Negative SEO - The Death of SEO

142 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Since the advancement of Google towards eliminating link schemes and unnatural link profiles, we've seen some interesting things occur. One of the most interesting aspects of the current search engine environment is the advent of negative SEO.

I'm not in any way against Google removing link schemes from the equation. BMR and ALN getting deindexed might be the best thing happening to SEO in years.

But then again, it might also be the worst. A lot of people use these services on great sites that attract visitors with quality content.

As these sites drop in the search engines, they are usually replaced by even worse results, which leads me to question Google's actions, as I always do.

But here's the real problem that might just kill SEO...

Given the new rules on unnatural link building that Google has introduced, you can destroy a competitor's website without even owning it or getting access to it.

I have read in countless forums about this sort of thing occurring. The message shows up in GWT that unnatural links have been detected. A few weeks later, the site gets hit with a huge penalty.

If Google continues in the direction they are going right now, two things will happen, neither of which will benefit the searcher or the SEO, or even Google:

1. SERPs will look chaotic. Due to the difficult of generating rankings, it will be almost impossible for anyone to control, so the front page will go from a refined competition with relevant businesses trying to rank to a complete hodge podge of random crap with no consistency.

2. SEO will die, at least on Google. The rise of negative SEO will make it so impractical and risky to rank that very few people will bother with the risk.

Why bother ranking when a competitor can waltz in, spend 50-100 dollars on Fiverr blasts, and watch as your site tanks a week or two later?

I'm not saying this is for sure the death of SEO and the decline of Google. I'm just saying, why bother taking even just one step in a bad direction.

Google should be a lot more careful than this with penalties.
#death #negative #seo
  • Profile picture of the author rambo9600
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908195].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
      Originally Posted by rambo9600 View Post

      Anyone who builds a long term business by relying on Google or any 3rd party is a fool. :rolleyes:
      Your argument is invalid. Most small businesses rely on countless third parties to thrive. It's almost impossible for a small business to even exist without a third party to generate traffic and increase revenue. Google just happens to be a very large and important third party for an online business.

      Please keep comments on topic.

      Originally Posted by thebasta View Post

      Well I think that this is for every seo guy goes back to adwords....Google and bing are trying to forcing us to go back to there advertising system...
      Wow. Someone who gets it...

      Only problem is, when SEO gets chaotic, so do search results. What happens when they get so cluttered that searchers can't find anything?

      They go to another search engine.
      Signature

      No signature here today!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908220].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author danr62
        Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

        Your argument is invalid. Most small businesses rely on countless third parties to thrive. It's almost impossible for a small business to even exist without a third party to generate traffic and increase revenue. Google just happens to be a very large and important third party for an online business.

        Please keep comments on topic.


        This post was very much on topic. If you are relying on Google for the lion's share of your traffic than you are susceptible to "negative SEO".

        What I think Cataclysm1987 was trying to get across is that if you don't diversify your traffic sources you are always at the mercy of Google and these underhanded tactics.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908271].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
          Originally Posted by danr62 View Post

          This post was very much on topic. If you are relying on Google for the lion's share of your traffic than you are susceptible to "negative SEO".

          What I think Cataclysm1987 was trying to get across is that if you don't diversify your traffic sources you are always at the mercy of Google and these underhanded tactics.
          Then he should have said that, instead of what he ACTUALLY said, which was you shouldn't rely on a third party to build your business.
          Signature

          No signature here today!

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908283].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thebasta
    Well I think that this is for every seo guy goes back to adwords....Google and bing are trying to forcing us to go back to there advertising system...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908208].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sovereignn
    Like you said these new updates will in no way give them the "quality user experience" they're trying to create for their users.


    I don't see these penalties sticking around for too long when Google sees they're doing the opposite of what they intended
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908210].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
      Originally Posted by sovereignn View Post

      Like you said these new updates will in no way give them the "quality user experience" they're trying to create for their users.


      I don't see these penalties sticking around for too long when Google sees they're doing the opposite of what they intended
      Funny how the solution to so many problems ends up creating more problems in and of itself. Google used to understand this a lot better.

      Now all they care about is getting SEOs to give up and switch to Adwords.
      Signature

      No signature here today!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908230].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AskJon
    Actually Google is constantly split testing and, of course, they WILL do everything they can to give users what they want (quality). Google literally makes millions per day with their search results, so no way they will lose their asset (their algorithm) and let their users go somewhere else. I'm not saying Google is perfect, it certainly isn't, but they learn faster then we do and are smarter then we are. What I mean is that they will adapt, learn of their mistakes and get back with even better results to keep their users happy!
    Signature
    Contact me on skype for any SEO related questions!
    SCALABLEINCOME.COM
    Step By Step Coaching to Wealth
    Join Our Community!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908391].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ludovico
    Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

    2. SEO will die, at least on Google. The rise of negative SEO will make it so impractical and risky to rank that very few people will bother with the risk.
    How many times have we heard "SEO is dead" over the past 8 years?

    This is nothing more than a major shakeout. Most sites I'm hearing that are getting that unnatural link warning are thin affiliate sites that have minimal content & no social proof. True, some bigger sites have been affected, but I'm sure that's just a temporary bounce.

    SEO isn't dead, but don't put all of your eggs in one basket, if you get what I mean. Create relations with people in your niche, create social traffic, etc. SEO should be just one of many traffic sources for your site.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908422].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
      Originally Posted by AskJon View Post

      Actually Google is constantly split testing and, of course, they WILL do everything they can to give users what they want (quality). Google literally makes millions per day with their search results, so no way they will lose their asset (their algorithm) and let their users go somewhere else. I'm not saying Google is perfect, it certainly isn't, but they learn faster then we do and are smarter then we are. What I mean is that they will adapt, learn of their mistakes and get back with even better results to keep their users happy!
      Right, but even Google employees have complained about how bad the company has gotten in recent years, not to mention they are getting huge fines from privacy infringements.

      They are a few really bad decisions away from losing out on their market share.

      Originally Posted by Ludovico View Post

      How many times have we heard "SEO is dead" over the past 8 years?

      This is nothing more than a major shakeout. Most sites I'm hearing that are getting that unnatural link warning are thin affiliate sites that have minimal content & no social proof. True, some bigger sites have been affected, but I'm sure that's just a temporary bounce.

      SEO isn't dead, but don't put all of your eggs in one basket, if you get what I mean. Create relations with people in your niche, create social traffic, etc. SEO should be just one of many traffic sources for your site.
      Funny, because I have been hearing about equal complaints from thin affiliates sites and really high quality sites. It's not a prerequisite that anyone have a thin site in order to build what Google defines as unnatural links.

      Your opinions seem a bit naive in this respect.

      I've read a lot of WF and TP threads like this one:

      Un-natural Links Penalty - Traffic Planet

      Where it's not about the quality...it's about destroying SEOs in general and making SEO so difficult that everyone switches to Adwords.

      And I'm not saying SEO is dead. I'm just saying that it could die a slow, painful death, at least on Google.
      Signature

      No signature here today!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908570].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Ludovico
        Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

        They are a few really bad decisions away from losing out on their market share.
        To who?

        Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

        Funny, because I have been hearing about equal complaints from thin affiliates sites and really high quality sites. It's not a prerequisite that anyone have a thin site in order to build what Google defines as unnatural links.

        Your opinions seem a bit naive in this respect.
        As I said, bigger sites have been hit as well. But they will come back, more likely stronger than ever, very soon.

        Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

        Where it's not about the quality...it's about destroying SEOs in general and making SEO so difficult that everyone switches to Adwords.
        If everyone switched to Adwords, wouldn't that make SEO easy?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908634].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author AskJon
          Originally Posted by Ludovico View Post

          To who?
          Funny, this is exactly what I taught! At this moment I can't see ANYONE as Google totally dominates searches with their algorithm. Not sure if anyone here just even tried to find anything with bing results, but all I can say is that it's quite a challenge
          Signature
          Contact me on skype for any SEO related questions!
          SCALABLEINCOME.COM
          Step By Step Coaching to Wealth
          Join Our Community!

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908685].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Ludovico
            Originally Posted by AskJon View Post

            Funny, this is exactly what I taught! At this moment I can't see ANYONE as Google totally dominates searches with their algorithm. Not sure if anyone here just even tried to find anything with bing results, but all I can say is that it's quite a challenge
            If Facebook was to create a social search engine, then it would be very rough for Google. Google wants to be Facebook, in a way, which is why they've been pushing their social services.

            A FB search engine would be ridiculous for advertisers. We can only dream.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908707].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by AskJon View Post

            Funny, this is exactly what I taught! At this moment I can't see ANYONE as Google totally dominates searches with their algorithm. Not sure if anyone here just even tried to find anything with bing results, but all I can say is that it's quite a challenge

            Every time there is a major change and marketers get hit there is this reaction - Google is going down. Its because you really can't affect Google the way they can affect you so you want to believe that somehow their decisions that affect you will lead to their demise. Its not revenge but its hoping and believing it will come.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908744].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              Every time there is a major change and marketers get hit there is this reaction - Google is going down. Its because you really can't affect Google the way they can affect you so you want to believe that somehow their decisions that affect you will lead to their demise. Its not revenge but its hoping and believing it will come.
              Actually it's more based on the reality that if Google continues to aggressively penalize sites and open the pathway for negative SEO, it will hurt SEOs as well as searchers and in due time, Google as well.

              But it seems my point has been missed amidst a giant pile of white hat "This won't affect you if you have a good site" and "People have said this before" crap rather than real rhetoric.

              I'm just forecasting what I believe to be a big possibility given the current trend of things.

              The people sitting with their thumbs up their asses saying "Oh it won't affect you if your site is good and you're white hat!" are the real wishful thinkers.
              Signature

              No signature here today!

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908788].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Ludovico
                Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

                But it seems my point has been missed amidst a giant pile of white hat "This won't affect you if you have a good site" and "People have said this before" crap rather than real rhetoric.

                I'm just forecasting what I believe to be a big possibility given the current trend of things.

                The people sitting with their thumbs up their asses saying "Oh it won't affect you if your site is good and you're white hat!" are the real wishful thinkers.
                Go ahead and do a case study. Throw some ALN/Xrumer/Fiverr blasts at you're competitors and come back with the results. I'd be interested to see what you find.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908907].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
                  Originally Posted by n_touch View Post

                  This is true, and i have been seeing a lot more Google commercials on TV lately. I know that they two do not go hand in hand, but simple marketing tells you that if you are starting to drop in usage, then you go and remind the consumer about your services. I would assume by putting the two together that Google is trying to recapture what they are starting to loose to Bing and Yahoo. The only problem with this is that to many people are so used to going to Google, that I think that they only site for now that could compete with them completely would be Facebook.
                  You're right. I'm not saying this would happen overnight. It would obviously take years. But the idea that it couldn't happen is just silly.

                  Originally Posted by Ludovico View Post

                  Go ahead and do a case study. Throw some ALN/Xrumer/Fiverr blasts at you're competitors and come back with the results. I'd be interested to see what you find.
                  There's already a good one going on at Traffic Planet, a much less white hat forum than this one.

                  I would do one here, but I think it might get taken down seeing as this is more or less a white hat forum.

                  Here's the link if you want to check it out:

                  [CASE STUDY] Negative SEO - Traffic Planet
                  Signature

                  No signature here today!

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908949].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
                Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

                Actually it's more based on the reality that if Google continues to aggressively penalize sites and open the pathway for negative SEO, it will hurt SEOs as well as searchers and in due time, Google as well.

                You are mistaken about one thing. Hurting SEOs, does not hurt Google.

                SEOs make up a microscopic percentage of Google's users. The average Google user has no idea what SEO is and could care less what SEO is.

                IM'ers too often get caught up in their own little bubble and think that the rest of the world feels the same way they do.
                Signature
                SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
                Get a FREE Quote.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5909844].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
                  Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

                  You are mistaken about one thing. Hurting SEOs, does not hurt Google.

                  SEOs make up a microscopic percentage of Google's users. The average Google user has no idea what SEO is and could care less what SEO is.

                  IM'ers too often get caught up in their own little bubble and think that the rest of the world feels the same way they do.
                  It won't immediately. At first no one will notice. But eventually search engines will become chaotic and search results won't be controlled or managed by anyone except the algorithm.

                  There will be little to no way to influence the search results and if negative SEO becomes more prevalent and realistic than normal SEO, great sites will get hit just as much as bad ones, resulting in mediocre or even terrible results migrating their way to page one amidst the aftermath of Google's war.

                  I think you are mistaken. I think some level of control and visibility is necessary for SEOs to do in order to make sure great businesses are seen. That's why we do what we do, and if Google ruins that, their search engine results won't be pretty.
                  Signature

                  No signature here today!

