not quite. My sites tanked after about 3 weeks of creating the links. Once you're ranking #1 I'll add the links and let you and everyone else know they've been added. The we wait 3 weeks or so and see what happens. If your site doesn't tank then yes, you will have proved your point and I'll be the first to say well done, you was right.
              I could give you a list of 500 such sites that are new and on page one but I protect my clients keywords. The 100 other sites I own are all over a year old so they won't work either.

              But if I have a client reading this who gives permission to share their site I'll guarantee them an upgrade from page one to a top 3 ranking.

              PM me clients if you want to be included in the experiment.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567746].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author guitarjosh
            Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

            In fact I already have a new site ready we just created:

            Welcome to Weight Loss Diet Tips

            The keywords we are targeting are fairly robust. After we tweak the on page optimization this afternoon I'll let everyone know what the keywords are.

            Once the site gets to page one I will have proven my point. Right?
            LOL.. good on you. This site will get a ton of attention if this experiment moves forward and is only going to reap the benefits. Good luck trying to stop it.

            Hey.. can the dude throw some of those junk links to a new site I create free too? I love it when guys do my marketing for me.

            Call me crazy, but I wouldn't pick the biggest kid on the playground to pick a fight with.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4568600].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
              Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post

              LOL.. good on you. This site will get a ton of attention if this experiment moves forward and is only going to reap the benefits. Good luck trying to stop it.

              Hey.. can the dude throw some of those junk links to a new site I create free too? I love it when guys do my marketing for me.

              Call me crazy, but I wouldn't pick the biggest kid on the playground to pick a fight with.
              I'm game for that too. Give me the link publicly here and we'll do an experiment with your site as well.

              In fact the next 10 Warriors who want in on the same deal can. I'll give you free links and we'll dare anyone to drop it in the serps.

              The only caveat is that your site needs to be less than six months old and you also have to be willing to share your link publicly along with your keywords.

              When you do I will create a new thread and we'll begin the experiment. Remember the test is not to see if we can drive the site to page one. But whether or not they can be derailed once they do get there.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4568819].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ulcseminary
                Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

                I'm game for that too. Give me the link publicly here and we'll do an experiment with your site as well.

                In fact the next 10 Warriors who want in on the same deal can. I'll give you free links and we'll dare anyone to drop it in the serps.

                The only caveat is that your site needs to be less than six months old and you also have to be willing to share your link publicly along with your keywords.

                When you do I will create a new thread and we'll begin the experiment. Remember the test is not to see if we can drive the site to page one. But whether or not they can be derailed once they do get there.
                Does the domain need to be less than six months old? Or just the site?
                Signature

                I run the Universal Life Church seminary website. I post my Spiritual Bookmarks at this Universal Life Church site.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4568854].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
                  Originally Posted by ulcseminary View Post

                  Does the domain need to be less than six months old? Or just the site?
                  I'll let the OP define those parameters.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4568863].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author copyassassin
                Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

                I'm game for that too. Give me the link publicly here and we'll do an experiment with your site as well.

                In fact the next 10 Warriors who want in on the same deal can. I'll give you free links and we'll dare anyone to drop it in the serps.
                If this is still open, I'd like to join.

                The site is:
                My Blog | Just another WordPress site

                On-Site SEO To Be Done:
                Later Tonight

                Content Will Be Added:
                Later tonight and for the next 9 days (1) 600 unique article per day.


                Created:
                Two Days Ago

                Keywords:
                [tax audit]
                [irs audit]
                [tax relief]
                [wage garnishment]
                [tax levy]
                [tax resolution]
                [tax problems]
                [taxpayer advocate]
                [what is audit]
                [tax lawyer]
                Signature

                The Most Bad-Ass Tax Reduction Strategist for Internet Marketers who HATE paying taxes. See my happy clients

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570810].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ruchikars
    Great stuff for information with comments and all views. thanks for all views, comments and post.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4565251].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dagaul101
    It's always a good idea to find out where your site is being placed, especially with several thousand backlinks in a short period, that just says an inevitable penalty, unless those backlinks somehow seem natural
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4565260].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author summerfranken
    Originally posted by Yukon
    The only thing that you'll get is short term SERP bounce from crappy backlinks, so what's the big deal?
    50 hand built PR5+ backlinks will counter the silly link blast of profiles, & bring the page right back to page #1 in the SERPs.
    As far as the OP challenge, If a site is six months old or less & ranking #1 in the SERPs for their keyword, that tells me the keyword was easy to rank for to begin with. That also tells me that chances are very high they didn't have to do much work building the backlinks it took to rank #1 in the SERPs.
    So your going to bounce a site that already has weak backlinks?
    Its quite right..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4565343].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    As far as the OP challenge, If a site is six months old or less & ranking #1 in the SERPs for their keyword, that tells me the keyword was easy to rank for to begin with. That also tells me that chances are very high they didn't have to do much work building the backlinks it took to rank #1 in the SERPs.
    So your going to bounce a site that already has weak backlinks?
    With Christmas on the way, that's a lot of sites which can be taken out of action, no?
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4565385].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
      OK, so here's the stats for the other site. Not so much search volume but you can clearly see when the penalty hit. The site currently resides at postion 926 for the desired key phrase.



      (Please note: The image has been resized to make my argument look intelligent - I can also embed a video into a message, I'm quite clever like that :-) )
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4565478].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
        Neil, I stopped reading after this post as it looked like it was getting even more out of hand.

        There is a bit of talk on Webmasterworld about this penalthy/filter and it dates back to years ago.

        I have had the same thing happen to my sites but I'm not sure what caused mine.

        My experience happened back in the May Day update last year where quite a few historically strong sites (not just my sites but many others) were all pushed back to the last few pages of the search results.

        These strong sites were being beaten by very irrelevant sites: you know, the ones that once you get past page 5 ot 6 stop actually being anything about the original search query. These strong sites were on the front page for a long time and now were beaten by junk. It was a filter, not a penalty where you lose a set number of spots, because it appeared obvious to me AND others that these previously strong results were simply moved off the front page to the last (around 900 to 1000).

        My site returned about 6 months later to previously high results. I forgot about the site during that time as I thought it was a lost cause. The only change I made was removed my Link Farm Evolution network and all links on it.

        No idea what is causing your problem but the fact your page is being returned in the last few pages of results says to me that your site is being filtered and that you don't simply have an under optimised page.


        Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

        OK, so here's the stats for the other site. Not so much search volume but you can clearly see when the penalty hit. The site currently resides at postion 926 for the desired key phrase.



        (Please note: The image has been resized to make my argument look intelligent - I can also embed a video into a message, I'm quite clever like that :-) )
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577117].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author markowe
    I find it odd that anyone still disputes the effects on a site of a large influx of low-quality links in a short space of time, putting it down to coincidence, algo changes and whatnot.

    I would say it's more about your interpretation of what's happening - do we call it a penalty, a recalculation of your ranking, or something else. But I have seen this happen waaaay too many times to call it coincidence.

    Also, you might like to venture over to the dark side and see what the bl@ckhatters get up to - a number of this fraternity have succeeded in dumping competitors' sites down the SERPS by spamming them with low quality links. What is usually lacking there is a follow-up 3 months later to see if it's still there. I am also pretty sure those links only help in the long term.

    But whether you call it a penalty, sandbox, or something else, the phenomenon is definitely real. Or to put it another way, I won't be doing it on any of my sites anymore. Yes, they can be dug out again, but it's not worth the hassle - slow and steady wins the day.
    Signature

    The affiliate plugin I kept to myself for 3 years - now I am making it available, but I wonder if I did the right thing... http://www.storeminator.com/

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4565580].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
      Hi Mark. Great post :-)

      The way I see it, I believe I've received an automated penalty because I tripped an over optimisation filter due to what I did. The penalty has a time length after which time the site may return to it's previous ranking or there abouts (it was #1 for the 5 key phrases I was targeting).

      What I'm not sure about is wether or not the same penalty would be reapplied once the time length of the existing penalty expires and if so, how many times the penalty will be reapplied before expiring for good. This may explain the various time lengths of penalties experienced by others.

      For example, let's say the penalty expires after 30 days. If the links remained in place would the penalty automatically be reapplied for another 30 days, maybe x 6 times before expiring for good, resulting in a 6 month penalty?

      I've removed the links in the hope the site will pop back up after 30 days, but it will be interesting to see what happens.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4566251].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cooler1
    The people in this thread who say a site cannot be penalised for blasting, why don't they take the OP up on his offer?

    Surely it makes sense as in your eyes you'll be getting free backlinks which cannot harm your young site.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4566303].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author oldvintageguy
    I'm too "newbie" to know who's right and who's wrong, but we humans absolutely LOVE to find patterns. What's that story -- back in caveman days, if we think we see a lion in the forest, even though it's just a pattern in the trees, we run, and we live. But if we think it's just a tree-pattern, and don't run, but it turns out it's a lion....

    Point is, I see patterns ALL the time. And I've totally (in my mind) personified the search engines (i.e. man behind the curtain w/wand). Threads like these bring me back to reality, and I enjoy them.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4566877].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    Soooo...

    Google ranks sites based on backlinks. Right?

    Glad we agree on that one. Uff!

    The above statement is good to ensure one thing: if Google uses backlinks to evaluate a site power, it's quite obvious it will use same ALGO on backlinks to evaluate the kind of backlinks showing up:

    are they good?
    bad?
    how many per day?
    in same niche?
    profiles? (do you really believe a webmaster will create 5K profiles in different forums to promote his site??)
    etc etc etc

    And this is where I believe Google uses his algo to evaluate WHAT kind of links are getting thrown to a site.

    EVALUATION.

    5K Profiles in one week? Alert.
    20K comments in 4 days? Alert.

    Why? Cause it's so damn unnatural, even a cow could see that. Thats why I makes sense SOME backlinks can really hurt SOME sites.

    Not all sites, not all the time.

    ^^ This is the relevant part.

    This **** happens often BUT not to everyone and NOT all the time.

    Example: I can send daily 1K spamish links to a new site for 3 months and it never gets hammered. BUT I can also do the same to a different site and it gets nuked fater then a bullet.

    I don't defend one side or the other: just wanted to drop my personal opinion on how I believe Google uses a total random algo features to nuke SOME sites using SOME different backlink techniques.

    In the end, it's a big problem cause Google's ALGO features are so random, it's impossible to know for sure what, when, and why.

    And this is exactly what Google wants.

    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567096].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author guitarjosh
      Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso View Post


      Why? Cause it's so damn unnatural, even a cow could see that. Thats why I makes sense SOME backlinks can really hurt SOME sites.
      You are making a sweeping generalization. I could grab a field of 200 cows and start putting food out 100 yards away and you would be surprised how many of those cows would come running. Cows don't see as poorly as you might think.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567287].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      This thread represents what has become so pathetic about this board.

      A bunch of people running around attacking the Op because they haven't done any research and just regurgitate the same old garbage.

      GET OVER IT PEOPLE TIMES CHANGE THERE IS EVIDENCE YOU CAN GET SLAPPED FOR BACKLINKING.

      http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...after-all.html

      read the links there and weep. Not only has Google sent out letters but site owners have SEEN their rankings plummet after getting the letters. Stick your head in the sand. Crappy links may very well affect you. The old come back will nevertheless still be offered.

      "If thats the case then I can tank my competitors site blah blah blah"

      No you can't not if the site has other quality links in their link portfolio but if all the site has are junk xrummer links in their portfolio do you really think Google gives a rip if they disappear from the serps? So its not quantity really its quality. You are not going to see a site tank after getting incontext links from blogs etc. You will get it with these garbage forum links nonsense and if you get detected as buying links. the letters that started going out to webmasters in June spell it out and people have seen their rankings go with it. Play ostrich all you want. Facts are still facts

      and another thing stop this bogus nonsense about it will come back in 6-9 months stronger. What business on the planet can afford to have no customers for 6-9 months after every promotion they do for their business? Thats like Timmy claiming he wasn't really punished because the teacher allowed him to take his seat back after an hour in the detention corner.