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5909856].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
                    [DELETED]
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5909952].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
                      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

                      Negative SEO, if it works at all, cannot hurt authority sites and big brands. So I fail to see how users are going to see that is a negative or the search results will get chaotic. Large brands and serious authority sites will rise to the top for many searches. That is what users want to see, and those are the sites probably best suited to meet their search criteria.
                      Seriously? You think people need Google to find a large brand like eBay, Amazon or Youtube?

                      If Google does nothing but lead people to brands, they become redundant. What makes Google dynamic is leading people to interesting content they had never discovered before, so up and coming businesses and start up websites.

                      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

                      Again, IM'ers and SEOs make up a microscopic percentage of Google's users. They are keeping the majority of their users happy with these changes, so it is all good for them.
                      The point is not the size. The point is the controlled element of rankings. If no one is able to effectively influence their rankings because of the rise of negative SEO, it could destroy SEO and hurt Google a lot because of how chaotic rankings would be. You don't seem to be directly addressing my rhetoric here.

                      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

                      And despite all the SEO is dead bull**** flying around this forum, that could not be further from the truth. Now if you hired an "SEO" who thought that just submitting a bunch of spun crap into a blog network made him or her an SEO, then yeah, you are probably screwed right now. If you hired some half twit backlinker in the WSO section, your site probably got hammered.

                      If you used ELN which had the biggest goddamn footprint of any network I have ever seen, yeah you are probably wondering where your rankings went.

                      If you actually know what you are doing or are working with someone who knows what they are doing, it is just business as usual.
                      BAHAHAHAHAHAAH!

                      Seriously?

                      I just dug up some dirt on your website, theseopub.com. Here are some interesting places AHREFs.com turned up links for you:

                      *I removed these URL's not to protect the poster but to make sure the network doesn't get taken down.*

                      You participate in high profile, high PR link schemes, then come in here all high and mighty like you have nothing to worry about if stuff like this starts going down?

                      Those sites are the exact kind that are getting deindexed at a rapid rate and creating penalties for webmasters.

                      I'm not saying this to try and attack you. Just don't start acting all high and mighty preaching about Google guidelines and quality links when it's obvious you're just as much involved in link scheming as anyone else.
                      Signature

                      No signature here today!

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5910020].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                        Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

                        I just dug up some dirt on your website, removed URL. Here are some interesting places AHREFs.com turned up links for you:

                        URLS REMOVED

                        You participate in high profile, high PR link schemes, then come in here all high and mighty like you have nothing to worry about if stuff like this starts going down?
                        What kind of low life move is that? You disagree with a poster so you expose his site,keywords and his backlinks to "dig up some dirt on his website" in a public forum.

                        Last time I checked thats not allowed around here
                        Signature

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5910088].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
                          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                          What kind of low life move is that? You disagree with a poster so you expose his site,keywords and his backlinks to "dig up some dirt on his website" in a public forum.

                          Last time I checked thats not allowed around here
                          Who exposed keywords? His keywords are right there in his sig...

                          And as far as exposing his backlinks, I'm pretty sure any SEO with half a brain could do that.

                          I just thought it was hypocritical, so I pointed it out. Not sure what the big deal is.
                          Signature

                          No signature here today!

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5910116].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                            Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post


                            I just thought it was hypocritical, so I pointed it out. Not sure what the big deal is.
                            Learn the rules before mouthing off. Multiple threads on this forum have been closed for exposing people back links and sites giving them you know exactly what you were doing when you said you were digging up some dirt on his site. Poor form and low move.
                            Signature

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5910194].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

                The people sitting with their thumbs up their asses saying "Oh it won't affect you if your site is good and you're white hat!" are the real wishful thinkers.
                If you don't understand a point then ask and you might get an education. I didn't say a thing about good content sites or white hat. I specified link profile. DO some more research it IS a fact that some sites fair better against negative SEO because they have high authority links. Now you can get those high authority links through buying them (definitely not white hat and nothing to do with your content) or trading for them (also not white hat) or naturally.

                Now as far as unrealistic wishful thinkers....YEah Um....Google ticked off a bunch of marketers and because of that I'm telling you dudes I predict they are going down and SEO is dead yeah man I tiell you the truth this is the end of Google and SEO

                Uh - huh. real realistic non wishful thinking there .....:rolleyes:

                People need to stop whining and imagining adjust their SEO and move on. The predicting of SEO and Google going down any time soon is just fantasy and even if they did it wouldn't make you a dime at their funeral. Marketers ought to concentrate on marketing.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5909973].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  If you don't understand a point then ask and you might get an education. I didn't say a thing about good content sites or white hat. I specified link profile. DO some more research it IS a fact that some sites fair better against negative SEO because they have high authority links. Now you can get those high authority links through buying them (definitely not white hat and nothing to do with your content) or trading for them (also not white hat) or naturally.
                  Right. We refer to these sites as being on exception lists.

                  Occasionally a site might even do better organically for one reason or another. I've seen this as well.

                  But there are times when this doesn't happen to good quality sites. That's why it is concerning, because Google's definition of quality is not reliable enough for them to be blasting sites like this. That is why I'm concerned and bringing up this discussion.

                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  Now as far as unrealistic wishful thinkers....YEah Um....Google ticked off a bunch of marketers and because of that I'm telling you dudes I predict they are going down and SEO is dead yeah man I tiell you the truth this is the end of Google and SEO

                  Uh - huh. real realistic non wishful thinking there .....:rolleyes:
                  You think I want to be right?

                  There's nothing wishful about this post. I just think there is a decent bit of truth to the idea that the current trend could seriously hurt SEO.

                  And maybe you should read my entire post before posting rude comments like this.

                  If you did, you would have read this part:

                  Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

                  I'm not saying this is for sure the death of SEO and the decline of Google. I'm just saying, why bother taking even just one step in a bad direction.
                  You see, I'm not pretending to be a psychic or a genius. Just a man with an idea that things are going in the wrong direction and people should be concerned and aware.

                  When did that become such a crime?

                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  People need to stop whining and imagining adjust their SEO and move on. The predicting of SEO and Google going down any time soon is just fantasy and even if they did it wouldn't make you a dime at their funeral. Marketers ought to concentrate on marketing.
                  Whining? Again, you are being insulting for no reason.

                  I am trying to alert people to what's going on and make sure they understand the risk involved in some of the recent changes.

                  And as we stated by another poster, there are those out there like this guy that agree with me:

                  Negative SEO On The Rise
                  Signature

                  No signature here today!

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5910082].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                    Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post


                    You see, I'm not pretending to be a psychic or a genius.
                    Really? How about this gem

                    It won't immediately. At first no one will notice. But eventually search engines will become chaotic and search results won't be controlled or managed by anyone except the algorithm.
                    SO much for not being a psychic. Apparently skynet is going to take over Google and we should all run and hide


                    Whining? Again, you are being insulting for no reason.
                    Did I direct that at you exclusively? All this Google is making a mistake and they are going down and titles that talk about the death of SEO. It IS whining. Its certainly not telling anyone how to constructively move forward.

                    Some of us are just getting tired of it. Learn, adapt, market not pronounce the impending doom of SEO and Google because you want it to be so and your bag of techniques was so limited we all have to run and hide because Google deindexed a bunch of Websites and sent out some unnatural link warnings.
                    Signature

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5910175].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author theverysmartguy
                      IMO, the only thing that these "sky is falling" threads do is open up the doors for "marketers" with very very loose morals to swoop in and create a BS product about how they can save you from the "Death of XXXXXXX". In this case, SEO.

                      I think I've mentioned this before.

                      All of those things that have supposedly died, are not dead, just changed. This is the same thing. Now you can't get away with blasting your site with useless crap links ( even though I have only seen this really work with low competition keywords anyways ).

                      The rule of thumb has already been, QUALITY OVER QUANTITY, now it is being stressed even more so. Some people have just been slow to catch on is all.

                      -- Jeff
                      Signature

                      "Doing nothing is worse than doing it wrong."

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5910289].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author 9ball
                        Originally Posted by theverysmartguy View Post

                        IMO, the only thing that these "sky is falling" threads do is open up the doors for "marketers" with very very loose morals to swoop in and create a BS product about how they can save you from the "Death of XXXXXXX". In this case, SEO.

                        I think I've mentioned this before.

                        All of those things that have supposedly died, are not dead, just changed. This is the same thing. Now you can't get away with blasting your site with useless crap links ( even though I have only seen this really work with low competition keywords anyways ).

                        The rule of thumb has already been, QUALITY OVER QUANTITY, now it is being stressed even more so. Some people have just been slow to catch on is all.

                        -- Jeff
                        Nice said. Agree with you
                        Signature

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5910560].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
            Originally Posted by AskJon View Post

            Funny, this is exactly what I taught! At this moment I can't see ANYONE as Google totally dominates searches with their algorithm. Not sure if anyone here just even tried to find anything with bing results, but all I can say is that it's quite a challenge
            I find Bing to be on a competent level with Google with the exception of local search, but that's just me.

            And it's not like anyone had heard of Google in the late 90s when Alta Vista and AOL were dying out.
            Signature

            No signature here today!

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908766].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author n_touch
              Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

              And it's not like anyone had heard of Google in the late 90s when Alta Vista and AOL were dying out.
              This is true, and i have been seeing a lot more Google commercials on TV lately. I know that they two do not go hand in hand, but simple marketing tells you that if you are starting to drop in usage, then you go and remind the consumer about your services. I would assume by putting the two together that Google is trying to recapture what they are starting to loose to Bing and Yahoo. The only problem with this is that to many people are so used to going to Google, that I think that they only site for now that could compete with them completely would be Facebook.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908856].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author n_touch
    I don't see that SEO is going to die with the changes that are taking place. I do agree that not all of the sites that were using BMR and ALN were spam sites. The problem is that many people used it as a means to an end and not simply as a tool to go with other link building practices. I agree with them shutting them down, and I agree that for a brief time frame you may see some changes in the results due to this. I do not however foresee this being a long term problem. As said many of the sites that were dropping were thin affiliate sites that did not offer much in the way of content to their visitors. With those sites dropping, it should give way to sites that have more content, and that are more valuable in the long run.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908562].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

    o.
    Given the new rules on unnatural link building that Google has introduced, you can destroy a competitor's website without even owning it or getting access to it.
    Myth. There is no proof that you can destroy your competition regardless of who they are and what they have by way of their link profile.

    I have read in countless forums about this sort of thing occurring. The message shows up in GWT that unnatural links have been detected. A few weeks later, the site gets hit with a huge penalty.
    You have been reading in internet marketing forums where people historically have relied on weak and spammy links. Because you can tank weak sites does not mean you can tank any site. Alot of the crying going on now is not even all penalties just sites dropping because their links have been discounted.

    Negative SEO is likely to do nothing but have the weak site owners eliminate each other
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908637].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ludovico
      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      Myth. There is no proof that you can destroy your competition regardless of who they are and what they have by way of their link profile.

      You have been reading in internet marketing forums where people historically have relied on weak and spammy links. Because you can tank weak sites does not mean you can tank any site. Alot of the crying going on now is not even all penalties just sites dropping because their links have been discounted.

      Negative SEO is likely to do nothing but have the weak site owners eliminate each other
      Finally, some sense. Thank you.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908657].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mikenin
      What I am wondering right now is whether the "penalty" from Google is actually that, or if it is simply the loss of link juice due to BMR etc. being deindexed/put out of business.

      For instance, I received the notice of unnatural links in WMT, and a week later my site did drop from the top 3 positions to page 5 in the serps. When I got the message I deleted all links I had gotten through BMR. It was far from all of my links, but a fairly significant percentage. So, is my "penalty" really just my site dropping due to the loss of the links? Judging by the message from Google, it would seem that my site would be deindexed, but that has not happened. Right now I am just waiting it out. Interesting times indeed.......
      Signature

      Hey!!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5908739].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author jhauer
        Originally Posted by mikenin View Post

        What I am wondering right now is whether the "penalty" from Google is actually that, or if it is simply the loss of link juice due to BMR etc. being deindexed/put out of business.

        For instance, I received the notice of unnatural links in WMT, and a week later my site did drop from the top 3 positions to page 5 in the serps. When I got the message I deleted all links I had gotten through BMR. It was far from all of my links, but a fairly significant percentage. So, is my "penalty" really just my site dropping due to the loss of the links? Judging by the message from Google, it would seem that my site would be deindexed, but that has not happened. Right now I am just waiting it out. Interesting times indeed.......
        IMHO, and I am a noob, I think Google's slapping a penalty for "unnatural links" for a limited period of time to get our attention. Mission accomplished! I think they are aware of the possibility of penalizing competitor sites. That's why I believe that eventually it will just revert to zero juice gained from linking from the "blog networks".
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5910160].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by jhauer View Post

          IMHO, and I am a noob, I think Google's slapping a penalty for "unnatural links" for a limited period of time to get our attention. Mission accomplished! I think they are aware of the possibility of penalizing competitor sites. That's why I believe that eventually it will just revert to zero juice gained from linking from the "blog networks".