      I'd love to tell my customers. Hey guys don't worry about it . I did such a great job for you that you will be able to start making money again in 6- 9 months. Keep me on the payroll until then :rolleyes:
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567327].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author paulgl
        Apples and oranges Mike.

        Everyone pointed to JCPenney as a classic google penalty.

        It wasn't. It pushed JCP to the top. Then google had to act
        due to bad publicity. They de-valued the links. Note: De-valued.
        JCP went back to its natural position. That's not a penalty.

        But that's google acting on a much publicized site. Not gonna
        happen for Joe Shmo's site.

        Cause and effect are still so much confused.

        I'll repeat. Saturday hit NY with a hurricane. So, are we expecting
        another one this Saturday? Or the fact that it was Saturday has
        no effect on a hurricane? If you think that's silly, then why do
        we do the same for SERPs?

        But at least Mike and Fernando add some more thinking here.
        No reason why we can't have a spirited debate!

        There may be penalties. There may be penalties for some linking.
        But unless you are JCP and a few others, your site is just not
        worth google giving a rat's behind about. Too many people put
        2 and 2 together and get 5. And make statements that they
        just know google personally took their site and squashed it.
        Fat chance.

        Paul
        Signature

        If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567452].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
          ****...okay I'm game. I'll create a new site today and will post the link here on this thread once it is set up. Then I'll begin driving it to page one. I dare anyone to try to stop it.

          It will have all unique content with no outbound links to link farms. Want to see how fast it will reach page one?
          Good Man. Keep me updated so I know when to flick the switch ...
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567536].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
            Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

            Good Man. Keep me updated so I know when to flick the switch ...
            You should go first. That way you can see the links actually help the rankings not hurt them.

            Besides if what you say is true I'll pay you $10,000 to sink a few sites I'd like out of my way.

            Just isn't possible.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567566].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
              Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

              You should go first. That way you can see the links actually help the rankings not hurt them.

              Besides if what you say is true I'll pay you $10,000 to sink a few sites I'd like out of my way.

              Just isn't possible.

              To really test this though, shouldn't the site be actually ranking for something first? Then blast it.
              Signature
              SEO Myths
              SEO, PPC, Geo-Fencing, and Social Media Marketing Services - Get a Free Quote
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567620].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post


              Besides if what you say is true I'll pay you $10,000 to sink a few sites I'd like out of my way.

              Just isn't possible.

              Yo Matt . It would take a few million dollars considering the amount of sites on the first pages in your way Don't know why you are taking this up though. the possibility hardly applies to in in context links
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567648].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

          Apples and oranges Mike.

          Everyone pointed to JCPenney as a classic google penalty.
          Paul ocassionally do some reading. No one said a thing about JCpenney. That happened over 6 months ago. What I am referring to happened in June and if you bothered to do any research you would see people lost ranking after getting those emails sent out by Google. Backlinks forum even had a guy that layed out exactly what happened to him.

          thats called evidence. Now can you claim that it wasn't really that email and that there was a third shooter on the grassy knoll that actually took the site down? Sure. Maybe even aliens took out JFK but when you get a message from google about your unnatural links instructing you how to seek a reconsideration and then your serps take a dive i think reasonable people will see that and think - oh hey - they just might be connected.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567622].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ilee
          Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

          Cause and effect are still so much confused.

          I'll repeat. Saturday hit NY with a hurricane. So, are we expecting
          another one this Saturday? Or the fact that it was Saturday has
          no effect on a hurricane? If you think that's silly, then why do
          we do the same for SERPs?
          Right in that example it would seem ludicrous however someone else's claim was that 7 out of his 10 websites dropped majorly in ranks after using exactly the same backlink blasting.

          Now if a hurricane hit NY 7 saturdays out of 10 and only on saturdays I would be pretty inclined to avoid NY on saturdays do you agree?

          I think I read earlier in this thread someone that said it may be the competitors that have done something to beat the website and lower its rank... Now what about the websites that drop about about 50 pages for 6 months then come back. Based on this "idea", around 500 competitors would have to of done something a lot better than the website, and then the website to do something to beat the 500 competitors again 6 months later ending up in the exact same spot!

          Now I haven't personally seen any of my websites drop majorly, but I build good backlinks at a normal rate so I can't really back any claims up but this is just my 2 cents after reading the thread
          Signature
          --~***~--


          --~***~--
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4568111].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TryBPO
            Originally Posted by ichl13 View Post

            Right in that example it would seem ludicrous however someone else's claim was that 7 out of his 10 websites dropped majorly in ranks after using exactly the same backlink blasting.

            Now if a hurricane hit NY 7 saturdays out of 10 and only on saturdays I would be pretty inclined to avoid NY on saturdays do you agree?
            I absolutely, 100% disagree with this. While I DO agree I might avoid NY overall until the hurricanes die down, having hurricanes only on Saturdays is ridiculous. With everything we know about hurricanes it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.

            Let me give you another scenario:

            Let's say a crazy person was saying that Aliens from the planet Gururon were going to come down and infect all the newly born babies (10 of them) in a small hospital with the Slafilaxilous virus. Within a week 7 of those 10 babies got sick. Would you want your baby hanging out with those other babies? (Probably not...I wouldn't) But...would you believe that it was the aliens from Gururon? (Of course not...)
            Signature
            Website Brokers - We can help you sell businesses making $500 to $50K per month.

            Free Website Valuation - How much is your website really worth? Find out here, free.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4579476].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    Try not to get confused between a manual and algorithmic penalty Paul.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567514].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JoshuaG
      I'm just gonna jump in here quick and point out an invalid argument/comparison that people keep trying to make.

      People are suggesting that google doesn't have the time/resources to respond to linking patterns if the size/perspective value of a given site isn't "high enough".

      Example:
      But unless you are JCP and a few others, your site is just not worth google giving a rat's behind about.
      Google cares about providing relevant, high quality SERPS. The same technology/bots/algorithms would be used to generate relevant SERPS regardless of the size/perspective value of a given site.

      Google doesn't have to have an expressed interest in a particular site in order to apply its algorithms and adjust rankings accordingly. That's just what search engines do to return relevant results!
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567816].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    To really test this though, shouldn't the site be actually ranking for something first? Then blast it.
    Absolutely. The site has to be ranking #1 for a given key phrase otherwise the excercise is pointless.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567700].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    Matt,

    I've just sent an email to the email address from the whois record for the domain. Please reply to confirm you're happy for me to do this and then we are all set.

    Thanks.

    Also, please can everybody else refrain from sending links to the site. I don't want to 'dilute' the links I'll create. As I've already mentioned, these links ar not blasts.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4567760].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Shakakka
    I would say it's more about your interpretation of what's happening - do we call it a penalty, a recalculation of your ranking, or something else. But I have seen this happen waaaay too many times to call it coincidence.

    Also, you might like to venture over to the dark side and see what the bl@ckhatters get up to - a number of this fraternity have succeeded in dumping competitors' sites down the SERPS by spamming them with low quality links. What is usually lacking there is a follow-up 3 months later to see if it's still there. I am also pretty sure those links only help in the long term.

    But whether you call it a penalty, sandbox, or something else, the phenomenon is definitely real. Or to put it another way, I won't be doing it on any of my sites anymore. Yes, they can be dug out again, but it's not worth the hassle - slow and steady wins the day.
    I agree 10000000% here with Mark. I run about 35+ websites at this point, and have tried all kinds of different linkbuilding methods for each. I've seen more than a few of my sites get BURIED in this type of sandbox, and almost every time it happens I pretty much know what I did to get it there.

    "Penalty" might not be the word, but a drop in rankings is a drop in rankings. Especially a dramatic drop to established websites that have already been ranking highly for certain keywords and phrases.

    This has happened TOO MANY TIMES to be coincidence.

    I don't know anything about the dark-hatters but I wouldn't doubt for a single second that they could use this exploit to produce fast and measurable results in burying the websites of their clients competitors, at least long enough to get paid for their efforts.

    Finally I'll point out that people like Mattaclear MUST disagree with this type of viewpoint, as his whole business revolves around building super-fast links. Of course he's the first to champion the whole "backlinking can never hurt you" argument, because he's the one selling backlinks.

    And Matt, no offense bro, I've always found many of your comments professional and helpful. Just saying you'll naturally have a bias here, when it comes to this argument.

    EDIT: Also I'd hazard a guess that it's easier to rank new websites using quick backlinking and get that #1 position in a hurry, but that maybe (and I'm admittedly speculating here) this type of linkbuilding method might do more damage to older and more established sites. I'm curious to hear what people think on that.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4568299].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JamesGw
    Try mixing up your anchor text.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4568454].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PatrickP
    Are words misspelled on purpose on that website?

    Is that part of SEO?

    Serious question as I see numerous mistakes but I have heard you should do that as people misspell words when doing google searches.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4568665].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
      Call me crazy, but I wouldn't pick the biggest kid on the playground to pick a fight with.
      LMAO! I just read your post whilst taking a mouth full of beer and coughed it out through my nose because I laughed so much. Seriously, you're joking right? Please tell me that's a crank post and you're not really kissing ass that much??

      But yes, I'm very happy to build the links for you. No need to ask me in the third person in a post directed at Matt, all you have to do is give me the address and confirm you own the site.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4568860].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
        Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

        LMAO! I just read your post whilst taking a mouth full of beer and coughed it out through my nose because I laughed so much. Seriously, you're joking right? Please tell me that's a crank post and you're not really kissing ass that much??

        But yes, I'm very happy to build the links for you. No need to ask me in the third person in a post directed at Matt, all you have to do is give me the address and confirm you own the site.
        Haha, Neil. I like your style.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4568871].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author guitarjosh
        Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

        LMAO! I just read your post whilst taking a mouth full of beer and coughed it out through my nose because I laughed so much. Seriously, you're joking right? Please tell me that's a crank post and you're not really kissing ass that much??

        But yes, I'm very happy to build the links for you. No need to ask me in the third person in a post directed at Matt, all you have to do is give me the address and confirm you own the site.
        I'm not sure how you might even suggest it could be a "crank post". Matt himself states above that he runs "35 servers and 5000 site blog network". You know someone who owns/operates a bigger IM network? If so, please share.

        I'm not sure when stating facts became "kissing ass". You'll have to enlighten me. I don't use Matt's services and likely never will so just saying that it is what it is. If there's a big purple elephant in the room.. well.. there' s a big purple elephant.

        But I don't really care to get involved in your little experiment. I just know that you're wrong about being able to bury these sites. That was the motivation for my comment. I'm going to enjoy watching this.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569005].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
          Thank you Josh, for clearing up any confusion
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569036].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author guitarjosh
            Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

            Thank you Josh, for clearing up any confusion
            No problem. My judgment sometimes get's clouded when drinking beer through my nose too.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569068].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author thecableguy
              Interesting experiment. And just my 2 cents, but you're never going to be able to sabotage a site with offsite factors. I'll gladly take my foot out of my mouth if there definative proof, as that's what I've said here for years.

              An as example back in the late 90's when Mark Joyner's Searchengine Tactics (considered black hat these days) you were able to sabotage a competitor by spamming the URL to the directories until you got them banned. The searchengines quickly caught on to those types of off site tactics and made them useless.

              There's been blog post's (I've never tried it though so whether it's true or not remains to be seen) that tactics link bombing a competitors site with ten's of thousands of spammy type links worked while Google did it's dance, but the sites actually came back stronger after awhile.

              JMO but I don't think you'll get penalized for them, but instead if anything you just won't get credit for them. If not the searchengines would be like the wild wild west.

              Like I said interesting experiment, I'll be tracking it with MS. (that domain sounds awfully familiar)
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569452].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
                OK, I need to make a point here after having a conversation with a fellow Warrior. It's important to understand how the (my) ‘perceived’ Google penalties work.

                I strongly believe that the penalties affect a site paired with a key phrase.


                We optimise for keywords right? We make a site, actually we make a PAGE rank for a given keyword (or keywords).

                So, just as Google increases our site (sorry, page) for the keyword we are optimising for, it also penalises us for the keyword we are optimising for.

                The penalties affect the keyword/page pairing. For example, if I build a site around widgets and I have 5 pages each targeting a widget, let’s say the home page is optimised for ‘blue widgets’ the next page is optimised for ‘red widgets’ etc, you get the picture.

                Well, when these penalties hit, they penalize the pages in the serps for whatever keywords you are optimizing for.

                My two sites that were hit still appear when I search using a random piece of text copied and pasted from the pages’ body text.

                This is important. The site hasn’t tanked completely, but it has tanked for the optimised key phrases.
                I think you’ll agree the site is still rendered completely useless!

                Just thought I’d clear this up. This is why the site we are hopefully going to use as an example MUST be ranking highly for a given key phrase.

                Thank you!
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569557].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post

          I'm not sure how you might even suggest it could be a "crank post". Matt himself states above that he runs "35 servers and 5000 site blog network". You know someone who owns/operates a bigger IM network? If so, please share.
          ROFL my time to laugh and make drink come up through my nose . its an IM board dude people say things to make themselves look bigger than they are. Matt does not "run 35 servers" in order to host 5,000 blogs. If he did he would be an idiot since you can easily put that on 10 or less. Matt utilizes SEO hosting just like all the rest of us that have our own network (with some servers for busy sites) and they are not 35 dedicated servers because it would be silly to place a 140 different blogs on each and then get another server.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569626].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
            ROFL my time to laugh and make drink come up through my nose . its an IM board dude people say things to make themselves look bigger than they are. Matt does not "run 35 servers" in order to host 5,000 blogs. If he did he would be an idiot since you can easily put that on 10 or less. Matt utilizes SEO hosting just like all the rest of us that have our own network (with some servers for busy sites) and they are not 35 dedicated servers.
            High Five Brother!

            But I actually really do have 2 dedi servers, does that make me a bigger kid? Just asking :-)
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569642].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
              Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

              High Five Brother!

              But I actually really do have 2 dedi servers, does that make me a bigger kid? Just asking :-)
              Who ever said I used 35 servers to host our blog network? We use the servers to broadcast out links to our network. It really is silly me having to come in and explain these sort of things.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569702].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author guitarjosh
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            ROFL my time to laugh and make drink come up through my nose . its an IM board dude people say things to make themselves look bigger than they are. Matt does not "run 35 servers" in order to host 5,000 blogs. If he did he would be an idiot since you can easily put that on 10 or less. Matt utilizes SEO hosting just like all the rest of us that have our own network (with some servers for busy sites) and they are not 35 dedicated servers because it would be silly to place a 140 different blogs on each and then get another server.
            I don't know what was worse.. needing Matt to clarify this or getting high fived for it.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4571144].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post

              I don't know what was worse.. needing Matt to clarify this or getting high fived for it.

              thats easy it was you suggesting that it was the size of his network buying it hook , line and sinker
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4571229].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
              Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

              High Five Brother!

              But I actually really do have 2 dedi servers, does that make me a bigger kid? Just asking :-)
              Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post

              I don't know what was worse.. needing Matt to clarify this or getting high fived for it.
              Yeah I don't understand it either. As soon as I explained it I was attacked for explaining it. Not sure the playing field is all that level. But I'm continuing with the experiment because I think a lot of Warriors will benefit from it.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4573612].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
                OK lets try this. If you want in on the experiment post your link and keywords here on the thread. I received far too many pms from folks wanting in. Reading and responding to pms is not my strong point so lets do our communicating here on the thread.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4573620].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author wolfmanjack
                  Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

                  OK lets try this. If you want in on the experiment post your link and keywords here on the thread. I received far too many pms from folks wanting in. Reading and responding to pms is not my strong point so lets do our communicating here on the thread.
                  You might want to make a list showing which ones you accepted so everyone can have a running count of how many more you need.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4573817].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Spartacus
                  Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

                  OK lets try this. If you want in on the experiment post your link and keywords here on the thread. I received far too many pms from folks wanting in. Reading and responding to pms is not my strong point so lets do our communicating here on the thread.
                  Ok, here you go

                  Not ranked yet, about 6 months old

                  temp removed

                  keywords:
                  temp removed
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4573886].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ulcseminary
    I have a site that has been up for a few months. It's an article directory and I was getting crappy articles, so I imported a bunch from some of my blogs that were free-hosted and not really getting indexed.

    I imported around 2000 posts. Good posts, mind you. Original content, except that I took them from my own blogs, of course.

    Each posting has a bunch of backlinks to it. I set up wp with a cool plugin that rotates the posts from the oldest and moves them to the top. Now they are getting indexed and within a month or less, I increased my total links from that site to about 14k. So far, it hasn't been a problem. And my article directory now has a PR2.

    I don't know if that's the same sort of thing, but it seems to be helping.

    As a by the by, the post-shift plugin is really great.
    Signature

    I run the Universal Life Church seminary website. I post my Spiritual Bookmarks at this Universal Life Church site.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4568847].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    I'm game for that too. Give me the link publicly here and we'll do an experiment with your site as well.

    In fact the next 10 Warriors who want in on the same deal can. I'll give you free links and we'll dare anyone to drop it in the serps.
    That's a great idea. Matt gets you to #1 for a given key phrase for free and then I'll create the links for the penalty. Perfect.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4568873].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ulcseminary
    If it's just the site that has to be new, give me till later today or tomorrow and I'll have one you can give a go. I'm moving some stuff to a new domain. The domain is old, but I haven't had a site on it before. My links don't seem to be worth much anyway, so if it got buried, not the end of the world for me. lol
    Signature

    I run the Universal Life Church seminary website. I post my Spiritual Bookmarks at this Universal Life Church site.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4568879].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ulcseminary
    Does the domain need to be less than six months old? Or just the site?

    I'll let the OP define those parameters.
    Definately the domain, this I believe to be an extremely important factor. I built the same backlinks to another site which was a 3 month old site but I registered the domain last September. That site is still ranking #1 - #3 for all it's key phrases.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4568925].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JamesGw
    I'm interested to see how this experiment goes. I'm personally pretty confident a site can be knocked off.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4568946].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author stevenjacobs
    Banned
    I disagree with this i have been using scrapebox blasts to get my sites ranked on page 1 since scrapebox came out. It is important to make them look natraul, because in the end this is what search engines want. Sites do get influxes of links these sites do not drop in rank. For example all the new electronic releases can have over 100k backlinks one day. Here is my little spill.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569023].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    I disagree with this i have been using scrapebox blasts to get my sites ranked on page 1 since scrapebox came out. It is important to make them look natraul, because in the end this is what search engines want. Sites do get influxes of links these sites do not drop in rank. For example all the new electronic releases can have over 100k backlinks one day. Here is my little spill.
    Hello Steven,

    Forgive me but I'm not sure what part of the the thread you are disagreeing with.

    However it's worth mentioning again, that these links are not scrapebox, scrapeboard, Xrumer or any other links generated with 'blast' type software.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569062].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569706].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
      So did you guys settle on a domain yet, OP, are you going with the link that Matt posted?

      I'm waiting for both sides to hammer the out of it with good links & crappy links at the same time, should be interesting.
      Still waiting for ownership confirmation and #1 rankings.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569735].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

        Still waiting for ownership confirmation and #1 rankings.
        Thought you might find this link interesting -

        My Site was Manually Flagged By Spam Team

        The problem with your test is twofold - there are clearly a variety of factors involved as evidenced by the fact that not everyone has the same result. So even a negative finding will not prove that it cannot happen and a positive result (causing a site to respond downward) isn't going to mean it is possible for all sites.

        second its really unnecessary to have to wait around for someone to rank a site. It only serves one purpose - to advertise a service (the usual I might ad :rolleyes. If there are so many people swearing its impossible to be negatively affected why don't we cut through the nonsense of waiting for a site to rank and use an existing site that is already there at thetop of Google.

        Is this board so sad that we can't find anyone who swears its impossible to hurt a site with backlinking who - you know - ranks for something?
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569893].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author yukon
          I'm with you on that (red text below).

          I don't think the age or authority of the web page that is already ranking should be a factor.

          Pick a wikipedia page that is #1 in the SERPs & knock it off of the first page. Heck you can even edit the wiki page, lol.

          If you can remove the wiki page from page #1 position #1 in the SERPs, I'll believe it's possible to dethrone a ranked page.



          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          Thought you might find this link interesting -

          My Site was Manually Flagged By Spam Team

          The problem with your test is twofold - there are clearly a variety of factors involved as evidenced by the fact that not everyone has the same result. So even a negative finding will not prove that it cannot happen and a positive result (causing a site to respond downward) isn't going to mean it is possible for all sites.

          second its really unnecessary to have to wait around for someone to rank a site. It only serves one purpose - to advertise a service (the usual I might ad :rolleyes. If there are so many people swearing its impossible to be negatively affected why don't we cut through the nonsense of waiting for a site to rank and use an existing site that is already there at thetop of Google.

          Is this board so sad that we can't find anyone who swears its impossible to hurt a site with backlinking who - you know - ranks for something?
          Signature
          Be your best self. - Darryl Philbin
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569945].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

      As usual Mike Anthony comes with complete jibberish. It's the reason I put him on ignore.
      You can't handle how I deconstruct your utter nonsense. in almost every thread you are in you do two things. Hijack the thread to make it about your service and make up numbers that later contradict themselves. No one cares how many servers you use to blast your spun content gibberish and waste dollars. The point being made by the poster was the size of your network as compared to others many of who do not slush around pure gibberish spun content.. You do not operate a network with 35 servers as he was representing. case closed
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569810].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    So did you guys settle on a domain yet, OP, are you going with the link that Matt posted?

    I'm waiting for both sides to hammer the $hit out of it with good links & crappy links at the same time, should be interesting.
    Signature
    Be your best self. - Darryl Philbin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569724].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      So did you guys settle on a domain yet, OP, are you going with the link that Matt posted?

      I'm waiting for both sides to hammer the out of it with good links & crappy links at the same time, should be interesting.
      Someone from my staff is optimizing Welcome to Weight Loss Diet Tips right now for ten keywords. We will backlink to all ten keywords in order to get the quickest page one rankings.

      Then the experiment will be on like Donkey Kong.

      Should I post here or create a new thread? I'll even keep my sig file disabled for the entire length of the experiment.

      Want me to also post the keywords and the comp numbers? Anything that I am forgetting?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569833].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

        Someone from my staff is optimizing Welcome to Weight Loss Diet Tips right now for ten keywords. ?
        Somebody tell Matt that if he wants this to be a legitimate test he needs to come clean with all the keywords so that everyone can see all the terms and monitor them so that everyone can see what is happening across all the terms.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569934].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JamesGw
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          Somebody tell Matt that if he wants this to be a legitimate test he needs to come clean with all the keywords so that everyone can see all the terms and monitor them so that everyone can see what is happening across all the terms.
          I think we'll be making a thread for it where the sites and keywords will be listed and tracked.

          I'm kind of excited, tbh. We should try to get electronplumber in on this too. He has some cool ideas and experience with the sandbox.

          Originally Posted by yukon View Post

          I'm with you on that (red).

          I don't think the age or authority of the web page that is already ranking should be a factor.

          Pick a wikipedia page that is #1 in the SERPs & knock it off of the first page. Heck you can even edit the wiki page, lol.