          Great point and lots of people who got the notices didn't even see a penalty. The idea that you are going to now be able to completely change Google's pages by running around with xrummer is crazy. If there were even a temporary move in the serps Google is not stupid they would correct the error. So all these predictions of Google's doom and the end of search and the results will all turn to garbage are just way out of left field. Yeah Google would just sit by and watch Bing have better results than theirs. yeah that will happen.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5910234].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author chukcha
      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      Myth. There is no proof that you can destroy your competition regardless of who they are and what they have by way of their link profile.
      I did a test the other day and blasted about 100K links in one week (xrumer) to one of the old websites and watched it in sescout in after 2 weeks it went to page 3, it's been 1 month since, it still there, so yeah no proof.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5910033].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author FrFai
    I just finished reading a post at Negative SEO On The Rise its very alarming
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5909635].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
      Originally Posted by FrFai View Post

      I just finished reading a post at Negative SEO On The Rise its very alarming
      I'm really not the only one that is thinking any of this stuff. I appreciate the post.

      And he's right. Between Google answers in search results and negative SEO, every SEO in here could be out of a job within a year or two. It's brutal.
      Signature

      No signature here today!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5909792].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    I don't even know where to start, lol.

    So you destroy the #1 page in the SERPs for your keyword, so what, what about the other thousands of sites/pages that keep lining up to get the #1 spot (per keyword).

    You'll go bankrupt trying to finance these deadly links for all your keywords, or possibly one keyword.
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5909909].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      I don't even know where to start, lol.

      So you destroy the #1 page in the SERPs for your keyword, so what, what about the other thousands of sites/pages that keep lining up to get the #1 spot (per keyword).

      You'll go bankrupt trying to finance these deadly links for all your keywords, or possibly one keyword.
      Maybe, maybe not.

      Perhaps you maintain a white hat link profile, get yourself up onto page 1 or page 2, then just go about blasting XRumer spam on every site other than yours.

      Spam is often times so cheap you can do this and it won't hurt you that much.

      It just depends how the numbers work out. If Google continues in this direction, the numbers might end up being more practical to get competitors banned than to work really hard to hit number one.
      Signature

      No signature here today!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5909924].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
    From this point forward, please do not post in this thread unless it is in relation to negative SEO. I am done having ego battles with people. Period.
    Signature

    No signature here today!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5910192].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RatRaceWatch
    I agree with Cataclysm's points, I believe things are becoming more unstable and Google in a bold effort is trying to crowd control with the deindexing of blog networks.

    Its a never ending cycle, and it is clear that the brokenness and the instability of the search engines is hurting both good and bad websites.

    As for this little dispute (which I find to be a common theme on the warrior forum, I'm not sure why people can't stick to the issues instead of using words that put others down like "whining" "low life", etc.)
    ^^^^^^^^^^
    I'm noticing a trend from certain warriors and its time to focus more on the issues guys instead of being so self-absorbed.

    The hypocrisy needs to come to an end, this isn't fight night, this is people coming together discussing issues (agreeing or not agreeing), and it amazes me that half the threads that get started on here are met with some pretty damn rude responses.

    Lets get back to the topic and discuss constructive ideas.
    Signature
    At Manifest Income our mission is to Help You Build A Business That Matches Your Passion.

    We offer: Free Business Plans, Web Design, Online Marketing Training, Mentorship, & Support!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5910257].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by RatRaceWatch View Post

      The hypocrisy needs to come to an end, this isn't fight night, this is people coming together discussing issues (agreeing or not agreeing), and it amazes me that half the threads that get started on here are met with some pretty damn rude responses.

      Lets get back to the topic and discuss constructive ideas.
      Theres a whole lot of rudeness in this thread but people have a selective bias based on what point of view they agree with. saying that people are sitting with their "thumbs up their asses" is downright rude and at that point no one was getting into anything but issues and expressing their views. Posting people URLs, linking websites and URls jsut to dig dirt is just what I called it. No apologies. No matter how we disagree there are some things we don't have to do. incidentally its always better not to sling mud while you are calling for it to stop. Implying anyone is a hypocrite in this thread and not being genuine about what they hold is just another brand of "fight night"

      But on point like you say - isn't really this whole thread just "fight night" with Google? Some marketers got slapped by Google and the knee jerk reaction is to hope and think that Google will go down for it?

      What exact constructive ideas are going to come out of cursing Google and putting titles up about the death of SEO? I've said this before and its just common sense once you think about it for any other business endeavor

      What business model will ever survive that thinks that its in a war with its main advertising source?

      Better to get out of that business or go seek another advertising source. The bottom line is that you can look all over the internet and the ones doing the most crying are marketers. The average user of search for Google is noticing no big difference and probably never will.

      So go ahead and think the wheel are coming off Google's train but I would love to see what is either actionable or constructive as you allege this thread can be if that is the case. None of you are going to set policy at Google so its all pointless. Thats exactly what I mean by whining. It doesn't accomplish a single actionable thing to do to move forward. nada. The overwhelming thing people will take away is that they might as well throw up their hands and abandon SEO which is totally groundless.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5910394].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author RatRaceWatch
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Theres a whole lot of rudeness in this thread but people have a selective bias based on what point of view they agree with. saying that people are sitting with their "thumbs up their asses" is downright rude and at that point no one was getting into anything but issues and expressing their views. Posting people URLs, linking websites and URls jsut to dig dirt is just what I called it. No apologies. No matter how we disagree there are some things we don't have to do. incidentally its always better not to sling mud while you are calling for it to stop. Implying anyone is a hypocrite in this thread and not being genuine about what they hold is just another brand of "fight night"

        But on point like you say - isn't really this whole thread just "fight night" with Google? Some marketers got slapped by Google and the knee jerk reaction is to hope and think that Google will go down for it?

        What exact constructive ideas are going to come out of cursing Google and putting titles up about the death of SEO? I've said this before and its just common sense once you think about it for any other business endeavor

        What business model will ever survive that thinks that its in a war with its main advertising source?

        Better to get out of that business or go seek another advertising source. The bottom line is that you can look all over the internet and the ones doing the most crying are marketers. The average user of search for Google is noticing no big difference and probably never will.

        So go ahead and think the wheel are coming off Google's train but I would love to see what is either actionable or constructive as you allege this thread can be if that is the case. None of you are going to set policy at Google so its all pointless. Thats exactly what I mean by whining. It doesn't accomplish a single actionable thing to do to move forward. nada. The overwhelming thing people will take away is that they might as well throw up their hands and abandon SEO which is totally groundless.
        I'm going to reply this response because there are certain things that need to be addressed and leave it at that (its up to you whether you want to come up with a response).

        I absolutely stand by my statement of certain people acting like hypocrites, if you can't act mature and have to use degrading comments such as whining to make a point, don't be surprised that the person lashed back in defense.

        Just because you don't agree with the analysis of SEO and google, a series of techniques and a company like any other business that has profit motive, doesn't mean you have to shoot down the person making the argument.

        Open debate is great, and the positive and negative view points are a good balance because it helps us see both sides of the equation. We need to embrace these view points and then do our own analysis and testing with the information we've received.

        There is a negative side to these actions aka as collateral damage. In order to better understand the situation in general, its good for people to open up and get honest debate.

        But time and time again, I see these threads start, and certain people come in with a sense of arrogance about the situation like they can deem what is a worthy topic.

        Then the thread turns into a battle, so yes I called this out because I know there has to be a sense of people getting sick of this crap.

        If you don't agree with the threads view points and you can't input into a constructive debate without implying that people are whining, or creating a sense of paranoia, all you are managing to do is to come across as a know-it-all that has motive to promote his signature.

        Neither you nor I know exactly what is happening within the compounds of google. We don't know if they will find it more profitable to steer smaller budgets towards their PPC and let bigger companies dominate the search, or if they were simply deindexing the blog networks to shake up the community.

        Regardless, if someone wants to address the negative implications of these actions, by all means let them do so, and have a little humility.
        Signature
        At Manifest Income our mission is to Help You Build A Business That Matches Your Passion.

        We offer: Free Business Plans, Web Design, Online Marketing Training, Mentorship, & Support!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5916582].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author maline
          I think I'm a newbie to SEO. But all of you guys so called experts should show some real case studies with some real results.

          I really DOUBT its not possible to blast your competitor right now, certainly in not such high competitive keywords where can almost be sure a lot of have not a very good link profile.

          What I DO HATE, that this solution from Google, is not better quality search results at all!

          Why?

          For some of my niche websites,I DO have better content then my competitors, DO Look better for sure, BUT some of my crap ****** website from competitors have some old links from authority websites from 1998, Have 2-3 page content, and a CRAP layout. A lot of times your *** screwed because they have some real good old links from pr6/pr7 pages from way back 1999! Does that even make sense, such old links even matter TODAY?

          And they rank higher, why, because their have more quality? NO, the SERPS just dont make sense a lot of times, so webmasters come to this kind of forums to find a solution for this crap.

          Most of the webmasters, like me only try to rank websites, which are better then my competitors. So we try to fix, what Google ranks wrong. I do hate spam sites, and google SHOULD punish those. But google should damn it get their, damn serps right.

          Im 200% for more manually reviews from Google, so webmasters do get fair rankings.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5916721].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
            Originally Posted by maline View Post

            I think I'm a newbie to SEO. But all of you guys so called experts should show some real case studies with some real results.
            Again, this has already been addressed. There is an active case study going on at another forum:

            [CASE STUDY] Negative SEO - Traffic Planet

            Why start another one and waste my money?
            Signature

            No signature here today!

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5916744].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author maline
              It will take to long with that guy, Someone should start this case studie, with a lot of multiply websites, small/big content, small/big link profile.

              Hes talking about a large e-commerce company, I dont care about that, but most of us care about small niche websites, could easily get hit!
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5916854].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by RatRaceWatch View Post

          I absolutely stand by my statement of certain people acting like hypocrites, if you can't act mature and have to use degrading comments such as whining to make a point, don't be surprised that the person lashed back in defense.
          You got dinged by google and so you are angry with anyone in the world right now that doesn't agree with you. I get that too. I am somewhat sympathetic to that but its not mature. Your last post there just proves that you are fine having a fight night and lashing out as long as its approved by you. Theres nothing , nada zip in that post about the subject of the thread just a long attack on someone who doesn't agree with you. I missed the humility in it as well but thats just me. Just remember - I didn't tank your sites.

          Everybody on here was discussing the issue. there was no reason to start talking about people having their "fingers up their a.." because they don't agree. Thats when things got derailed. So speaking of hypocrisy lets do what you SAID you were for and stay on the topic because last time I checked the word means to SAY one thing and do the other like posting a purely attack post would be and was.

          The point that I and many others have either made or agreed with those who made it is that complaining/WHINING ( a word used commonly to refer to an action on these forums)/pointing out that something is dead or dying that isn't DOESN'T DO A THING IN THIS WORLD to help anyone. A lot of people are sick of that kind of "crap" as you call it as well. The only actionable thing most people will take away and what I am opposed to them taking away is that they should

          A) Blast their competitors which is no matter what anyone claims is a scuzzy move
          B) give up on SEO because it may be, could be or already is dying.

          Now if you do have something that you feel is actionable and productive in helping people about considering that SEO is dead in the SEO section of this forum then by all means I am open to having a dialogue on that that is both respectful and humble as long as the other side doesn't resort to talking about people's rear end and its proximity to their thumb rather than the subject at hand.

          P.S. My only final piece of advice is don't go pointing at sigs unless you don't have one and especially if its for services you are in support of allegedly being on the verge of dying. That can also meet the definition of hypocrisy you are attempting to level at others.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5917339].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author RatRaceWatch
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            You got dinged by google and so you are angry with anyone in the world right now that doesn't agree with you. I get that too. I am somewhat sympathetic to that but its not mature. Your last post there just proves that you are fine having a fight night and lashing out as long as its approved by you. Theres nothing , nada zip in that post about the subject of the thread just a long attack on someone who doesn't agree with you. I missed the humility in it as well but thats just me. Just remember - I didn't tank your sites.

            Everybody on here was discussing the issue. there was no reason to start talking about people having their "fingers up their a.." because they don't agree. Thats when things got derailed. So speaking of hypocrisy lets do what you SAID you were for and stay on the topic because last time I checked the word means to SAY one thing and do the other like posting a purely attack post would be and was.

            The point that I and many others have either made or agreed with those who made it is that complaining/WHINING ( a word used commonly to refer to an action on these forums)/pointing out that something is dead or dying that isn't DOESN'T DO A THING IN THIS WORLD to help anyone. A lot of people are sick of that kind of "crap" as you call it as well. The only actionable thing most people will take away and what I am opposed to them taking away is that they should

            A) Blast their competitors which is no matter what anyone claims is a scuzzy move
            B) give up on SEO because it may be, could be or already is dying.

            Now if you do have something that you feel is actionable and productive in helping people about considering that SEO is dead in the SEO section of this forum then by all means I am open to having a dialogue on that that is both respectful and humble as long as the other side doesn't resort to talking about people's rear end and its proximity to their thumb rather than the subject at hand.

            P.S. My only final piece of advice is don't go pointing at sigs unless you don't have one and especially if its for services you are in support of allegedly being on the verge of dying. That can also meet the definition of hypocrisy you are attempting to level at others.
            Mike, what the hell are you talking about?

            I think you have me confused with someone else, you talk about me being dinged by google and being angry with anyone in the world (I have faced problems with google, and the only thing I've done is contribute to the conversations about what is going on in a civil manner).

            Where are you getting this info from? You have made an ass of yourself before I was even on this thread.

            And where do you keep getting this finger up your ass quote?

            Just because someone calls you out on your lack of humility, thats a pretty weak response to say they are doing the same just because they addressed that issue.

            And Mike, I've been watching you for a long time, you don't take criticism very lightly.

            You can't go around and use these degrading terms and then not expect someone to call you out on that.

            I came to the defense of someone that was making a point whether you liked it or not and you took it to another level.

            Be humble, recognize that you dont have to get in a fight with half the people on this forum and choose your words better. I don't want to waste my time quoting all the situations where you've gotten into a confrontation with other warriors.

            As for the issue at hand: SEO in its practice will never die, however, how it is viewed by google may be changing on a very high level that doesn't benefit small marketers.

            So before you throw any more allegations, lets drop the issue, be respectful of each other and focus on the issues (then we can get an open conversation on this subject).
            Signature
            At Manifest Income our mission is to Help You Build A Business That Matches Your Passion.

            We offer: Free Business Plans, Web Design, Online Marketing Training, Mentorship, & Support!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5919124].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Racewatch pretend if you wish, I have you confused with no one else. from other threads you admitted to having sites hit and being outranked. Thats where all these rants against Google come from. We had no talk of negative SEO, SEO dying, Google is going down until oh No we got dinged for using links we always knew we could get dinged by using. No one made anything up. If you don't know where a quote comes from righ t in this thread then you didn't even bother reading the thread before launching into your attacks. You came to no one defense but someone who holds you own view and rather hypocritically skipped over all that preceded. SO I said whining when someone implied I was sitting with my thumb where it should't be because I disagreed with the proposition and nothing more at that point. Shoot me. Anyway another entire post about personalities rather than the content of this thread complete with name calling and cursing. Three in a row and all because I used the expression whining used on this forum by countless others in all kinds of threads.

              Bleh. I am done. get back on topic. What you think about me, my posts my humility or lack thereof doesn't have a thing to do with the topic. Want to start a Mike Anthony thread be my guest but this aint it.

              Now you said there could be a positive actionable constructive thing that can come out of this thread - what is it besides whining about google taking action it always indicated it would?

              Anyone - I will gladly take instruction - I sincerely want to know what I am missing - how does whining about SEO changing and potentially dying give anyone anything constructive to do about growing their business through SEO? The only ones I see giving ANY constructive input that any of us have any control over is those who say its is not dying , adjust move on without projecting doom and gloom and stop taking the irrational position that the company that you want to get traffic from is nothing but the enemy and dumber than dirt.

              Oh and theres also the take away that I have also read that you should now consider pointing back links at all your competitors no matter who they are and what they have or have not done in order to bring them down. really honorable stuff :rolleyes:. This kind of rationale is precisely part of the problem why Google feels good when it weeds out marketers but as far as anyone can see its the only actionable thing that has been proposed.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5919239].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RyanLB
    As Google gets better at determining on-page quality, you have to assume that content will start playing a much bigger role in the rankings. You can already see this over the course of the last five years or so. Whether or not they will get perfect at it will depend on a lot of different things and is up to opinion.

    But look at it like this - what does a natural link profile look like. When a site goes viral and blows up on social media, is that unnatural? How about social bookmarks? I think the best way to protect yourself is to always diversify your backlink profile as much as possible. Diversified Links + Great Content = Long term success. If you notice, most of the people having a hard time were trying to cut corners content wise, or found one type of link that worked and ran wild with it.
    Signature

    I'm a Freelance Copywriter that helps Agencies, Startups and Businesses Educate Their Audience and Grow Sales
    Skype Me: r.boze
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5910585].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author movieinhd
    hey use link buliding and articles submission and get lot off visitor
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5912605].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author boxoun
    Why use xrumer? Just use aln and linkmonster with 1 anchor text lol
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5912726].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author The A
    I have my own opinion for this. if thing like this go on unconhtrolled, google will receive so many complains from webmasters, thus forcing them to change their algo back to the old panda. negative SEO will no longer exist and the old SEO will be revived.

    In short, if you want the old SEO stay on the line, start doing negative SEO now. hammer your competitors with thousands of backlinks
    Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

    Given the new rules on unnatural link building that Google has introduced, you can destroy a competitor's website without even owning it or getting access to it.

    I have read in countless forums about this sort of thing occurring. The message shows up in GWT that unnatural links have been detected. A few weeks later, the site gets hit with a huge penalty.
    Signature
    "And all what's left is nothing but a bunch of weeping competitors..."
    Read more >>>
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5912807].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
      Originally Posted by The A View Post

      I have my own opinion for this. if thing like this go on unconhtrolled, google will receive so many complains from webmasters, thus forcing them to change their algo back to the old panda. negative SEO will no longer exist and the old SEO will be revived.

      In short, if you want the old SEO stay on the line, start doing negative SEO now. hammer your competitors with thousands of backlinks
      This is what I am hoping for honestly.

      Some people like to think that because I make a doomsday prediction about the potential death of SEO that that's what I want. It's not.

      I want things to make sense again like they did a few patches ago and for webmasters not to be afraid to use SEO to build their business like they are starting to be.
      Signature

      No signature here today!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5914593].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by The A View Post

      In short, if you want the old SEO stay on the line, start doing negative SEO now. hammer your competitors with thousands of backlinks
      Well my challenge remains and I see no one wants to take it


      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      So what? Read what I wrote I didn't say a thing about how old a site was. Here go do your experiment here


      https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp...w=1280&bih=899

      https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclien...w=1280&bih=899

      When you knock off the site at number one for both of those call me.
      What you all fail to realize is that no one is sharing the sites or the serps they or their competitors are getting whacked in (and thats for obvious legit reasons) so this talk that you can now whack any site you want and cause it to tumble is being backed up by air. Feel free to misunderstand that point but for those who want to think further -

      What has been proven is that you can knock down some sites in some serps but seriously the things Imers go for is hardly representative of every kind of serp so the air is claiming on the basis of reading some Im forums that now all sites can be taken out by unnatural links.

      Furthermore all this running around like chicken little ignores the plain facts. Negative SEO from unnatural links has been a possibility for MONTHS not just recently. Some people act like this is new and its going to change all of SEO. For goodness sake READ

      Google's Sending Webmaster Notifications About Bad Links Pointing At Their Sites

      Notice the date? We are four months away from this being around for a year and when you are not looking for your keywords and doing a regular search have you noticed the whole landscape changing? NO enterprising black hatter out there in all this time thought to take out everyone on the first page for "car insurance" "make money online" or even the lowly "backlinks" serp where the top three has remained unchanged for a year?

      We go back and forth between two extremes on this board and in IM SEO. Either Google is so super smart they can read your mind and they know everything or Google is so stupid they will never be able to detect my obvious link spam and if they do and slap me it will lead to the destruction of Google's search results and the end of the world......or ....um... The death of SEO.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5915047].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gearmonkey
    Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

    Since the advancement of Google towards eliminating link schemes and unnatural link profiles, we've seen some interesting things occur. One of the most interesting aspects of the current search engine environment is the advent of negative SEO.
    Has any website been deindexed for "unnatural link profiles"? This update was for a shakeup. It won't last. Especially when Google gets bombarded (and negative publicity) for sandboxing websites that are getting hit by their competitors.

    On site SEO is more important than ever. But I doubt the "unnatural link profile" thing will stick around. We're going to see lots of folks getting smacked by google who don't build links.
    Signature

    My Guitar Website | My SEO Blog - Advertising spots available.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5914789].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
      Originally Posted by gearmonkey View Post

      Has any website been deindexed for "unnatural link profiles"? This update was for a shakeup. It won't last. Especially when Google gets bombarded (and negative publicity) for sandboxing websites that are getting hit by their competitors.

      On site SEO is more important than ever. But I doubt the "unnatural link profile" thing will stick around. We're going to see lots of folks getting smacked by google who don't build links.
      Websites that rank don't get deindexed. Websites that link via unnatural linking and get caught do. I've seen it happen countless times.

      Then what usually happens is a penalty gets transferred to the site after the pages get deindexed.

      And I hope you're right about the "not lasting" bit.
      Signature

      No signature here today!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5915186].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author larryatlucid
    Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

    Since the advancement of Google towards eliminating link schemes and unnatural link profiles, we've seen some interesting things occur. One of the most interesting aspects of the current search engine environment is the advent of negative SEO.
    I've just had my most valuable property crash on its best keywords. It is going from a handsome revenue to peanuts, overnight. I've been writing spins for it for about a year, many many articles pointing at it.

    On the other hand, I have a very similar site targeting a niche in a similar way, and have been writing spins for it in the same way. It was barely affected by this update. But this site is only 3 months old, it just doesn't have nearly the quantity of article links pointing at it.

    Being that this second site is not much affected yet... If I tried out negative SEO on competitors, it would be some long distant time till it had the desired effect, and given the sheer number of competitors, it just isn't practical.

    So if you've been leaning heavily on BMR/ALN for a year or more, Cutts and crew are grabbing you directly by the gonads now. They aren't fooling around, they've thought through what they need to do to surgically remove the sites ranked through our blog article networks.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5914878].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SEOChemist
    SEO by definition will never die as long as search engines exist.

    If you are getting hit by these penalties then you are simply behind on the learning curve, same as the people who were still buying links based on PR even when it was general knowledge that PR was a reduced value factor.

    Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987 View Post

    Since the advancement of Google towards eliminating link schemes and unnatural link profiles, we've seen some interesting things occur. One of the most interesting aspects of the current search engine environment is the advent of negative SEO.

    I'm not in any way against Google removing link schemes from the equation. BMR and ALN getting deindexed might be the best thing happening to SEO in years.

    But then again, it might also be the worst. A lot of people use these services on great sites that attract visitors with quality content.

    As these sites drop in the search engines, they are usually replaced by even worse results, which leads me to question Google's actions, as I always do.

    But here's the real problem that might just kill SEO...

    Given the new rules on unnatural link building that Google has introduced, you can destroy a competitor's website without even owning it or getting access to it.

    I have read in countless forums about this sort of thing occurring. The message shows up in GWT that unnatural links have been detected. A few weeks later, the site gets hit with a huge penalty.

    If Google continues in the direction they are going right now, two things will happen, neither of which will benefit the searcher or the SEO, or even Google:

    1. SERPs will look chaotic. Due to the difficult of generating rankings, it will be almost impossible for anyone to control, so the front page will go from a refined competition with relevant businesses trying to rank to a complete hodge podge of random crap with no consistency.

    2. SEO will die, at least on Google. The rise of negative SEO will make it so impractical and risky to rank that very few people will bother with the risk.

    Why bother ranking when a competitor can waltz in, spend 50-100 dollars on Fiverr blasts, and watch as your site tanks a week or two later?

    I'm not saying this is for sure the death of SEO and the decline of Google. I'm just saying, why bother taking even just one step in a bad direction.

    Google should be a lot more careful than this with penalties.
    Signature

    Filled with SEO Goodness

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5914909].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
      Originally Posted by SEOChemist View Post

      SEO by definition will never die as long as search engines exist.

      If you are getting hit by these penalties then you are simply behind on the learning curve, same as the people who were still buying links based on PR even when it was general knowledge that PR was a reduced value factor.
      Yeah but could you imagine how crummy it will get if negative SEO becomes prevalent and how many SEOs might end up out of a job?

      Would really suck.
      Signature

      No signature here today!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5915162].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    I think these are extremely exciting times. I'm already working on one competitor who's above me at #1 (I'm #2). I'm currently weighing up what's more cost effective in terms of money and time - Take out the competition with negative SEO or build quality backlinks and social signals to overtake said competition.

    On the contrary to what others have said, negative SEO doesn't have to be expensive. Automation with a ridiculous footprint is key, and this doesn't mean same anchor text!

    Google bent me over and shafted me a while back and then preceded to tell me why. That information may now prove invaluable
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5915345].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ileadnowsites
      Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

      I think these are extremely exciting times. I'm already working on one competitor who's above me at #1 (I'm #2). I'm currently weighing up what's more cost effective in terms of money and time - Take out the competition with negative SEO or build quality backlinks and social signals to overtake said competition.

      On the contrary to what others have said, negative SEO doesn't have to be expensive. Automation with a ridiculous footprint is key, and this doesn't mean same anchor text!