          If you can remove the wiki page from page #1 position #1 in the SERPs, I'll believe it's possible to dethrone a ranked page.
          Of course authority matters. We don't know HOW Google's algorithm determines whether or not to impose a penalty or devalue links for a site. If it's based on some sort of ratio, then using a wikipedia page is probably a bad idea as most already have a ton of inbound links (whether internal or external.)

          I'd be down with doing some experiments on authority sites, but would definitely want to do it on new ones as well. The more data we have, the more accurate a conclusion we can draw.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569948].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    OK, c'mon guys. Let's not jeopardize the thread, please.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569727].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
      Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

      OK, c'mon guys. Let's not jeopardize the thread, please.
      Agreed! We just had a thread closed because of our bickering. It's the little digs that are doing it. One dig spawns another. Is it possible for us to disagree without getting into that?

      It's the same in fighting as usual. Spinners versus Uniquees. High PR Blog studs versus low pr blog network owners.

      Threads get pinched when we start fighting about those two things.

      It would be cool to focus on seo experiments we can run together. I for one am finished without all that other nonsense. Sometimes I get a bit too sensitive on issues. It's something I'm working on.

      So who wants in on this experiment?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569772].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JamesGw
        Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

        Agreed! We just had a thread closed because of our bickering. It's the little digs that are doing it. One dig spawns another. Is it possible for us to disagree without getting into that?

        It's the same in fighting as usual. Spinners versus Uniquees. High PR Blog studs versus low pr blog network owners.

        Threads get pinched when we start fighting about those two things.

        It would be cool to focus on seo experiments we can run together. I for one am finished with out all that other nonsense. Sometimes I get a bit too sensitive on issues. It's something I'm working on.

        So who wants in on this experiment?
        I'd be willing to put together a site for this experiment.

        10 pages, 5000-10000 words of content total. Basic on-page optimization. Fitness / MMA niche (easiest for me to write about.)

        Can also do test taking/studying. That might be better, since I'll be releasing a product on that soon anyway.

        I'd even be willing to forgo putting outbound links on it for the duration of the experiment so to limit the possibility of any other penalties.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569841].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
          Originally Posted by JamesGw View Post

          I'd even be willing to forgo putting outbound links on it for the duration of the experiment so to limit the possibility of any other penalties.
          Good point. Any sites taking part in this experiment should have unique content only on it. They should also be optimized for their keywords. Plus zero outbound links unless it's a link on a blog to your money site.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569877].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PatrickP
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569775].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
      It would be cool to focus on seo experiments we can run together. I for one am finished with out all that other nonsense. Sometimes I get a bit too sensitive on issues. It's something I'm working on.
      I agree. C'mon guys, Matt is willing to get you a #1 position for a given key phrase for nothing, READ NOTHING. Surely, for the good of the community this is a risk worth taking?
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569842].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
        Quote:
        Originally Posted by JamesGw
        I'd even be willing to forgo putting outbound links on it for the duration of the experiment so to limit the possibility of any other penalties.

        Good point. Any sites taking part in this experiment should have unique content only on it. They should also be optimized for their keywords. Plus zero outbound links unless it's a link on a blog to your money site.
        I totally agree. Perfect!
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569902].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
          Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

          I totally agree. Perfect!
          I'll go one step further. I will be willing to create new sites for the first ten people to jump in on this experiment. Just give us your niche and money site and we'll take care of the rest. So basically we are giving away ten new sites with ten page one rankings.

          If someone has a new site they just created that is more than welcome in our experiment as well.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569919].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ilee
            Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

            I'll go one step further. I will be willing to create new sites for the first ten people to jump in on this experiment. Just give us your niche and money site and we'll take care of the rest. So basically we are giving away ten new sites with ten page one rankings.

            If someone has a new site they just created that is more than welcome in our experiment as well.
            Wow, how can I pass up such an offer... sign me up, I'll register a domain tonight and build my site by tomorrow. A brand spanking new website untainted by with no inbound or outbound links yet. Can't get a fairer test than that

            How much content is needed?
            Signature
            --~***~--


            --~***~--
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569987].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author wolfmanjack
            Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

            Good point. Any sites taking part in this experiment should have unique content only on it. They should also be optimized for their keywords. Plus zero outbound links unless it's a link on a blog to your money site.
            Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

            I'll go one step further. I will be willing to create new sites for the first ten people to jump in on this experiment. Just give us your niche and money site and we'll take care of the rest. So basically we are giving away ten new sites with ten page one rankings.

            If someone has a new site they just created that is more than welcome in our experiment as well.
            If Matt is still willing to make the new site, I just bought a new toy domain he can use. I have not even installed the wordpress theme yet.

            The first post i quoted is where Matt mentioned no outbound links except to the money site.

            So Matt let me know what you want, the binocular site i have part way done, my new domain or I will even buy a domain just for this experiment. I have been reading so much about SEO, Back Linking and competition my eyes hurt. It would be enlightening to have those of you that know what you are doing show which advice is correct.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4573905].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Talen
              Okay, I'm in if my newest site is deemed acceptable. The site is about a month old and clean...nothing done to it yet except adding a few articles.

              Cheap Carpet Tile

              keywords:
              Carpet Tile
              Cheap Carpet Tile
              Carpet Tile Adhesive
              Carpet Tile Maintenance
              Carpet Tile Installation
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4574036].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
          Should we put a friendly wager on it? Loser has to sport whatever avatar the winner chooses for them for an entire week.

          You game friend?
          Mate, I'm not a betting man. Ever since my daughter was born with a condition that is a million to one to get I lost faith with odds. :-)

          However I do believe that what I'm saying is the truth.

          If I'm wrong I'm wrong. I'm man enough to admit defeat!
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569976].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
            Changing the images now. Was just informed by my lead html guy that the site was not ready for public viewing yet.

            Switching out the place holder images now.
            Excellent. whats the main keyword for the home page?
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569995].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
              Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

              Mate, I'm not a betting man. Ever since my daughter was born with a condition that is a million to one to get I lost faith with odds. Google me to find out more :-)

              However I do believe that what I'm saying is the truth.

              If I'm wrong I'm wrong. I'm man enough to admit defeat!
              Sorry to hear about your little girl.. I have 4 of my own and I know how absolutely precious they are to me.

              Originally Posted by ichl13 View Post

              Wow, how can I pass up such an offer... sign me up, I'll register a domain tonight and build my site by tomorrow. A brand spanking new website untainted by with no inbound or outbound links yet. Can't get a fairer test than that

              How much content is needed?
              At least 600 - 1000 word article would work.

              Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

              Excellent. whats the main keyword for the home page?
              We'll go with the exact match of the domain as the kw for the index. The other 9 keywords will be interior pages we run campaigns for.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570030].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ilee
                Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

                At least 600 - 1000 word article would work.
                Ok thats fine, so I'll just build the site, add my content do the onpage seo adn give you the URL?
                Signature
                --~***~--


                --~***~--
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570101].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
                  Ok thats fine, so I'll just build the site, add my content do the onpage seo adn give you the URL?
                  Sounds perfect!
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570128].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    Actually, the more willing to take part the better. I think the global effect from several sites will only help to increase the power of the penalty.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569878].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
      Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

      Actually, the more willing to take part the better. I think the global effect from several sites will only help to increase the power of the penalty.
      Should we put a friendly wager on it? Loser has to sport whatever avatar the winner chooses for them for an entire week.

      You game friend?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569887].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author andynathan
    Sorry to come in late, but this sounds like a cool experiment! Will be keeping tabs to see what happens.
    Signature

    Delighfully Inexpensive: The Scientific Formula For Profitable Blogging takes you step-by-step into how to create mind-blowing content that inspires your readers to learn more about your services.
    Scientific Formula For Profitable Blogging Link

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569938].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
    Here's the keywords we are targeting:

    weight loss
    weight loss tips
    weight loss programs
    weight loss diet
    weight loss supplements
    rapid weight loss
    healthy recipes for weight loss
    healthy weight loss
    diets for quick weight loss
    weight loss diets

    Changing the images now. Was just informed by my lead html guy that the site was not ready for public viewing yet.

    Switching out the place holder images now.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4569964].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tashi Mortier
      It's really interesting to read what is going on here, I will definitely follow your experiment.

      We have a lot of inconclusive results from different people here... I think there may be a grain of truth in everything.

      I guess what might be happening is a combination of manual intervention of Google, some threshold in their algorithm (some mails go to spam folder, some don't, maybe the same here?), and then of course the different sources of the backlinks. Maybe even something like "known spammer web hosts or ips".

      Anyways <gg> It seems pretty obvious to me that something that has been thought up by the best engineers of our time can't be reverse engineered or "beaten" so easily.
      Signature

      Want to read my personal blog? Tashi Mortier

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570014].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    Wow, how can I pass up such an offer... sign me up, I'll register a domain tonight and build my site by tomorrow. A brand spanking new website untainted by with no inbound or outbound links yet. Can't get a fairer test than that

    How much content is needed?
    Get the site ranked #1 for any keyword you choose and we are in business my friend.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570006].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    OK for clarity. One keyword one site. It's that simple.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570020].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
    But while we're backlinking why not go after a wikipedia site that is already ranked really high like Yukon suggested.

    I love this kind of stuff. Pity we don't do it more often.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570039].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    Thank you Matt, kind words :-)

    This 'experiment' is sizing up pretty damn interesting. I'm glad I started the thread.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570051].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    But while we're backlinking why not go after a wikipedia site that is already ranked really high like Yukon suggested.
    I believe this particular penalty affects new domains only. Think tanking out sniper or IPK sites only.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570061].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
      Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

      I believe this particular penalty affects new domains only. Think tanking out sniper or IPK sites only.
      Ok, agreed. You started the thread and we'll test your assertion to the limit. But after this we should set up another experiment.

      If we can learn to work together and pool our resources we may be able to accomplish some amazing things.

      We could test:

      high PR blogs v. low PR
      spun content v. syndicated unspun content
      which top level domains are better
      whether hyphenated urls still work
      whether we can make rank a .info

      The key is we need to work together and all put our differences aside. Just because we're Warriors doesn't mean we should war with one another.

      Right now we look like the jokes of the forum the way we knife fight each other.

      So I'll put myself to the test here. If anyone catches me bragging or slamming someone's opinion call me on it and I'll immediately donate $100 to the charity of their choice.

      I am very enthusiastic about my business and sometimes it comes off as if I'm bragging. It's something I deal with in the real world too. So I know I do it. I love what I do so much so I assume everyone else does too.

      I'll also do away with my sig file completely if that will help me be able to communicate without fear that someone will think I'm trying to hijack a thread.

      Sappy enough post?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570152].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ulcseminary
    Dang. I want to get in on this! Sadly, I'll just have to watch from the sidelines. lol
    Signature

    I run the Universal Life Church seminary website. I post my Spiritual Bookmarks at this Universal Life Church site.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570132].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DavidG
    Very interesting thread.

    I have 2 affiliate sites if you guys would like for them to be worked on.

    The Sites are well optimized and have been on for about 3 months.

    They have great SEO onpage and also they don't have any backlinks - so they are the cleanest sites for this experiment. Matt can rank them then OP and others can challenge the Penalty Idea. They also have good EMD. With good quality content.

    Ylod

    Main Keyword - ylod repair

    Delaying Ejaculation

    Main Keyword - delaying ejaculation


    regZ
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570140].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andy Hart
    wow this is a rollercoaster of a thread.

    The 2 guys started out pretty much eye ball to eye ball with each other and "what do u ya know" its turned into an actual decent SEO experiment.

    Respect to the 2 guys for that

    My 2 cents.

    I know that the Bl@ck hat community do sometimes get a bit naughty and claim to be able to knock sites out of the serps by doing what they call "google bowling" but the problem is there are just to many variables.

    In a recent Google video they said they do around 20,000 changes to the search algo in a year, who knows when each one hits and what effect they have had on rankings.

    Was it bad links causing your site to dance or a recent change to the algo? There are apparently many small changes we don't hear about as loudly as panda/farmer.

    I know one thing, Googles got the whole "secret sauce" down to an art form!

    Andy
    Signature

    I'm On Google + ------------- and of course Also On Twitter

    "The only thing thats keeping you from getting what you want is the story you keep telling yourself about why you can't have it"- Tony Robbins

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570167].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JamesGw
    Can we assume that domain extension does not matter?

    - I'm asking because I'm looking for domains to reg.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570430].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author retsek
    OP is gonna loose.

    The problem with blasting 20,000 links in one day is that usually people do it with only 1-5 keywords. The result? Those keywords disappear for an extended period of time.

    Now if you mix it up with 200 related and variated keywords in that same blast. You get completely different results, and my experience shows it's always positive results.

    Matt's site with his network backing it, will be able withstand any kind of attempts to derail it. All he has to do is vary his backlinks and keep a balance with what you'll send out. I've used his service and the sheer number of the sites he's got will give him the win.

    In the end, there's no right or wrong answer to the original question of this thread. People see it differently.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570553].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author guitarjosh
      Originally Posted by retsek View Post

      OP is gonna loose.

      The problem with blasting 20,000 links in one day is that usually people do it with only 1-5 keywords. The result? Those keywords disappear for an extended period of time.

      Now if you mix it up with 200 related and variated keywords in that same blast. You get completely different results, and my experience shows it's always positive results.

      Matt's site with his network backing it, will be able withstand any kind of attempts to derail it. All he has to do is vary his backlinks and keep a balance with what you'll send out. I've used his service and the sheer number of the sites he's got will give him the win.

      In the end, there's no right or wrong answer to the original question of this thread. People see it differently.
      Soooo.. true. Well said.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4571166].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ilee
    domain registered, will share tomorrow
    Signature
    --~***~--


    --~***~--
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570625].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
      Originally Posted by ichl13 View Post

      domain registered, will share tomorrow
      Post the keywords too if you don't mind. That way we can get started.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570652].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TheFBGuy
      Disregard my post count, I have been a member of WF for a long time on another old account which I dont remember, and have simply browsed as a guest.

      Lol, this thread has been very interested, so interesting, I actually had to take the time to create an account. Only 1 - 2 people have decided to offer their sites for this experiment? That's disappointing. I hereby join this experiment, and this site should be perfect for this.

      A well optimized SEO classic Sniper website, registered this domain a few months ago, so the site/domain are about 5 months old.

      Page 1, rank 6. - Shouldnt be much work for Matt to do his thing get it to position 1 for its keyword.

      Then Neil can do the blast.

      Niche: World Of Warcraft Leveling Guides

      Main Keyword: zygor leveling guide

      Others Optimized for:

      zygor leveling guide review
      zygor leveling guide free
      wow leveling guide
      horde leveling guide
      alliance leveling

      Everyone is free to check it out and do your due diligence.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570694].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author caskofdregs
    Great thread so far! I love where this is going.

    I have a site I'm willing to share. It's a site I decided wouldn't be very profitable and I had a huge lack of interest in the niche, so I sort of gave up on it.

    The site is

    Softball Bat Reviews

    and obviously I wanted to rank it for "softball bat reviews".. one of the posts is on page 4 for the term, which is weird. The rest of the site is nowhere to be seen.

    The site is less than a month old, with 5 600-1000 word articles.

    Do what you want with it.. this experiment is extremely interesting and I'd love to play a part

    Matt, if you want to work on my site's on-page SEO before backlinking, let me know and I'll PM you the login details.
    Signature

    "
    There is neither this world, nor the world beyond, nor happiness - for the one who doubts.”

    Bhagavad Gita
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4570698].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Amys101place
    Hey Matt, if you're still offering others to join, let me know. I'd love to be a part. Sounds like a very fun experiment!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4571186].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Droopy Dawg
    I haven't read the entire thread here... but I did some digging and found a 3 year old article... which the information may be a little dated.. but still..

    Google’s Matt Cutts has responded to a Google Groups discussion on the Google -60 penalty, which sometimes can set a site back in Google 60 placements due to bad linking, saying that such questionable tactics like paid links in various templates can indeed negatively influence a site’s rankings, especially when those links are identified and Google takes away that juice, which could be seen as a penalty.
    The article goes on to say..

    If you’ve been hit with such a penalty (or have had your value taken away from such links), look at the linking you’ve done which is irrelevant, spam related or obviously counter productive to building the authority of your website, delete these links, then redeem yourself to Google with a reconsideration request.
    So take from it what you will... because you've never been penalized doesn't mean the "penalty" doesn't exists... it means you're either doing ethical and effective backlinking, and getting rewarded with high rankings for your efforts. Or you haven't been ding'd yet for those low-quality links.

    Me personally I've never gotten any of my sites drooped for link blasts... and I've blasted my fair share of sites with ScrapeBox and paid for some xRumer blasts.. but I've been lucky

    However I won't discredit someone for saying that it has happened to them.
    Signature


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4571591].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Droopy Dawg View Post

      However I won't discredit someone for saying that it has happened to them.
      Thats the thing. this thing has been tested before. Some people nothing happens and some there is an effect. As with many things SEO there are all kinds of variables to every site. We already know that not every site is affected so getting ten sites ranked by the same service is actually the wrong way of doing it. if you want to do a good solid more scientific test then you would us a wide range of setups and links then hit them with links.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4573353].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
        We already know that not every site is affected so getting ten sites ranked by the same service is actually the wrong way of doing it. if you want to do a good solid more scientific test then you would us a wide range of setups and links then hit them with links.
        Good point Mike.

        However I'm more inclined to believe that other external factors play a much more important role than existing backlinks. For example, number of competing sites, strength of competing sites, search volume of key phrase, wether or not the key phrase is a spam key phrase (Forex, **** berry, Weight Loss etc).

        One of my sites was in the weight loss niche, more specifically a very competitive weight loss supplement niche. The other was in a beauty product niche.

        I think it will take more work to influence a penalty for 'red carpet for sale in surrey england' than it will for '**** Berry'.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4573417].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TheFBGuy
          Matt, let me the first to thank you for doing this experiment, thank you too Neil. I am actually glad many people don't see this section as I would have missed out, so selfish me has taken the time to seize this opportunity.

          Here is another one in case the one I posted before does not satisfy you.

          This one will be 1 month old on Sept 13th/2011, so currently less than 1 month old. No backlinks. I can remove outgoing links if you guys want.

          Niche: Penis Implant Surgery (odd niche, i know )

          Domain name: penileimplantsurgery.info

          Main Keyword: penile implant surgery

          Other Keywords:

          penile implant surgery
          penile enlargement surgery
          penile implant surgery cost
          penile prosthesis surgery
          penile pump surgery
          penile pump implant
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4573528].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
            Niche: Penis Implant Surgery (odd niche, i know )
            DAMN! Does that really have search volume! LOL.

            I'd suggest removing the adsense though. Once the penalty hits it's likely it may affect other sites using the same adsense account.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4573552].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
    Had a few too many Sapphire and Tonics tonight at the Stillwater Grill in Okemos. I'll catch everyone in the morning and we can get the test rolling. Time for the big dog to lay down for a bit. We're still short of the ten sites though. Come on Warriors help us out here.

    You know if I were to make that offer in the wso section or in the main floor of the forum I would already have 100 folks trying to jump on the offer.

    I never knew how much fewer the eyeballs were in this section. Maybe we've been too abrasive for decent folk to visit us. We're like the rowdy bunch of the Warrior Forum. The copywriters I think come in a close second though. They're not exactly a tame lot themselves.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4571659].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author wolfmanjack
      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

      Had a few too many Sapphire and Tonics tonight at the Stillwater Grill in Okemos. I'll catch everyone in the morning and we can get the test rolling. Time for the big dog to lay down for a bit. We're still short of the ten sites though. Come on Warriors help us out here.

      You know if I were to make that offer in the wso section or in the main floor of the forum I would already have 100 folks trying to jump on the offer.

      I never knew how much fewer the eyeballs were in this section. Maybe we've been too abrasive for decent folk to visit us. We're like the rowdy bunch of the Warrior Forum. The copywriters I think come in a close second though. They're not exactly a tame lot themselves.
      I will offer up my new site i am working on. I have not got it approved by Amazon yet so have no outgoing links and no backlinks on it.



      and whatever other keywords you want to add. I will even go so far as giving matt an administrative login on the account to prove it is mine since he will be the one building it up. I will let you guys decide if any links go to amazon during the experiment.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4572140].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DavidG
      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

      Had a few too many Sapphire and Tonics tonight at the Stillwater Grill in Okemos. I'll catch everyone in the morning and we can get the test rolling. Time for the big dog to lay down for a bit. We're still short of the ten sites though. Come on Warriors help us out here.

      You know if I were to make that offer in the wso section or in the main floor of the forum I would already have 100 folks trying to jump on the offer.

      I never knew how much fewer the eyeballs were in this section. Maybe we've been too abrasive for decent folk to visit us. We're like the rowdy bunch of the Warrior Forum. The copywriters I think come in a close second though. They're not exactly a tame lot themselves.

      You should post up how many sites are left - I don't know if you saw my post - -

      Originally Posted by regZ View Post

      Very interesting thread.

      I have 2 affiliate sites if you guys would like for them to be worked on.

      The Sites are well optimized and have been on for about 3 months.

      They have great SEO onpage and also they don't have any backlinks - so they are the cleanest sites for this experiment. Matt can rank them then OP and others can challenge the Penalty Idea. They also have good EMD. With good quality content.

      Ylod

      Main Keyword - ylod repair

      Delaying Ejaculation

      Main Keyword - delaying ejaculation


      regZ
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4572868].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author wolfmanjack
      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

      Had a few too many Sapphire and Tonics tonight at the Stillwater Grill in Okemos. I'll catch everyone in the morning and we can get the test rolling. Time for the big dog to lay down for a bit. We're still short of the ten sites though. Come on Warriors help us out here.

      You know if I were to make that offer in the wso section or in the main floor of the forum I would already have 100 folks trying to jump on the offer.

      I never knew how much fewer the eyeballs were in this section. Maybe we've been too abrasive for decent folk to visit us. We're like the rowdy bunch of the Warrior Forum. The copywriters I think come in a close second though. They're not exactly a tame lot themselves.
      "We're still short of the ten sites though. Come on Warriors help us out here."

      Right before Matt went to bed he says they are short of the ten sites. I have other sites that are less than are less than 2 months old but they all already have links being built to them.

      I could quickly make a few more though if no one else is going to jump in.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4572901].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Spartacus
      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

      Had a few too many Sapphire and Tonics tonight at the Stillwater Grill in Okemos. I'll catch everyone in the morning and we can get the test rolling. Time for the big dog to lay down for a bit. We're still short of the ten sites though. Come on Warriors help us out here.

      You know if I were to make that offer in the wso section or in the main floor of the forum I would already have 100 folks trying to jump on the offer.

      I never knew how much fewer the eyeballs were in this section. Maybe we've been too abrasive for decent folk to visit us. We're like the rowdy bunch of the Warrior Forum. The copywriters I think come in a close second though. They're not exactly a tame lot themselves.
      I have a site you can test this on, I'll PM you the info. Information can be made public, no problem. I'll post it here once it's accepted
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4572972].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    Wow, quite a few posts to catch up on this morning.