      Google bent me over and shafted me a while back and then preceded to tell me why. That information may now prove invaluable
      New member - TODAY. I recently paid Paul a pittance to move my site from complete and utter oblivion to page 2. I thought I was pretty informed and just needed to find a group like this to gain access to the best way and locations for backlinks.

      But the negative SEO thing? ...jeepers.. I have a lot to learn!! I can't thank Paul and Angela enough..
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5915439].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

      Google bent me over and shafted me a while back and then preceded to tell me why. That information may now prove invaluable

      Dream on bro. So you blast somebody and they fall whose to say that you will be the recipient of a ranking prize? Yukon nailed it earlier - how many sites are you going to need to blast? Plus sorry but I am going to LOL when the thread is started where someone is honest enough to admit that they blasted some sites, they fell and the guys ranking below them jumped OVER THEM to to the top. ROFL

      I mean in addition to nothing happening to many sites blasted.

      But Neil don't you remember that thread (good thread too by the way) you started last year about this? We tried to duplicate the effect with people throwing all kinds of things at some sites and guess what - for the most part nothing happened.

      Back then everybody was like "impossible you can't tank a site with links". What did we learn? You can't tank every site in every serp BUT those who thought it was impossible to do it to any site were wrong.

      So you already gave us a thread with the proof that you can't assume that you can automatically take out all your competitors.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5916134].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
        Deleted double post. Mod please remove.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5916386].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Dream on bro. So you blast somebody and they fall whose to say that you will be the recipient of a ranking prize? Yukon nailed it earlier - how many sites are you going to need to blast? Plus sorry but I am going to LOL when the thread is started where someone is honest enough to admit that they blasted some sites, they fell and the guys ranking below them jumped OVER THEM to to the top. ROFL

        I mean in addition to nothing happening to many sites blasted.

        But Neil don't you remember that thread (good thread too by the way) you started last year about this? We tried to duplicate the effect with people throwing all kinds of things at some sites and guess what - for the most part nothing happened.

        Back then everybody was like "impossible you can't tank a site with links". What did we learn? You can't tank every site in every serp BUT those who thought it was impossible to do it to any site were wrong.

        So you already gave us a thread with the proof that you can't assume that you can automatically take out all your competitors.
        Yes Mike, that's the thread of inspiration! But in my opinion the key here is not about blasting a site, it's about creating the dreaded unatural link footprint. Now you know as well as I do that I've been wrong in the past :-), and I may well be wrong again, but if this can be mastered then who cares how many sites you have to tank to get to the top?

        Also, what if this is Google's master plan? Let the SEO community destroy themselves and then we won't have to worry about them!

        i think traditional SEO is still key, you can't rank a site without doing SEO. But if the site above you meets a certain criteria (affiliate site, thin site, who knows exactly what that is?), then negative SEO just might be the tool to get you to the top.

        It's worth a try in my opinion.

        And don't forget the overall outcome of that thread - I managed to tank my sites with backlinks and Google showed me exactly what backlinks I had created which they didn't like.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5916401].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

          d I may well be wrong again, but if this can be mastered then who cares how many sites you have to tank to get to the top?
          Skipping the obvious ethical implications thats just my point neil- who says it will be you at the top? Its one thing to think you will make someone drop but its another thing to figure that it will be YOU who replaces him or even the other hundred after him. So you want to tank everbody? Fine

          and when some file reconsideration requests and Google notices that for some odd reason yours is the only one out of the hundred that use to rank on the top ten pages that does't have those links?

          DING! DING DING! We know who the Negative SEO site was don't we? Deindexing time.


          You know its funny. I have been accused of being full of myself and arrogant but that comes in all forms doesn't it? I mean look at it. I am humble enough to think that Google with some great programmers, PHDs in computer sciences, algebra and mathematics would have had to think about negative SEO....no scratch that.....would have to REMEMBER about negative SEO (because google has spoken about negative SEO in the past so it was on their radar before) while a bunch of marketers are running around swearing that Google is so stupid and they are so smart that the PHds and programmers have not taken negative SEO into consideration and they will show them.

          Whose more arrogant?

          Anyway those of us more humble and thoughtful will make you guys charge into battle while we work on getting better links (no not strictly white hat either) and building better sites that have a prayer of withstanding the next big update Google has already announced will focus on ranking good content more than ever before ( but hey they are stupid so the new algo has no prayer of protecting good sites from negative SEO).

          We poor gullible saps will work on that instead because if you even do it and force google to consider what allegedly they are too stupid to have considered before - and you take down all the good sites that were ranking - we'll be there to move in when they correct it and slap your sites right where you slapped the others to.

          Win win on our side

          And don't forget the overall outcome of that thread - I managed to tank my sites with backlinks and Google showed me exactly what backlinks I had created which they didn't like.
          I haven't forgotten Neil. Your site wasn't established in the rankings. Thats the point you miss. I know from our conversations in the past that you are a good guy and I don't mean to offend you but you got slapped for links you knew about and signed off on. When you think about it I hope you reconsider and realize that getting tanked for links you knew about doesn't really justify giving people links that they don't know about just so you can rank.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5917801].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author josephseeley
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            Skipping the obvious ethical implications thats just my point neil- who says it will be you at the top? Its one thing to think you will make someone drop but its another thing to figure that it will be YOU who replaces him or even the other hundred after him. So you want to tank everbody? Fine

            and when some file reconsideration requests and Google notices that for some odd reason yours is the only one out of the hundred that use to rank on the top ten pages that does't have those links?

            DING! DING DING! We know who the Negative SEO site was don't we? Deindexing time.
            Except in reality there are usually hundreds of thousands or even millions of sites that won't need to be hit. Also, there could be more than one competitor in a niche doing it.

            Not to mention you could simply hit your site too, just not so bad or in an easily correctable way. Then leave a competitor unaffected to be blamed for the whole mess. Google will take them out for you!

            You only need to ding the ones you can't beat or fool Google into beating for you. It may only be 2 or 3. (If it's many more than that, you should choose another niche.)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5933701].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by josephseeley View Post

              You only need to ding the ones you can't beat or fool Google into beating for you. It may only be 2 or 3. (If it's many more than that, you should choose another niche.)

              Joe you have no way of knowing that the site below you ten spaces might not jump above you and with a new major algo about to be released that is even more so the case. its all pointless no matter how you guys go on about it. Go ahead knock yourselves out and then the whole game changes in a few weeks and its time you have flushed down the toilet.

              But whatever time or money you lose would have been well deserved because all it is is scheming to get somebody who didn't do anything to you because Google penalized you for doing what you always knew they reserved the right to punish your site for.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5933752].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author josephseeley
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                Joe you have no way of knowing that the site below you ten spaces might not jump above you and with a new major algo about to be released that is even more so the case. its all pointless no matter how you guys go on about it. Go ahead knock yourselves out and then the whole game changes in a few weeks and its time you have flushed down the toilet.

                But whatever time or money you lose would have been well deserved because all it is is scheming to get somebody who didn't do anything to you because Google penalized you for doing what you always knew they reserved the right to punish your site for.
                Nowhere have I said that I would use such a service. I simply don't agree with your analysis of the problem. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend the problem doesn't exist, but that isn't going to help.

                The reality is to take advantage of this, you only need to target one site. You can do more, but there is potential advantage to each and every competitor you target who ranks above you.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5935040].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by josephseeley View Post

                  Nowhere have I said that I would use such a service. I simply don't agree with your analysis of the problem. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend the problem doesn't exist, but that isn't going to help.
                  You don't even understand my analysis Joe. My analysis helps tremendously for those who don't want to jump up and down with emotional rants. Its very simple.

                  A) Google is not going to allow their whole search engine to tank and show up garbage across the board like all the marketer prognosticators are singing is going to happen. Its a fantasy. They already have something in place because negative SEO has been on their radar for years.

                  B) there are other changes coming that have already been announced and its just ludicrous to be running around claiming what is going to happen and how the whole thing is going to come down on their heads and the SEO sky is falling until we see what that is. You call waiting for more information sticking your head in the sand and pretending. I call it common sense.

                  The reality is to take advantage of this, you only need to target one site.
                  Which site? which serp? You can't tell . You don't know you can tank ANY site so saying the reality is this or that is just fibbing. I have two challenges in this very thread - go do it or if you don't want to because you already know what reality of the algo is share with all of us the infor you broke out of Googles office with.

                  Me and a lot of other reasonable people will see what is coming FIRST not whine about what is going to happen before they see the next changes then we'll adjust and see what protects sites that you guys thought you could all tank and fashion our sites based on that. we'll be all set while you guys are packing up your Negative SEO kits.
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5954216].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author josephseeley
                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    You don't even understand my analysis Joe.
                    I understand your analysis. It was flawed. You were claiming that to take advantage of negative SEO you'd have to hit many sites, and thus Google could spot your site.

                    "and when some file reconsideration requests and Google notices that for some odd reason yours is the only one out of the hundred that use to rank on the top ten pages that does't have those links?" - Mike

                    That is just incorrect analysis of what would be necessary to make negative SEO potentially worthwhile. The times negative SEO would be used are more likely to be when someone is already ranking for a term, but has a competitor or 3 above them. In that case there is no clear signal to Google like you are claiming there would be, because at most only a few sites would get hit, and many many sites don't get hit.

                    A) Google is not going to allow their whole search engine to tank and show up garbage across the board like all the marketer prognosticators are singing is going to happen. Its a fantasy. They already have something in place because negative SEO has been on their radar for years.
                    I have never said they would. You are inventing histrionics to argue against. It's a strawman fallacy.

                    What I have said is that negative SEO can obviously have a negative effect on a site. This is a well-established fact that anyone can verify for themselves. It is something Google has gone so far as to admit to. It is the obvious and necessary result of allowing incoming links to hurt a site.

                    Sure, it's not going to be able to kill Amazon and maybe not even some moderately well established sites. But there are a lot of smaller niche sites out there who are playing fair that could be hurt by this change Google has made. I have already seen some examples of this happening to small retailers who essentially got nuked by 3rd party links. I have tested it on one of my own sites. It is imminently possible, if not perfectly understood yet.

                    B) there are other changes coming that have already been announced and its just ludicrous to be running around claiming what is going to happen and how the whole thing is going to come down on their heads and the SEO sky is falling until we see what that is.
                    I have not said anything of the sort (eg. "the sky is falling").

                    You call waiting for more information sticking your head in the sand and pretending. I call it common sense.
                    I call ignoring the evidence we have now in favor of some future assumed fix "sticking your head in the sand and pretending".

                    The simple facts:

                    a) building a certain amount of a certain type of links can hurt a site
                    b) Google cannot differentiate between whether the site owner or another party requested those links
                    c) Google's officially proffered "protection" against this is absurdly ineffective given the nature of the sites which give these links.

                    C is the truly damning point. Google claims to defend against this you should contact the website owner and request the links be removed. This is an admission that the links can hurt your site. It is also ignorant of the reality that these types of sites usually have no contact information, and even if they do, contacting thousands and thousands of sites (who likely will ignore you anyways) is not a feasible thing to ask of a webmaster. Yet they offer no recourse even when it is asked for.

                    Can competitors harm ranking? - Webmaster Tools Help
                    "If you're concerned about another site linking to yours, we suggest contacting the webmaster of the site in question. Google aggregates and organizes information published on the web; we don't control the content of these pages."

                    Which site? which serp?
                    You obviously only need to negatively affect the sites in front of you. If you're at #10, you have 9 options. If you're at #2, there's only one site it would make sense to try to take down.

                    This is the point you were missing originally and why I responded. You don't have to hit all 100 sites in the top 100 to have an effect. Even a single site that is taken out would offer potential value to the one doing the negative SEO.

                    You don't know you can tank ANY site so saying the reality is this or that is just fibbing.
                    I know negative SEO can negatively affect at least some sites. I have first hand proof of this. That's enough to know that it's not working the way it should be. It hasn't been around long enough to perfect, but it is blatantly obvious that it is possible to negatively affect some sites (your own, or others) by building bad links to them.

                    Google has admitted it is possible.

                    I have two challenges in this very thread - go do it or if you don't want to because you already know what reality of the algo is share with all of us the infor you broke out of Googles office with.
                    Here you are promoting a false dichotomy. We do not need information from Google's office to infer the obvious conclusion that if a 3rd party link builder can hurt your site at your request, the same 3rd party link builder can hurt another site at your request (or your site at another party's request). Also, those who accept negative SEO is possible do not have to go do it. It's called having morals or ethics.

                    You are the one presupposing some magic on Google's part which would allow it to differentiate between the same links based on who hired the 3rd party.