    Now, this may be me being paranoid and I'm open to suggestions but is it a good idea to openly state the domain and keyword on this thread? What if we assume that Big G checks in here now and again (which the web spam team no doubt do), does openly stating the said information possibly jeopardize the exercise?
    I can create a basic registration form that we can use if everybody feels it might add value to the project?
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4572773].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author wolfmanjack
    do you think google reads the threads ?? I can put them in an image and post it that way instead now that i have 15 posts. It is up to you guys but for the experiment to be of help to every one they need to be able to see the site and keywords being targeted. Google seeing it will make matt's job harder.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4572789].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    OP is gonna loose.
    Thank you for your support :-)

    For clarity I'm going to say this again: The links I'm going to create are not any sort of blasts. Any arguments to support claims why blasts won't work are irrelevant.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4572790].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    do you think google reads the threads ??
    I think we would be naive to think they don't?

    Either way, I'm guided by everyone else on this.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4572798].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    Quote:
    So did you guys settle on a domain yet, OP, are you going with the link that Matt posted?

    I'm waiting for both sides to hammer the out of it with good links & crappy links at the same time, should be interesting.
    Still waiting for ownership confirmation and #1 rankings.
    OK, just got ownership confirmation through for Matt's domain. His is definately in.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4572820].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author wolfmanjack
    matt mentioned testing 10 sites and i only saw 3 or 4 offered when i went through the thread
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4572874].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    I have other sites that are less than are less than 2 months old but they all already have links being built to them.
    Check with Matt but I'm not sure that really matters? The aim is to get the sites ranking #1 for a given keyword before I build the 'bad' links.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4573004].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Latsyrc
    Edited-
    I think I'm in. I think I want to use a new site of mine that I have. I'll be back later and post if I decide to do this.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4573474].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author wolfmanjack
    I just did a quick scan though the thread and came up with 10 Ids that offered to participate. Is this good enough to start?


    Spartacus
    TheFBGuy
    wolfmanjack
    regZ
    Amys101place
    copyassassin
    caskofdregs
    ichl13
    ulcseminary
    JamesGw
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4573979].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    I just did a quick scan though the thread and came up with 10 Ids that offered to participate. Is this good enough to start?


    Spartacus
    TheFBGuy
    wolfmanjack
    regZ
    Amys101place
    copyassassin
    caskofdregs
    ichl13
    ulcseminary
    JamesGw
    Sounds good to me! :-)
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4574032].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author archel
    Let's see how this works out. Never experienced the sandbox myself...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4574072].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author packerfan
      I've got a site that's perfect for this. It's basically a month old, I'm almost positive I haven't built any links (very few at the most).

      Here's the site... Web Developer Toolbar | How to make a website using a web developer toolbar

      Keyword is web developer toolbar

      Onpage is done, but if I need to change something I can. And yeah, the content is original. Not good, but it is original...
      Signature

      Nothing to see here

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4574200].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author guitarjosh
    I doubt the Big G spends much time sifting through threads here but if they get wind of this, don't be surprised if every domain listed here gets deindexed at the same time.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4574328].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Spartacus
      Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post

      I doubt the Big G spends much time sifting through threads here but if they get wind of this, don't be surprised if every domain listed here gets deindexed at the same time.
      Nah, this won't happen, they probably have better things to do. Plus no one is doing anything wrong...
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4574934].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
      Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post

      I doubt the Big G spends much time sifting through threads here but if they get wind of this, don't be surprised if every domain listed here gets deindexed at the same time.
      I suspect some of my more jealous competitors will do their best to report the sites. Which is why I will not be using sites from our main blog network for this experiment. I'm not about to jeopardize my network just to prove a point I already know is false.

      So we're going to use 200 brand new sites that we have hosted with a different vendor than what we are using for our main network.

      I'm also toying with the idea of running a separate experiment at the same time we're doing this one.

      I want to test to see whether or not spun plr articles can produce as much juice as an unique article that is submitted unspun to directories as syndicated content.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4575145].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Spartacus
        Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

        I'm also toying with the idea of running a separate experiment at the same time we're doing this one.

        I want to test to see whether or not spun plr articles can produce as much juice as an unique article that is submitted unspun to directories as syndicated content.
        Nice, still interested to see the results of this.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4575164].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    I doubt the Big G spends much time sifting through threads here but if they get wind of this, don't be surprised if every domain listed here gets deindexed at the same time.
    That will make my job easier :-)
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4574392].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
    Heading off to finish some furniture shopping for our new place. When we get back I'll create a list of the sites in the experiment. Then we'll do our seo thing.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4575083].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
    So I guess I could turn this into a class on how to run effective seo campaigns that can withstand manual reviews from G.

    I think it's time we take this experiment to the War Room folks. I'll start the thread and show Camtasia videos of each step I take in the backlinking process. I'll also show how to set up a blog network as well. Everything from A to Z.

    That portion of the experiment will be available on in the War Room provided it is allowed. Then we'll give op every chance to knock them off with his links.

    Should be pretty informative all the way around.

    Also if one of the Warriors can help me out by posting a list of the participating sites and their keywords it would be very much appreciated. Then I'll go create the thread in the War Room and will post the info in there. Then we'll start the experiment/tutorial.

    Off to go pick a new desk out. Be back shortly.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4575209].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Spartacus
      A list with people that shared information:


      Username: TheFBGuy
      Domain name: penileimplantsurgery.info
      Main Keyword: penile implant surgery

      Keywords:
      penile implant surgery
      penile enlargement surgery
      penile implant surgery cost
      penile prosthesis surgery
      penile pump surgery
      penile pump implant

      +

      Domainname: zygorlevelingguide.org
      Main Keyword: zygor leveling guide

      Keywords:

      zygor leveling guide review
      zygor leveling guide free
      wow leveling guide
      horde leveling guide
      alliance leveling

      __________________________________________________

      Username: Spartacus
      Domain name: temp removed
      Main keyword: temp removed

      Keywords:
      temp removed

      __________________________________________________

      Username: wolfmanjack
      Domain name: buybinocularsreviews.com
      Main keyword: Best Binoculars Reviews

      Keywords:
      binoculars
      buy binoculars
      binoculars reviews
      best binoculars

      __________________________________________________

      Username: regZ
      Domain name: ylodrepair.net
      Main Keyword:
      ylod repair

      +

      Domain name:
      delayingejaculations.com
      Main keyword: delaying ejaculation

      __________________________________________________

      Username: copyassasin
      Domain name: tax-audit-specialists.com

      Keywords:
      tax audit
      irs audit
      tax relief
      wage garnishment
      tax levy
      tax resolution
      tax problems
      taxpayer advocate
      what is audit
      tax lawyer

      __________________________________________________

      Username: caskofdregs
      Domain name: softballbatreviews.info
      Main keyword: softball bat reviews

      __________________________________________________

      Username: Talen
      Domain name: cheapcarpettile.info

      Keywords:
      Carpet Tile
      Cheap Carpet Tile
      Carpet Tile Adhesive
      Carpet Tile Maintenance
      Carpet Tile Installation

      __________________________________________________

      Username:
      Packerfan
      Domain name:
      webdevelopertoolbar.net

      Keywords:
      web developer toolbar


      More?
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4575294].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ilee
      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

      So I guess I could turn this into a class on how to run effective seo campaigns that can withstand manual reviews from G.

      I think it's time we take this experiment to the War Room folks. I'll start the thread and show Camtasia videos of each step I take in the backlinking process. I'll also show how to set up a blog network as well. Everything from A to Z.

      That portion of the experiment will be available on in the War Room provided it is allowed. Then we'll give op every chance to knock them off with his links.

      Should be pretty informative all the way around.

      Also if one of the Warriors can help me out by posting a list of the participating sites and their keywords it would be very much appreciated. Then I'll go create the thread in the War Room and will post the info in there. Then we'll start the experiment/tutorial.

      Off to go pick a new desk out. Be back shortly.
      So do we need to be war room members to take part?
      Signature
      --~***~--


      --~***~--
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4575394].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author guitarjosh
      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

      So I guess I could turn this into a class on how to run effective seo campaigns that can withstand manual reviews from G.

      I think it's time we take this experiment to the War Room folks. I'll start the thread and show Camtasia videos of each step I take in the backlinking process. I'll also show how to set up a blog network as well. Everything from A to Z.

      That portion of the experiment will be available on in the War Room provided it is allowed. Then we'll give op every chance to knock them off with his links.

      Should be pretty informative all the way around.

      Also if one of the Warriors can help me out by posting a list of the participating sites and their keywords it would be very much appreciated. Then I'll go create the thread in the War Room and will post the info in there. Then we'll start the experiment/tutorial.

      Off to go pick a new desk out. Be back shortly.
      Well that sucks. Not too likely that even the majority of us are war room members.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4575876].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Spartacus
        I'd become a member myself though, mainly because I'm very interested in the results of the experiments, interested enough to become a member. But I understand you guys though.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4575897].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post


      I think it's time we take this experiment to the War Room folks.
      Nope. thats not the way its done around here pardner. I realize your relatively new to this section but we do SEO experiments in front of those who know SEO in THIS section. Theres only one reason to move to the War room and it has nothing to do with the experiment -It has to do with future sales and we ain't having yet another thread hijacked for the purpose of selling one service.

      I am all for selling too but here when we do experiments we do it for for everyone to see in the fine tradition of ElectronPlumber, and Before him Terry and clickbump etc.

      Signatures, WSOs even mentioning your service etc are fine but don't go trying to hijack the whole thread and test now. Op started this thread in the open in THIS section and thats where it and the test should stay.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576142].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JamesGw
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Nope. thats not the way its done around here pardner. I realize your relatively new to this section but we do SEO experiments in front of those who know SEO in THIS section. Theres only one reason to move to the War room and it has nothing to do with the experiment -It has to do with future sales and we ain't having yet another thread hijacked for the purpose of selling one service.

        I am all for selling too but here when we do experiments we do it for for everyone to see in the fine tradition of ElectronPlumber, and Before him Terry and clickbump etc.

        Signatures, WSOs even mentioning your service etc are fine but don't go trying to hijack the whole thread and test now. Op started this thread in the open in THIS section and thats where it and the test should stay.
        Agree with this.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576175].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
          Op started this thread in the open in THIS section and thats where it and the test should stay.
          I gotta agree too. I just don't see how moving to the War Room is going to add any value?
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576285].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
            Originally Posted by yukon View Post

            Count me out If the test won't be public.
            The experiment is still public. What I'm going to do in the War Room is show how I grabbed the rankings to begin with.

            Originally Posted by ichl13 View Post

            So do we need to be war room members to take part?
            If you want to see how I grabbed the rankings you'll need to.

            Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post

            Well that sucks. Not too likely that even the majority of us are war room members.
            You can still take part in the experiment. You just won't know how we grabbed the rankings.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576367].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author yukon
              Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

              The experiment is still public. What I'm going to do in the War Room is show how I grabbed the rankings to begin with.
              Ok, that's cool.

              As far as the page that ranks #1, the backlinks that actually helped rank the page isn't important to me.

              I just want to see the actual test (#1 page removed from the SERPs).
              Signature
              Be your best self. - Darryl Philbin
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576954].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author PatrickP
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Nope. thats not the way its done around here pardner. I realize your relatively new to this section but we do SEO experiments in front of those who know SEO in THIS section. Theres only one reason to move to the War room and it has nothing to do with the experiment -It has to do with future sales and we ain't having yet another thread hijacked for the purpose of selling one service.

        I am all for selling too but here when we do experiments we do it for for everyone to see in the fine tradition of ElectronPlumber, and Before him Terry and clickbump etc.

        Signatures, WSOs even mentioning your service etc are fine but don't go trying to hijack the whole thread and test now. Op started this thread in the open in THIS section and thats where it and the test should stay.

        You have to admit laclear, love him or hate him he knows how to turn just about every post he makes into an marketing opportunity.

        Anthony Morrison used to do the same thing when he used to post on the forums and look were it got him.

        This is like Shark tank when the business owner walks out of the room and the sharks cut their offer and up the percentage.

        The OP left the thread for a few hours and it is now a completely new deal lol

        It has been handed over and it WILL be in the War room. The old golden rule. The one with the gold makes the rules.

        Or the one who makes the rules gets all the gold.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576418].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by PatrickP View Post

          You have to admit laclear, love him or hate him he knows how to turn just about every post he makes into an marketing opportunity................The OP left the thread for a few hours and it is now a completely new deal lol

          Pssssh

          This is the captain. At this time we ask that you remain seated in the upright position. Remain calm. We will be making an unscheduled diversion to the nearest sales er airport. The Sky marshall has informed us that we are in the midst of a thread hijack . It is however under control.

          Pssssh

          Now when did this thread ever have anything to do with how Laclear ranks sites?? this is about knocking sites down. COMPLETELY opposite. Anyone not being a war room member you will miss nothing, nada, zip. there have been two discussions here about building a network in which you can learn how laclear gets pages on the front page for weak serps. Search for them and you are golden. Lets keep this thread about what it is and right here.

          "Influencing Other Sites’ Rankings With Backlinks" not the 450th thread on how the same service gets weak terms to the front page.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576493].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author paulgl
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            Pssssh

            Now when did this thread ever have anything to do with how Laclear ranks sites?? this is about knocking sites down. COMPLETELY opposite.
            Not completely opposite.

            When opportunity knocks....

            Paul
            Signature

            If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576580].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
              Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

              Not completely opposite.

              When opportunity knocks....

              Paul
              It's not about our ability to rank sites at all. That's why I'm going to share that portion of info in the War Room away from this thread. That's also why I'm inviting him to do the same for ten more Warriors.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576608].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

              Not completely opposite.

              When opportunity knocks....

              Paul
              LOl. That opportunity didn't knock. It was standing up minding its own business and two guys with Chloroform grabbed him, shook him down for spare change and dragged him down the alley and through the door.


              Opportunity was gang tackled I tell you.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576609].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author wolfmanjack
              Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

              Not completely opposite.

              When opportunity knocks....

              Paul
              I am confused on how Matt doing his videos in the war room would make him more sales for his service? I would think having anything he does in the open forum would generate him more views and more sales opportunities. Or are you saying he gets money from people joining the War room?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577891].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Originally Posted by wolfmanjack View Post

                ? I would think having anything he does in the open forum would generate him more views and more sales opportunities.
                That might have to do with the fact that you are not a war room member and haven't seen the extremely high views per thread and the equally high response rates. Many a successful War room thread leads to uber sales. Plus Everyone in there is prequalified buyers since they have spent the money to become a War room member.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577968].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author wolfmanjack
                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  That might have to do with the fact that you are not a war room member and haven't seen the extremely high views per thread and the equally high response rates. Many a successful War room thread leads to uber sales. Plus Everyone in there is prequalified buyers since they have spent the money to become a War room member.
                  I am not a war room member and that is why I asked the question. Thank you for answering it.

                  Don't most of the war room members visit the rest of the site also?
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577991].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Count me out If the test won't be public.
    Signature
    Be your best self. - Darryl Philbin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4575286].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DavidG
    Well - we have 10 site for you now matt - Spartacus nicely posted it on the top of this page.


    Now - if you skim through the thread there are only a few war room members. I don't think that is a good idea as many have good inputs about SEO that aren't - or don't wish to spend money for the War Room.

    If anything a new thread dedicated for this experiment will work best - as many could follow along, instead of those who are already War Room members - it's only fair.

    regZ
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576123].message }}
  • Well I have experienced dropping due to backlinks also.

    In my case one of my site got over 1500 backlinks from russian pornsites and sex shop and othe spammy crap all from russia.

    The backlinks all came in in 2 days according to majesticseo.

    This site is a 2 year old site with PR 3 and lot of content. It had around 2000-3000 uniques per day and ranked 1 for a few keyowrds and has over 300 ranked keywords in google. One week after the links appeared my site dropped in ranking so bad that i went down to like 200-300 visitors per day which all came from referring sites. So no organic traffic anymore.

    The site stayed there for about 3 weeks and then started to comeback slowly. after 1 month i was getting 1000 organic uniques again and most of my keywords came back to their old places. 3 months later it came back more and i had 1500 visitors a day (still the half of what i got before) this all happend like 7 months ago and the site is now back to its normal 2000-3000.

    Altough the site came back to normal i lost like 60.k to 100k visitors in that period which is pretty ****.

    This must have been an impact of the ****ty backlinks as i did no changes to the site but updating content and the keywords it ranks for are almost cemented since 1 and a half year. and never moved away from 1.

    Still I think for established sites there are no longterm negative effects from backlinks at all, but like in my case loosing a 100k visitors is not ideal as you can imagine.

    I could imagine that the same **** happening to a newer site would have much worse effects.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576407].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author avatar9812
    There was a case study couple of months back on BHW, basically tries to blast a site with 100k - 200k backlinks. The site was on position #3 before the blast, disappeared for two weeks and came back as #1.

    Of course, the site is aged.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576433].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
    Also if any other person would like to take on ten additional Warrior campaigns as well we can broaden the size of the experiment.

    That way we can help more Warriors get more page one rankings.

    So any takers?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576486].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Spartacus
      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

      Also if any other person would like to take on ten additional Warrior campaigns as well we can broaden the size of the experiment.

      That way we can help more Warriors get more page one rankings.

      So any takers?
      So there will be a total of 20 people and the same campaigns will be run on those sites?
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576527].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
        Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post

        So there will be a total of 20 people and the same campaigns will be run on those sites?
        I'll take the first ten. Another provider can take the next ten. That way more Warriors can benefit from the experiment.

        Then OP can try to knock them off any way he can.

        As many folks selling links in the wso section it seems like we can get some more takers on this. Unless of course they prefer not to. But I think it would be cool if they did.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576546].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ilee
      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

      Also if any other person would like to take on ten additional Warrior campaigns as well we can broaden the size of the experiment.

      That way we can help more Warriors get more page one rankings.

      So any takers?
      Right, I've put my first article on the website
      Is there still space for me Matt? or are all spaces taken?
      Signature
      --~***~--


      --~***~--
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576538].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Brendan Mace
    Here's my share... I would love to be involved in this experiment.

    username co2

    domain = http://www.bestcappuccinomachine.info/

    keywords
    best cappuccino machine
    cappuccino machine reviews
    cappuccino maker
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576534].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
      Originally Posted by co2 View Post

      Here's my share... I would love to be involved in this experiment.

      username co2

      domain = Best Cappuccino Machine

      keywords
      best cappuccino machine
      cappuccino machine reviews
      cappuccino maker
      Hold on there partner. No one else has stepped up to take on the ten additional campaigns yet.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576649].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Brendan Mace
        Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

        Hold on there partner. No one else has stepped up to take on the ten additional campaigns yet.
        Fair enough. If anyone wants to accept the challenge, I am more than willing to be apart of this experiment.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576687].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author copyassassin
          First off, three cheers for Matt for 1) having the guts to put is name on the line, 2) for offering to help warriors like me, 3) willing to share his model.

          Quick question:

          I've set up the wordpress site, and am wondering which SEO plugins you would recommend us installing?

          thx

          adam
          Signature

          The Most Bad-Ass Tax Reduction Strategist for Internet Marketers who HATE paying taxes. See my happy clients

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576994].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Spartacus
            Originally Posted by copyassassin View Post

            First off, three cheers for Matt for 1) having the guts to put is name on the line, 2) for offering to help warriors like me, 3) willing to share his model.

            Quick question:

            I've set up the wordpress site, and am wondering which SEO plugins you would recommend us installing?

            thx

            adam
            I'd say All-in-one seo pack...at least.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577026].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso


    Loving the thread so far. Hope you guys keep on going with the "challenge".

    But...

    IMO the whole G algo it's random, it's based on % and it's made this way to keep people wondering around what happened to them and why NOT to others doing same thing.

    It's random. And changes often.

    Even if you make 100K tests, you'll always get random results - otherwise Google would lose the game to folks with the ability to perform REALLY heavy tests... uncovering the pattern to rank sites.

    Just my 2 and a half cents.
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576600].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Spartacus
      Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso View Post



      Loving the thread so far. Hope you guys keep on going with the "challenge".

      But...

      IMO the whole G algo it's random, it's based on % and it's made this way to keep people wondering around what happened to them and why NOT to others doing same thing.

      It's random. And changes often.

      Even if you make 100K tests, you'll always get random results - otherwise Google would lose the game to folks with the ability to perform REALLY heavy tests... uncovering the pattern to rank sites.

      Just my 2 and a half cents.
      Once this test has ran we can hopefully say it's not so random.

      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576686].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Brendan Mace
    Another share...

    domain = Best Coffee Machine — Helping you buy better!

    main keyword = best coffee machine
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576620].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TheFBGuy
      Mike Anthony: The "real experiment" is still public, just not how matt achieved the rankings, which really is not necessary for us to know, unless someone sucks at SEO or need some new ideas and whatnot. I am more interested in the experiment as I am sure everyone who has posted here is.

      So matt uses this case study for his future sales... that's fine, no big deal. He is taking the time to conduct this experiment after all.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576847].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by TheFBGuy View Post

        Mike Anthony: The "real experiment" is still public, just not how matt achieved the rankings, which really is not necessary for us to know, unless someone sucks at SEO or need some new ideas and whatnot. I am more interested in the experiment as I am sure everyone who has posted here is.
        exactly and it should therefore be obvious that what I object to is him making this about his service as he has done in EVERY thread he has been in. So if he wants to go over some section and do something unrelated then by all means he can go for it - not call as he did in post 201 that it should be moved somewhere (war room) he can make more sales.

        The experiment is not ranking. Its being knocked down from ranking.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576967].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author InitialEffort
    Step #1 - Find a nice Adsense niche website that has 3-5 pages that is 6 months or less old

    Step #2 - Build 20,000 Forum profile links with the same anchor text everyday for 2 weeks.

    Step #3 - Wait and you will agree with the OP.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4576881].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    I still say go after a wikipedia page that ranks #1, that's the real proof.

    If you can remove a wiki page that ranks #1, the rest of the new test sites, would be easier to remove.

    Just my 2 cents,
    Signature
    Be your best self. - Darryl Philbin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577003].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ilee
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      I still say go after a wikipedia page that ranks #1, that's the real proof.

      If you can remove a wiki page that ranks #1, the rest of the new test sites, would be easier to remove.

      Just my 2 cents,
      I'm no expert, but surely wikipedia is more than 6 months old
      Signature
      --~***~--


      --~***~--
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577019].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Originally Posted by ichl13 View Post

        I'm no expert, but surely wikipedia is more than 6 months old
        Exactly!

        Remove their (wiki) page & the 6-month old sites would be nothing as far as trying to remove from the SERPs.
        Signature
        Be your best self. - Darryl Philbin
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577046].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author caskofdregs
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      I still say go after a wikipedia page that ranks #1, that's the real proof.

      If you can remove a wiki page that ranks #1, the rest of the new test sites, would be easier to remove.

      Just my 2 cents,
      If I'm not wrong, there is no way you can 'remove' a Wikipedia page. Sure, you can outrank it in the SERPS, but there's no way you can entirely remove a Wiki page. Since this is the 'sandbox' we're talking about here, a Wikipedia page being 'sandboxed' would mean that Wikipedia, as a whole domain, would have to be gone from Google's index - which, as we know, is literally impossible considering Wikipedia's age, authority and millions of backlinks pointing to the domain as a whole.
      Signature

      "
      There is neither this world, nor the world beyond, nor happiness - for the one who doubts.”