                    Me and a lot of other reasonable people will see what is coming FIRST not whine about what is going to happen before they see the next changes then we'll adjust and see what protects sites that you guys thought you could all tank and fashion our sites based on that. we'll be all set while you guys are packing up your Negative SEO kits.
                    I have already seen what is. That is that by building a certain number of links from a specific source, a site of a specific nature can be given a penalty. I have verified this on one of my own sites. It's clear as day. Even Google admits it is possible.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5954469].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                      Originally Posted by josephseeley View Post

                      I understand your analysis. It was flawed. You were claiming that to take advantage of negative SEO you'd have to hit many sites, and thus Google could spot your site.
                      Look Joe I can tell you are upset about what happened to your site but you are making up a whole lot of strawmen and fabricating things. I won't bother going point for point as I don't have the time for that and theres so much you made up that frankly i just stopped reading all of it . So bullets and quick

                      A) your point above is a strawman. A single point in an analysis is not the entire analysis so no thats not my analysis only a point within it
                      B) You can pretend to know how many sites you would need to take out but in truth you have no idea. With a new algo you don't know where anything will land up so it s all pointless to be talking what will happen and that holds whether you are number five or ten. Doesn't matter. you could be three and a month from now number 34 is outranking you after you tanked number two
                      C) No one anywhere has denied that you cannot tank sites. You and a few others are creating that out of thin air.
                      D) you said it best you doubt amazon or maybe even moderate established sites would be affected and thats MY MAIN ANALYSIS - that it makes far more sense to concentrate on learning what factors would Google use to protect moderate established sites and reverse engineer that where possible than crying about Google. you think that is putting a head in the sand but its logical and beats running around thinking that Google is going to change its plans because some marketers yeah and even small businesses are screaming.
                      E) Your putting words in my mouth about me claiming that Google will be able to look at the same links and determine who placed them borders perilously close to lying. Never said anything even remotely close to that. My own take would be that other links in the profile would help but we would have to see when the new big algo is released. Certainly never implied any mind reading magic algo you are trying to sell i hold to.
                      F) we hold vast differences in how we see Google. You seem to see them as having some social responsibility to ensure small businesses are not hurt. I have no such illusions and my opinion is that if they could fill all their search results with "moderate established websites they would be quite happy even if that took out some smaller sites and businesses. To me they care about what their results look like and are not in the social justice business which si why I think all the crying and moaning that its not fair from marketers will have little effect but to make them do high fives with each other.

                      I could say plenty more about your last post to me but won't.
                      Signature

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5959824].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author josephseeley
                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                        Look Joe I can tell you are upset about what happened to your site but you are making up a whole lot of strawmen and fabricating things.
                        Not upset at all about my site. I have over 100 sites now, and the only 2 that were penalized weren't making any money anyways. (One was brand new, the other I was planning on breaking up into backlinking material.)

                        If I had a big earner that was nuked by someone else I'd be very upset of course ... anyone would.

                        A) your point above is a strawman. A single point in an analysis is not the entire analysis so no thats not my analysis only a point within it
                        You obviously do not understand what a strawman is. A strawman is an argument which doesn't pertain to the discussion in question. Since our discussion started with me addressing that specific point, addressing that specific point is definitely not a strawman at all.

                        You are the one trying to throw up strawmen to avoid addressing the specific point which I quoted and then rebutted. That point being, that there is no need to target 100 sites with negative SEO and leave a massive footprint for Google as you suggested. There is potential value in targeting even a single site that ranks above you.

                        B) You can pretend to know how many sites you would need to take out but in truth you have no idea.
                        It is extremely obvious how many sites you need to take out to get a benefit. One that ranks above you give you a benefit.

                        With a new algo you don't know where anything will land up so it s all pointless to be talking what will happen and that holds whether you are number five or ten. Doesn't matter. you could be three and a month from now number 34 is outranking you after you tanked number two
                        That is a ridiculous argument. If we follow your line of thinking to it's obvious conclusion, there is no point to any SEO whether positive or negative. There's no point to building a website even.

                        The future isn't known. That doesn't mean there aren't actions you can take which increase present value or even expected value in the future.

                        C) No one anywhere has denied that you cannot tank sites. You and a few others are creating that out of thin air.
                        First of all, I think you mean "denied that you can tank sites".

                        Second, the reality is I know that sites can be tanked. You claimed I didn't know that. Now you at least admit it's possible, so that's a step in the right direction.

                        D) you said it best you doubt amazon or maybe even moderate established sites would be affected and thats MY MAIN ANALYSIS - that it makes far more sense to concentrate on learning what factors would Google use to protect moderate established sites and reverse engineer that where possible than crying about Google. you think that is putting a head in the sand but its logical and beats running around thinking that Google is going to change its plans because some marketers yeah and even small businesses are screaming.
                        The reason why Amazon can't be hurt is it has hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions of backlinks. Moderately well established sites (say, warriorforum.com) are probably going to be safe too. They've been around long enough, and had enough backlinks, that even a large scale link building campaign isn't going to be a significant portion of their backlink profile.

                        You can't replicate that for most niche sites... or for most new sites. In fact, if you tried to protect your site by building a backlink profile like that, you're probably going to get penalized.

                        You are sticking your head in the sand and pretending like there is no problem here. It's an obvious problem, with an obvious solution. Google simply has to not penalize sites for having backlinks. The solution isn't to force webmasters to contact thousands, or even tens of thousands of websites and ask to have links taken down. The solution isn't for a niche market mom and pop website to build millions of backlinks either.

                        But those are the solutions you and Google are proposing. It's absurd. Just devalue the links instead of penalize sites and the entire problem vanishes in one simple stroke.

                        E) Your putting words in my mouth about me claiming that Google will be able to look at the same links and determine who placed them borders perilously close to lying. Never said anything even remotely close to that. My own take would be that other links in the profile would help but we would have to see when the new big algo is released. Certainly never implied any mind reading magic algo you are trying to sell i hold to.
                        You keep referring to future changes that are going to make it all "different" and that negative SEO isn't a problem because of them. If you want to be more specific about the changes that will make negative SEO less of a problem feel free to expound upon them. The simple fact though is that Google would have to develop a way to ascertain who built the links (and who paid them to do so) to eliminate the problem, and that's impossible.

                        F) we hold vast differences in how we see Google. You seem to see them as having some social responsibility to ensure small businesses are not hurt. I have no such illusions and my opinion is that if they could fill all their search results with "moderate established websites they would be quite happy even if that took out some smaller sites and businesses. To me they care about what their results look like and are not in the social justice business which si why I think all the crying and moaning that its not fair from marketers will have little effect but to make them do high fives with each other.
                        If you stopped trying to mindread you might make be able to make a better argument.

                        Google is in business to make money. It behooves them to provide the best results possible. I vehemently disagree that allowing competitors to take out sites will promote better results. The good, honest people will not use this negative SEO tool. They will focus on building quality sites.

                        The spammers and scammers obviously will be the ones who utilize any negative SEO tool. This tilts the playing field towards those who want to focus on hurting their competition rather than improving their website.

                        That is it's only effect penalizing sites for bad links (rather than devaluing the links) has, and why Google is stupid for allowing it. Even the "shock and awe" part could have been had by announcing that all the backlink networks had been deindexed. It's just mindbogglingly stupid of Google to choose between two similar functional options, and pick the one that allows others to negatively affect their product in such an obvious manner.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5960161].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                          alright since you insist on some point for point rebuttals

                          Originally Posted by josephseeley View Post

                          You obviously do not understand what a strawman is.
                          actually its you that doesn't get what a strawman is. You can read about it here.

                          Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                          you attempted to claim that a single point in my analysis represented the whole of it. Not only is that a strawman its a classic strawman.

                          I've made it abundantly clear why simply removing a site above you does not insure you get the spot but knock yourself out kidding yourself. Even that point is not my analysis as you claim.

                          It is extremely obvious how many sites you need to take out
                          Its extremely obvious you are new to SEO. Site s drop and fall all the time. People have had site's leap frog them and swore they would get the top spot if they did this or that and it hasn't happened even when there is no major change much less one that by all accounts is coming and will be major but hey believe what you want.

                          That is a ridiculous argument. If we follow your line of thinking to it's obvious conclusion, there is no point to any SEO whether positive or negative. There's no point to building a website even
                          whats not understood often seems ridiculous to the one that does not understand. No one is talking about the regular ups and owns or minor changes of the algo. We are talking about a significant change, the advent of deindexing, google penalizing for backlinks and the concerns of negative SEO that will surely be addressed. Now whose putting their head in the sand? these are not normal average changes that if we can't deal with we shouldn't have a site. Make better arguments.

                          Second, the reality is I know that sites can be tanked. You claimed I didn't know that. Now you at least admit it's possible, so that's a step in the right direction.
                          LOL. nice try but not exactly an honest ploy. I don't have to now admit to anything because Ive always contended that sites can be hit but I think its silly to think that you can hit any site and make it fall and thats what I have said ALL along.

                          Moderately well established sites (say, warriorforum.com) are probably going to be safe too. They've been around long enough, and had enough backlinks, that even a large scale link building campaign isn't going to be a significant portion of their backlink profile.
                          See?You don't have the first clue about what sites might do this, probably would do this etc etc. thats my whole point. We had a great thread last year and it was AFTER the first notices starting coming out ( seriously people need to read and keep up. negative SEO was possible from July of last year we are closing in on a year and nothing being predicted on any major scale has happened). guys did xrummer runs on relatively new sites, they threw a ton load of unnatural links- nothing. Why ? We are not exactly sure. Some took that as an indication that you couldn't tank sites but now we know even better thats wrong. these sites had nothing you claimed - not age, not backlinks no establishment. So lets quit with the pretending that we know what we don't. Thats why I say wait, learn , research and you call that sticking a head in the sand. LOL

                          Nothing in the algo to this date has ever been one dimensional. Even to this date there are people with webmaster accounts and a pile of junk backlinks pointing at their site that have got no warning and you still see weak sites with ton loads of unnatural links at the top of weak serps like we always have.

                          SO the intelligent perspective on this is that the algo will not be one dimensional in this either. You could throw a bunch of links at one site and it would tank because it met other criteria then you throw it at another and something with that site fails to trigger a drop. So all this nonsense about all the good sites would be taken down hardly has to be so. You will probably seethe to hear this but alot of the sites that have tanked so far deserved to be.

                          You are sticking your head in the sand and pretending like there is no problem here.
                          First you are back to fibbing again. No where did I say there is not problem. I just don't think as you and others that whining is the answer.

                          It's an obvious problem, with an obvious solution. Google simply has to not penalize sites for having backlinks.
                          WOW! I get you now. You think your actionable solution is to post in forums and complain and that that will cause Google to say uncle and change their minds. :rolleyes:. Its a lousy break down weak business strategy to rely on some other company to change course so that you can rank.

                          but Ummm Good luck with that. lol

                          But those are the solutions you and Google are proposing. It's absurd. Just devalue the links instead of penalize sites and the entire problem vanishes in one simple stroke.
                          No you are being absurd once again claiming things I never said. Googles blurb about getting in contact with them has no equivalence to anything I have said. You sure you are not upset because you sure do sound like a guy really miffed?


                          Google is in business to make money. It behooves them to provide the best results possible. I vehemently disagree that allowing competitors to take out sites will promote better results. The good, honest people will not use this negative SEO tool. They will focus on building quality sites.
                          actually we agree so I don't know what you are "vehemently disagreeing with" unless you are just stuck in a rut doing that. Google can't let that happen across the board and thats why it won't and all this SEo is dead business is just an empty I think I am smarter than everyone at Google rant.

                          as we can see here -

                          It's just mindbogglingly stupid of Google to choose between two similar functional options, and pick the one that allows others to negatively affect their product in such an obvious manner.
                          It mind boggling alright. It takes a certain lack of thinking things through to think we are that smarter than a bunch of guys with PHds , programmers solid business men. Someone called me arrogant before but I am not the one that that thinks that all the people over a Google are as dumb as dirt. That takes a high level of arrogance.

                          Anyway happy trails with the I am going to whine as loud as I can until google gives marketers the solution that we want strategy. I ain't buying that the guys over Google haven't thought about the ramification of negative SEO or even that they care about all you ultra smart marketing people crying so I'll just plug away with researching and finding solutions that don't rely on someone else giving it to me.

                          I mean I won't participate in the march but when you get the WSO up I'll buy a t-shirt - I guess.
                          Signature

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5961065].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author josephseeley
                            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                            alright since you insist on some point for point rebuttals
                            It's one of my favorite activities. Thanks

                            you attempted to claim that a single point in my analysis represented the whole of it. Not only is that a strawman its a classic strawman.
                            I quoted an argument you made and specifically discussed that point with you specifically. That is not a strawman.

                            You wanted to expand it to include other things I did not address, so you can refute arguments I never made. You started arguing against "the sky is falling" arguments, which had nothing at all to do with what we were discussing. That is a strawman.

                            I've made it abundantly clear why simply removing a site above you does not insure you get the spot but knock yourself out kidding yourself.Even that point is not my analysis as you claim.
                            It is an argument you've proffered, and one which I have directly addressed.

                            You are clearly wrong on that point. If you target any number X sites in a manner which has in the past shown to penalize sites, you have an expected value. That expected value takes into account the likelihood of success. Just because success isn't 100% guaranteed doesn't mean that there is no expected value. It's just less expected value.

                            It is clear that there is expected value for targeting at least some types of sites. (Ones without massive backlink profiles.) How much realized value there would be from targeting any one site is difficult to predict, but it is a > 0 expected value.

                            You tried to ridicule the idea that there could be any value in this type of action. You are wrong, there is potential value in negative SEO.

                            Its extremely obvious you are new to SEO. Site s drop and fall all the time. People have had site's leap frog them and swore they would get the top spot if they did this or that and it hasn't happened even when there is no major change much less one that by all accounts is coming and will be major but hey believe what you want.
                            I have 100 websites I personally manage, and have helped others on many more. I watch ~100 niches and who ranks for what on a daily basis.

                            Most sites in the top 10 in these niches a year ago are still there. While there is movement in SERPs, it's not so great that hurting a competitor now isn't of any value. It will be valuable for some time, in some cases it could be years.

                            Again, your argument relies on the assertion that because expected value can't be 100% certain that there is no expected value. This is just absurd.

                            whats not understood often seems ridiculous to the one that does not understand. No one is talking about the regular ups and owns or minor changes of the algo. We are talking about a significant change, the advent of deindexing, google penalizing for backlinks and the concerns of negative SEO that will surely be addressed. Now whose putting their head in the sand? these are not normal average changes that if we can't deal with we shouldn't have a site. Make better arguments.
                            You aren't following your logic to it's conclusion and so don't understand what I was saying. You have at least 3 times based arguments on how there is no use in doing something with expected value, just because realized value can't be perfectly predicted in the future. You have this blind faith in Google to fix everything before any potential is realized.

                            I do not have that blind faith in Google, especially given how they are treating the problem. It clear they understand there is a problem, yet they resist the easy and obvious fix in favor of something stupid. (eg. "go contact thousands of webmasters and ask them to take down the links, we can't help you")

                            I don't have to now admit to anything because Ive always contended that sites can be hit but I think its silly to think that you can hit any site and make it fall and thats what I have said ALL along.
                            No, what you said initially was that you would need to hit too many sites (100) and leave too easily a footprint (all but you) for Google to spot to make it work. That is just not true. Now you are trying to misrepresent the argument to pretend you never said that.

                            See?You don't have the first clue about what sites might do this, probably would do this etc etc. thats my whole point. We had a great thread last year and it was AFTER the first notices starting coming out ( seriously people need to read and keep up. negative SEO was possible from July of last year we are closing in on a year and nothing being predicted on any major scale has happened). guys did xrummer runs on relatively new sites, they threw a ton load of unnatural links- nothing. Why ? We are not exactly sure. Some took that as an indication that you couldn't tank sites but now we know even better thats wrong. these sites had nothing you claimed - not age, not backlinks no establishment. So lets quit with the pretending that we know what we don't. Thats why I say wait, learn , research and you call that sticking a head in the sand. LOL
                            Google changed things last month. It is now much more easy to get a site penalized. Perhaps it was possible earlier, but as you said it was very difficult to predict. But now it's much, much simpler.

                            Google themselves have given us the roadmap as to how to exploit it.

                            Nothing in the algo to this date has ever been one dimensional. Even to this date there are people with webmaster accounts and a pile of junk backlinks pointing at their site that have got no warning and you still see weak sites with ton loads of unnatural links at the top of weak serps like we always have.
                            The type and proportion of links are key.

                            Just spamming random link types isn't going to do anything likely, and may actually help "balance" an imbalanced link profile.

                            SO the intelligent perspective on this is that the algo will not be one dimensional in this either. You could throw a bunch of links at one site and it would tank because it met other criteria then you throw it at another and something with that site fails to trigger a drop. So all this nonsense about all the good sites would be taken down hardly has to be so.
                            I have never said all the good sites would be taken down. You are again inventing a strawman to argue against.

                            What I have said is that it's possible for good websites to be taken down, and that it is a mistake for Google to have allowed that.

                            You will probably seethe to hear this but alot of the sites that have tanked so far deserved to be.
                            It doesn't bother me at all. It's quite obvious that there is more crap websites on the internet than good sites. Naturally more crap would be hurt (and often helped) by just about any change.

                            I just don't think as you and others that whining is the answer.
                            Disagreeing with you is not whining. You were wrong. I pointed out how. Man up and admit that there's no need to hit 100 sites to get value out of negative SEO and we can be done with this.

                            WOW! I get you now. You think your actionable solution is to post in forums and complain and that that will cause Google to say uncle and change their minds. :rolleyes:. Its a lousy break down weak business strategy to rely on some other company to change course so that you can rank.

                            but Ummm Good luck with that. lol
                            If I want to talk to Google I will talk to Google. I know some engineers there personally.

                            Google didn't post here, I was responding to you. To assume I am talking to Google when I multiquote you is rather absurd.

                            I like a good argument simply for argument's sake. Google can do whatever it wants, I will adapt as best I can or move on. But I will always voice my opinion, especially in discussions.

                            Googles blurb about getting in contact with them has no equivalence to anything I have said.
                            I didn't say it had equivalence. It does have relevance though.

                            You sure you are not upset because you sure do sound like a guy really miffed?
                            I love to argue. It doesn't upset me one bit.

                            actually we agree so I don't know what you are "vehemently disagreeing with" unless you are just stuck in a rut doing that. Google can't let that happen across the board and thats why it won't and all this SEo is dead business is just an empty I think I am smarter than everyone at Google rant.
                            The simple fact is right now Google does allow it. They admit it works. They give retarded suggestions for how to deal with it.

                            The simple solution is to not allow links to hurt a site. Then discount the bad links. The results would be exactly the same except it wouldn't allow people any opportunity to hurt another site. All the positives with none of the negatives. It's a no-brainer.

                            It mind boggling alright. It takes a certain lack of thinking things through to think we are that smarter than a bunch of guys with PHds , programmers solid business men.
                            Everyone is wrong sometimes. Google is wrong to allow links to harm sites, because they can't control who builds links, and they can't identify who commissions the links.

                            They are doubly wrong in this case because there is an equivalent solution to the problem (what to do with "bad" links that they've identified) which has the same positive influences on SERPs, but with none of the negative potential to hurt good sites.

                            Someone called me arrogant before but I am not the one that that thinks that all the people over a Google are as dumb as dirt. That takes a high level of arrogance.
                            Contrary to what you are suggesting, "wrong" does not necessarily equal "dumb as dirt". Everyone is wrong at times. This is one of the times Google has been wrong, and sadly to a ridiculous level. But even then there are obviously a lot of very bright and intelligent employees at Google.

                            Allowing sites to be negatively affected by links they didn't build is simply not a good solution to the issue of bad links. Asking a webmaster to go contact 10000 different sites to take care of a problem that never should have existed is simply ludicrous.

                            It doesn't matter how bright or intelligent someone who offers such a system is, they're still wrong.

                            I mean I won't participate in the march but when you get the WSO up I'll buy a t-shirt - I guess.
                            Thanks! Your order has been processed! Where should I send the bill?
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5961653].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                              Originally Posted by josephseeley View Post

                              It's one of my favorite activities. Thanks
                              A luxury I don't have at the moment. so I'll skip the long wall of text and just respond to a few. I see you are still harping on your inability to grasp what a strawman argument is and how a single point does not make up an analysis but been there done that. Onward

                              That expected value takes into account the likelihood of success. Just because success isn't 100% guaranteed doesn't mean that there is no expected value. It's just less expected value.
                              Sorry but thats empty verbage. You are not guaranteed to get the slot that is the only value. Can you know that you will take the slot of someone you blasted especially with the recent changes this year? NO. You haven't even demonstrated that you can pick a serp beforehand and tank a site. Do it and stop talking about what can be done and you might learn some unexpected things. You are basing it all on your and some other sites tanking most of which probably deserved to be tanked. Thats right. Marketers as a whole have some of the worse sites. Speak it like it is and having seen what many call quality content when you hear people running around saying my site got tanked and it had quality this and quality that - take it with a pinch of salt. Thats not to say some good sites haven't been tanked but THATS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE with any algo change. When you can point to a serp people care about and see negative SEO destroying the front page results you will have some facts - until then its all just chicken little.

                              You tried to ridicule the idea that there could be any value in this type of action. You are wrong, there is potential value in negative SEO.
                              Then go ahead and take out the two sites I posted earlier as a challenge and a test to your theory. My point has been untouched. Because Google tanked your site doesn't mean you can look at any site and tank theirs. You have yet to prove that and thats why you ignore the challenge and the test that would prove your point.


                              Most sites in the top 10 in these niches a year ago are still there. While there is movement in SERPs, it's not so great that hurting a competitor now isn't of any value. It will be valuable for some time, in some cases it could be years.
                              LOl. So you prove my point without knowing it. How long has negative SEO been available? Since July of last year. Read it and weep

                              Google's Sending Webmaster Notifications About Bad Links Pointing At Their Sites

                              In all that time is it really logical to assume that in those niches no one (especially considering the scuzzy reputation of some black hatters) tried to muscle in on those niches with negative SEO. So why are so many serps sitting just fine? I am not one of those people who thinks google can walk on water, read minds, even tell quality content half the time but it really is to use your words "mind boggling" silly how stupid some marketers like yourself think google is and how smart you are. Its that arrogance (and yeah some hurt feeling about getting your sites hit) that is driving all this running around claiming Google is about to destroy themselves - and meanwhile nearly a year later some marketers sites have been tanked, a few small businesses but nothing that is going to change Google's minds.


                              I do not have that blind faith in Google, especially given how they are treating the problem. It clear they understand there is a problem, yet they resist the easy and obvious fix in favor of something stupid.
                              Yes we know. They are dumb as dirt and you all are so smart. We heard it before. You might not use those words but quotes above prove its your position -next.

                              Just spamming random link types isn't going to do anything likely, and may actually help "balance" an imbalanced link profile.
                              Umm...read up. People have been tanked by spamming random links. Xrummer has caused some penalties and notices. If you don't know that then you really have no idea what you are talking about

                              and with that I'll leave off all the other verbage especially after reading this

                              I like a good argument simply for argument's sake.
                              Thats now apparent

                              The truly wonderful thing will be if your strategy of complaining Google into solving the problem works. Like I said a page ago that and trying to take down other people sites because you got dinged for using links we all knew we could be dinged for are the only things actionable in this thread from people on your side.

                              Whine loudly so that Google will change & and sabatoge sites ( not you but others have said they will try it).

                              Save me a T- shirt. The ones for tops $9.95. It aint worth half that but if I feel sorry for you guys I can help a charity.
                              Signature

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5965013].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author josephseeley
                                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                A luxury I don't have at the moment. so I'll skip the long wall of text and just respond to a few. I see you are still harping on your inability to grasp what a strawman argument is and how a single point does not make up an analysis but been there done that. Onward
                                If you don't want to address arguments, feel free to drop them. To say you won't address them and then address them is absurd.

                                You are the one who made strawman arguments. You made a specific claim, I refuted it specifically. You threw up strawmen left and right to try to obfuscate.

                                You are not guaranteed to get the slot that is the only value.
                                Statistics and probability. Every site taken out above you offers potential value. Just because in some cases it might not be realized value does not change that the act of taking out a site above you has expected value.

                                Can you know that you will take the slot of someone you blasted especially with the recent changes this year?
                                You don't have to know for sure that you will take the slot. You only have to know that someone will take the slot and that opens up a possibility that it will be you.

                                Generally speaking, when someone at the top of the SERPs is taken out, everyone below wins. Some win small, some win big, but most everyone is going to move up.

                                NO. You haven't even demonstrated that you can pick a serp beforehand and tank a site. Do it and stop talking about what can be done and you might learn some unexpected things.
                                It is obvious that it is an immoral act. It may very well be an illegal one. Of course I wouldn't do it.

                                That doesn't mean it isn't possible. There are examples of sites that have been deindexed because of their backlink building. This is an accepted fact by everyone. It doesn't need to be proven.

                                The inevitable conclusion of that fact is that 3rd party sites can be harmed by negative SEO. This is because Google cannot differentiate between a link based on who built it (or who commissioned them to build it).

                                You are basing it all on your and some other sites tanking most of which probably deserved to be tanked.
                                Some of the sites I've seen tanked this way are rather high quality ecommerce sites which sell their own manufactured product. Mom and pop type of places which don't have a clue about SEO, and so have rather thin backlinking profiles because they do it "the right way" rather than building links.

                                Of course there's a lot of low quality sites that also tanked. We've been over this before. Just because bad sites can be hurt from it doesn't excuse that good sites can and have been hurt by it.