      Bhagavad Gita
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577119].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ilee
        Originally Posted by caskofdregs View Post

        If I'm not wrong, there is no way you can 'remove' a Wikipedia page. Sure, you can outrank it in the SERPS, but there's no way you can entirely remove a Wiki page. Since this is the 'sandbox' we're talking about here, a Wikipedia page being 'sandboxed' would mean that Wikipedia, as a whole domain, would have to be gone from Google's index - which, as we know, is literally impossible considering Wikipedia's age, authority and millions of backlinks pointing to the domain as a whole.
        Sandboxed is just when your web page SERPs drop a lot and not deindexed right? I think you can get slapped for a particular keyword but not normally every keyword
        Signature
        --~***~--


        --~***~--
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577218].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
          If you guys want to spend time doing this, I say have at it. However, I don't think this experiment is going to really tell much at all.

          I have routinely witnessed pages reach page one only to fall back to page 3 or farther without any kind of backlink blasting. For a newer site, it is a something that occurs pretty frequently. So how do you know it was caused by the link blast when this is something that happens all the time? If you don't believe me, just count the number of "My site fell from page one and I have no idea why" threads that get started every week on WF.

          On top of that, it is going to take months for Matt to have all these keywords ranked. By that time, Google might come out with a major new algorithm update, like May Day, Caffeine, or Panda, that makes this whole experiment obsolete and useless.

          I think what would really be interesting is if link blasts can remove an established site consistently.

          Like I said though, if you guys want to spend the time on this, be my guest.
          Signature
          SEO Myths
          SEO, PPC, Geo-Fencing, and Social Media Marketing Services - Get a Free Quote
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577387].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post


            Like I said though, if you guys want to spend the time on this, be my guest.
            You are right there. as presently constructed and what the thread has become I say the same - be my guest. Don't think anything will come of it. Good luck to you all.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577645].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      I still say go after a wikipedia page that ranks #1, that's the real proof.

      If you can remove a wiki page that ranks #1, the rest of the new test sites, would be easier to remove.

      Just my 2 cents,
      You know what Yukon? the way this thread is going that would be a better test. at least if that wiki page fell off the front page it would have been a page thats stable and not likely to have lost its ranking for anything else. With having to wait to get a site to rank #1 using dubious means anyway how will we ever tell if it loses rank that it was not because the SEO itself wasn't good enough to hold in position for very long?
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577134].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JamesGw
        I have a 9 month old site I can sacrifice. It's only #8, but I'm sure I can bump it up higher if we want to proceed.

        (I'm also pretty confident that I can reverse the penalty if there is one.)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4582821].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    incidentally what is this about first page rankings? thats like out of sales copy. What you need for this experiment is top ranking like number ones or it is USELESS. many sites go to first page and then fall dramatically without any interference. Most of us have seen that repeatedly even without much backlinking. So if the page falls from just the front page then we won't have any real proof that its the backlinks that caused it. In order for this to mean anything it has to be a page that ranks high and has ranked for awhile to show its stability. Then and if it drops you can more clearly say that was the cause.

    Thats why I said earlier on that the best and most scientific way of doing this research would be to find a site than ranks number one and has for awhile and take it out. With all the Imers that believe it is impossible and backlinks can only help then you would think someone would jump to it.

    Instead this thread is being dominated now by people looking to rank number one who haven't or can't on their own and its become more focused on that rather than the real experiment. in short the thread has become one for opportunistic webmasters and service sellers who really don't care at the end of the day whether the results are conclusive and/or scientific and thats what will end up making the whole thread and test useless.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577102].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author caskofdregs
      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      Thats why I said earlier on that the best and most scientific way of doing this research would be to find a site than ranks number one and has for awhile and take it out. With all the Imers that believe it is impossible and backlinks can only help then you would think someone would jump to it.
      The whole theory Neil put out here is that a site ranking number one, and is no more than 6 months old can be taken out from the SERPS entirely with a huge amount of backlinks.

      So, it would make sense that we find a site ranking number one, and is no more than six months old, and take it down.
      Signature

      "
      There is neither this world, nor the world beyond, nor happiness - for the one who doubts.”

      Bhagavad Gita
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577157].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by caskofdregs View Post


        So, it would make sense that we find a site ranking number one, and is no more than six months old, and take it down.

        Sure so the quickest way would be to find such a site within that age not spend the time trying to get sites to number one that probably would not even stay on their own anyway and frankly no on here is going to be able to guarantee top rankings #1 or #2 across the board. lower rankings mean nothing. Pages regularly get to the first page and fall off the first page.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577200].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TheFBGuy
      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      incidentally what is this about first page rankings? thats like out of sales copy. What you need for this experiment is top ranking like number ones or it is USELESS. many sites go to first page and then fall dramatically without any interference. Most of us have seen that repeatedly even without much backlinking. So if the page falls from just the front page then we won't have any real proof that its the backlinks that caused it. In order for this to mean anything it has to be a page that ranks high and has ranked for awhile to show its stability. Then and if it drops you can more clearly say that was the cause.

      Thats why I said earlier on that the best and most scientific way of doing this research would be to find a site than ranks number one and has for awhile and take it out. With all the Imers that believe it is impossible and backlinks can only help then you would think someone would jump to it.

      Instead this thread is being dominated now by people looking to rank number one who haven't or can't on their own and its become more focused on that rather than the real experiment. in short the thread has become one for opportunistic webmasters and service sellers who really don't care at the end of the day whether the results are conclusive and/or scientific and thats what will end up making the whole thread and test useless.
      Hey Mike,

      Part 1

      yes, I agree regarding number 1 - 3 rankings on page 1, otherwise simply getting to page 1 means nothing. Many of us have achieved page 1 many times, and as an example you can Google the site I offered for this experiment: zygor leveling guide. It has been steady on page 1 for quiet some time now against strong and many competitors, over 400K, so I agree, and I expect Matt to get to at least top 3 because like I said, most of us can get to page 1 with no problem.

      Part 2

      It was difficult getting people to join this experiment, and people eventually joined because they don't have much to lose since they are offering new sites, thus this is where we find ourselves. I have sites ranking number 1... no way I or anyone offer a stable top ranking site so suddenly for an experiment, especially sites generating revenue. Unfortunately new sites would have to suffice.

      Part 3

      Well, this is internet marketing after all. The OP benefits, Matt benefits, people who had the courage to offer sites benefit as well and all these sites have UNIQUE content. Nothing wrong with being opportunistic. Again this is internet marketing, at the end of the day we all want a little something in return for time invested in addition to still carrying out the experiment. It's all good.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577564].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by TheFBGuy View Post

        Part 3

        Well, this is internet marketing after all. The OP benefits, Matt benefits, people who had the courage to offer sites benefit as well and all these sites have UNIQUE content. Nothing wrong with that being opportunistic. Again this is internet marketing, at the end of the day we all want a little something in return for time invested in addition to still carrying out the experiment. It's all good.
        FB if we all hijacked every thread we were in because of being internet marketers then this Forum would shrivel up and die. As it is it used to be alot better than it is now and going down steadily. Many tests have been done here and the people who did them all profited by giving some times not angling every thread as a sales opportunity and especially in such an obvious manner. You are brand spanking new to this board and can't speak to what has historically made the board good or bad.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4577694].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Talen
      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      incidentally what is this about first page rankings? thats like out of sales copy. What you need for this experiment is top ranking like number ones or it is USELESS. many sites go to first page and then fall dramatically without any interference. Most of us have seen that repeatedly even without much backlinking. So if the page falls from just the front page then we won't have any real proof that its the backlinks that caused it. In order for this to mean anything it has to be a page that ranks high and has ranked for awhile to show its stability. Then and if it drops you can more clearly say that was the cause.

      Thats why I said earlier on that the best and most scientific way of doing this research would be to find a site than ranks number one and has for awhile and take it out. With all the Imers that believe it is impossible and backlinks can only help then you would think someone would jump to it.

      Instead this thread is being dominated now by people looking to rank number one who haven't or can't on their own and its become more focused on that rather than the real experiment. in short the thread has become one for opportunistic webmasters and service sellers who really don't care at the end of the day whether the results are conclusive and/or scientific and thats what will end up making the whole thread and test useless.
      You just said what everyone has been saying to the OP. The fact that his site fell from the 1st page had nothing to do with a small backlink blast he did it could be many factors. He swears his less than 6 month old site on the 1st page fell from a backlink blast.

      I also disagree that this thread has become about ranking #1 and webmaster services. The action of taking the ten sites to #1 will be done in the war room where most of us won't even see it...the real experiment is for the OP to knock those sites of less than six months off the front page with backlinks.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4578191].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by Talen View Post

        You just said what everyone has been saying to the OP. .
        Nope you are interpreting it that way - big difference. I can't say like you gents claim to know for fact that it was not the backlinks. As for whether the thread was derailed or hijacked - well we will know when and if there ever is a test going on in here about the site being hit down by backlinks won't we? right now for the last two to three pages its a been all about getting sites ranked.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4578277].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Talen
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          Nope you are interpreting it that way - big difference. I can't say like you gents claim to know for fact that it was not the backlinks. As for whether the thread was derailed or hijacked - well we will know when and if there ever is a test going on in here about the site being hit down by backlinks won't we? right now for the last two to three pages its a been all about getting sites ranked.

          Mike I interpreted it that way because of one statement you made:

          many sites go to first page and then fall dramatically without any interference.
          This is a true statement. The OP on the other hand started this thread stating that one small blast of links to 2 of his money sites gave him a -950 penalty in a short matter of time.

          The difference is you are saying we can't be sure what caused the penalty where the OP is saying with 100% certainty that the backlinks caused the problem.

          While I can't say definitively that the backlinks didn't cause the problem I can say I have never experienced any such penalty doing the same types of linking to new sites...they may dance some but not be removed to the supplemental index.

          As for the last 2-3 pages being about ranking, well that's part and parcel of the experiment. In order to do the experiment sites are needed that are less than 6 months old and ranked #1. While many people believe that blasting a newer site with 6000 backlinks won't kill it most of us won't offer up one of our stable ranked #1 sites either just in case.

          So we have offered up new websites that aren't ranked and someone is going to rank them...again he is going to do it in the war room and most of us won't see it and if he wants to make something out of it so be it it. If he can rank 10 sites to #1 in a short period of time then he deserves to make some money out of the deal and you can bet he will. still has nothing to do with the experiment which is killing #1 ranked sites with a 6000 link blast.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4578682].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author wolfmanjack
            Originally Posted by Talen View Post

            Mike I interpreted it that way because of one statement you made:



            This is a true statement. The OP on the other hand started this thread stating that one small blast of links to 2 of his money sites gave him a -950 penalty in a short matter of time.

            The difference is you are saying we can't be sure what caused the penalty where the OP is saying with 100% certainty that the backlinks caused the problem.

            While I can't say definitively that the backlinks didn't cause the problem I can say I have never experienced any such penalty doing the same types of linking to new sites...they may dance some but not be removed to the supplemental index.

            As for the last 2-3 pages being about ranking, well that's part and parcel of the experiment. In order to do the experiment sites are needed that are less than 6 months old and ranked #1. While many people believe that blasting a newer site with 6000 backlinks won't kill it most of us won't offer up one of our stable ranked #1 sites either just in case.

            So we have offered up new websites that aren't ranked and someone is going to rank them...again he is going to do it in the war room and most of us won't see it and if he wants to make something out of it so be it it. If he can rank 10 sites to #1 in a short period of time then he deserves to make some money out of the deal and you can bet he will. still has nothing to do with the experiment which is killing #1 ranked sites with a 6000 link blast.
            I totally agree with Talen. I for one will build sites with more competitive keywords than i am now and sign those sites up with Matt's service if he can build these 10 sites to page one and fight off the OP's attacks.

            It is great marketing on his part and i see that he asked other SEO experts offering their services to join in also so he is being pretty fair about the whole thing.

            Why bash him for it when anyone can do the same?