                                Thats right. Marketers as a whole have some of the worse sites.
                                This type of change actually favors marketers over others. That's exactly why it's so stupid. I know not to build certain types of links to my site, and how to set up my backlinking profile to not get hurt. Mom and Pop eStores and non-SEO savy bloggers who don't hire SEO experts to build backlinks for them are the ones who are most at risk.

                                LOl. So you prove my point without knowing it. How long has negative SEO been available? Since July of last year. Read it and weep

                                Google's Sending Webmaster Notifications About Bad Links Pointing At Their Sites
                                Google has massively changed the landscape in this regard recently. Relatively speaking, very few of those notices were sent out until just recently. Very few types and locations of links had been allowed to negatively affect the sites they pointed to.

                                It is obvious that the potential for negative SEO increased dramatically in the past couple of months.

                                In all that time is it really logical to assume that in those niches no one (especially considering the scuzzy reputation of some black hatters) tried to muscle in on those niches with negative SEO.
                                I have seen instances which might have been negative SEO in those niches. Sites which got a big spike of backlinks and then were gone (sometimes they come back, sometimes they don't). I can't tell for sure if it was negative SEO or just bad SEO, because there is no way to differentiate between "bad" links being built by the website owners/commissioned 3rd party, or by a 3rd party without the website owner's consent.

                                So why are so many serps sitting just fine?
                                There can be many reasons for that.

                                a) most sites probably haven't been targetted
                                b) some sites are well established enough that hitting them wouldn't be feasible
                                c) some sites may have been targetted but the implementation was poor
                                d) the potential for negative SEO was very limited until recently

                                Generally speaking, my sites are in niches that are far from the eyes of internet marketers. Most of the competitors don't do much of any SEO. I couldn't tell you what happens in seedier niches. (Even my IM site generally just sits there. I never planned on making any money from it until tons of BMR refugees started flooding into it recently. This is where your assumptions are completely opposite of reality. You presume I have been hurt by Google's attack on these types of links. The reality is I made several thousands of dollars in the week the news of blog networks being deindexed by helping these refugees find new homes. Before that my earnings from the site were $0. The only harm to me was with 2 of my 100 sites which received penalties, but since they were not making any money anyways it's rather irrellevent to me. One was a site I was in the process of breaking up into backlinking material. The other was somewhat new and I'll just move the content to a new domain. No worries.)

                                I can tell you that a large number of sites in some of my niches do not have much in the way of backlink profiles. It's possible to rank on the first page with only 20-30 well built links. These types of sites would be at great risk if someone with bad intentions moved in, because those types of sites are very easy to tank. It has nothing to do with the quality of the sites, and everything to do with backlink profiles.

                                I am not one of those people who thinks google can walk on water, read minds, even tell quality content half the time but it really is to use your words "mind boggling" silly how stupid some marketers like yourself think google is and how smart you are. Its that arrogance (and yeah some hurt feeling about getting your sites hit) that is driving all this running around claiming Google is about to destroy themselves - and meanwhile nearly a year later some marketers sites have been tanked, a few small businesses but nothing that is going to change Google's minds.
                                You are still failing to comprehend the difference between "stupid actions" and "stupid people". An action which is stupid can be taken by very intelligent people sometimes. Google has done a lot of great things. That doesn't mean they always do the right thing, or never make stupid mistakes.

                                I judge this specific action on the basis of it's own merits, and it fails in that regard. There is absolutely no good reason to allow backlinks to harm a site when everything good that could come from such a system is replicable in a system with none of the drawbacks.

                                Umm...read up. People have been tanked by spamming random links. Xrummer has caused some penalties and notices. If you don't know that then you really have no idea what you are talking about
                                I have not claimed otherwise. I have said that it is likely that random links will not harm a site, and could even help. Obviously by focusing on a specific type of links that are known to harm sites you can be more sure of negatively affecting a site than if you just send random links which can be beneficial or harmful (unknown as they are "random").

                                The truly wonderful thing will be if your strategy of complaining Google into solving the problem works.
                                That is not my strategy. I am arguing with you because you were incorrect. You do realize you are not Google, right?

                                Like I said a page ago that and trying to take down other people sites because you got dinged for using links we all knew we could be dinged for are the only things actionable in this thread from people on your side.
                                No. There are actionable topics in this thread. One, is that by understanding how negative SEO works you can better prepare your own sites' backlink profiles to be resistant to such attacks. Two, is that by understanding how negative SEO works you can avoid doing it to your own sites unintentionally.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5967110].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author misha7878
    google is not stupid, they do not penalize sites that easily for what competitors can do.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5917466].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author gearmonkey
      Originally Posted by misha7878 View Post

      google is not stupid, they do not penalize sites that easily for what competitors can do.
      Actually they did that exact same thing to my client over the weekend. They got the wonderful "unnatural link" message in webmaster tools. Upon further inspection, someone is bombarding my clients website with horrible spam backlinks.

      Google is that stupid. They know many good websites will be taken out during their campaign and they don't care.

      I suggest to anyone who gets that message in their Google Webmaster Tools to blame their competitors are maliciously trying to hurt your rank so they can climb up.
      Signature

      My Guitar Website | My SEO Blog - Advertising spots available.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5917520].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by gearmonkey View Post

        Actually they did that exact same thing to my client over the weekend. They got the wonderful "unnatural link" message in webmaster tools. Upon further inspection, someone is bombarding my clients website with horrible spam backlinks.
        had a client that had the same thing . However he came clean and indicated he was using other services
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5917982].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author nik0
        Banned
        Originally Posted by gearmonkey View Post

        Actually they did that exact same thing to my client over the weekend. They got the wonderful "unnatural link" message in webmaster tools. Upon further inspection, someone is bombarding my clients website with horrible spam backlinks.
        Love that part You sure it's not you?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5918169].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RyanLB
    I don't think there is any reason to panic. Keep in mind that sometimes these algorithm changes are temporary, rolling changes to weed out some bad sites, and then things settle down and go back to normal for a period of time. I suspect that is what is going on here. In a few weeks, as has happened in the past when Google seemingly pulls the plug on a lot of sites at once, things will settle down.

    It's not in Google's best interest to allow negative SEO to become prevelent. I would have a bigger worry about the moving toward content-based rankings in that case.
    Signature

    I'm a Freelance Copywriter that helps Agencies, Startups and Businesses Educate Their Audience and Grow Sales
    Skype Me: r.boze
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5917871].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rodanglee
    I still had a couple of those blog networks subscription around.. Holy thunderin' oxymoron! A thunderbolt of idea stuck me.. Who's interested of negative SEO service here? I still have active subscriptions on most blog networks and perhaps a WSO sales page? It'll go something like this

    100 ALN blast +100 UAW blast + 100 SEO link monster + 100 SEO linkvine = $40

    Thats instant penalty.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5918079].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by rodanglee View Post

      I still had a couple of those blog networks subscription around.. Holy thunderin' oxymoron! A thunderbolt of idea stuck me.. Who's interested of negative SEO service here? I still have active subscriptions on most blog networks and perhaps a WSO sales page? It'll go something like this

      100 ALN blast +100 UAW blast + 100 SEO link monster + 100 SEO linkvine = $40

      Thats instant penalty.
      See If you can bury this thread in the SERPs, it's currently ranking #1 for the keyword phrase:

      Negative SEO - The Death of SEO
      Seriously, fire away.
      Signature
      Hi
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5918102].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author The A
      pretty tempting an offfer bro but i doubt if negative SEO really works for some huge authority website with very old domains
      Originally Posted by rodanglee View Post

      I still had a couple of those blog networks subscription around.. Holy thunderin' oxymoron! A thunderbolt of idea stuck me.. Who's interested of negative SEO service here? I still have active subscriptions on most blog networks and perhaps a WSO sales page? It'll go something like this

      100 ALN blast +100 UAW blast + 100 SEO link monster + 100 SEO linkvine = $40

      Thats instant penalty.
      Signature
      "And all what's left is nothing but a bunch of weeping competitors..."
      Read more >>>
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5918771].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RatRaceWatch
    Sorry but your vast generalization of what I have talked about via this forum and using it to support your intolerant stance on what people should say addressing google is a poor argument with no merit.

    I don't claim to know all the answers, I have had my ups and my downs like many internet marketers and I see now if you didn't follow my point from the previous posts in this thread there is probably little hope of you accepting fault and moving on.

    So lets get to the issues here:

    I'm not sure who taught you negatives were unneccessary, and challenging a power-house company was futile, but you seem to forget that companies like google can disappear fairly quickly.

    Many of the most successful people in the world embrace the negatives, they want to see the other side of the equation because it keeps the situation "real".

    As people that are trying to make income and build solutions, we can't always focus on the positives, and even if someone thinks this may be the downfall of google doesn't mean it can't be met with a respectful response.

    My personal standpoint is google is walking a very thin line right now. As more businesses realize they need to have an online presence, the unstability of the search engine market and SEO could (and is) leading many people to call foul with google.

    Google hasn't come up with a solid solution to distinguish good content from bad content yet. And all their algorithms are simply that, algorithms that can be gamed and abused.

    For someone that promotes a very black hat concept, you should be more aware that this gaming of the search engines isn't a sustainable business model for google if they want to keep their user base satisfied.

    And google realizes this. The big question everyone is trying to figure out is whether google is trying to eliminating link building in general, in other words the only links that you should be gaining are from other people with no such input from yourself.

    That eliminates: Blog networks (Public & Private), Article Marketing, Guest Posting, Web 2.0, Blog Commenting etc.

    So yes, could we be on the verge of the collapse of googles control on the search engines? Absolutely.

    It could also be the other way around, google is a company that wants to make the most profit possible.

    They proved that when they bought out youtube, put ads on videos for partners, and then decided to allow regular users to put ads on their videos too.

    You can stand by and teach unethical solutions, and scoff at people that are trying to wrap their heads around googles true intentions, or we can go over the evidence, what is still at top in the search engines, the replies on matt cutts blog, how google is changing how its search engines display results, etc.
    Signature
    At Manifest Income our mission is to Help You Build A Business That Matches Your Passion.

    We offer: Free Business Plans, Web Design, Online Marketing Training, Mentorship, & Support!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5922987].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by RatRaceWatch View Post

      I'm not sure who taught you negatives were unneccessary, and challenging a power-house company was futile, but you seem to forget that companies like google can disappear fairly quickly.
      This isn't the late 1990's, Google survived the dot com gold rush.

      Google isn't going to disappear.

      [source]
      Google reported revenues of $10.58 billion for the quarter ended December 31, 2011, an increase of 25% compared to the fourth quarter of 2010.






      Originally Posted by RatRaceWatch View Post

      It could also be the other way around, google is a company that wants to make the most profit possible.

      They proved that when they bought out youtube, put ads on videos for partners, and then decided to allow regular users to put ads on their videos too.
      Isn't that the reason your running an online business, to earn money?

      I doubt you would turn down $10.5 billion in earnings for a single quarter.
      Signature
      Hi
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5923168].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by RatRaceWatch View Post


      Many of the most successful people in the world embrace the negatives, they want to see the other side of the equation because it keeps the situation "real".
      Which by interpretation means you have nothing actionable. As suspected. Real on a marketing forum is something people can use. SEO is dying is not real, Google is going down and will be defeated is not real or actionable. Its all just wishes trying to be horses and beggars trying to ride them. Marketers that are in the businesses of thinking about what CAN happen to another company are not making a dime off of prognosticating the doom of Google

      And google realizes this. The big question everyone is trying to figure out is whether google is trying to eliminating link building in general, in other words the only links that you should be gaining are from other people with no such input from yourself.
      Your "everyone" there is false though. People who know SEO are not trying to figure that out. Its an extreme stance that borders on paranoia. Google has nowhere stated you can't promote your site and that links that come from "input from yourself" are not allowed. How can you be so unaware of SEO offering what you do? It is a common white hat practice to network with webmasters , ask them for links, do press releases and promote your site - all of which is "input from yourself". It is however against you leaving your own links. The difference is huge. there hasn't been a mystery in link building for years as far as google is concerned. Everything that got dinged in the last year were all things we knew they didn't like and would not approve of. Being in denial about that is ridiculous.

      Blasting sites - we knew
      Buying links network or otherwise- we knew
      spinning content - we knew

      So yes, could we be on the verge of the collapse of googles control on the search engines? Absolutely.
      Horse feathers. the last time I checked there has to be signs of something significant happening (not alleging something is about to) to talk about being on the "verge of collapse". By that reasoning Microsoft is on the verge of Linux taking over the desktop or Apple is on the verge of being beat out in the tablet market and having to withdraw from that market. There is nothing that signals this hope of yours. All there is is a bunch of marketers stung by the fact that they used links they knew Google didn't like and trying to sooth themselves with the fact that it will now lead to the collapse of Google through negative SEO like they are smarter than everyone else at Google. Offering what I do I have no pretensions that Google does not like it but my entire point is that its ridiculous to be surprised at it or get all upset at them for punishing what they always reserved the right to punish. and most certainly its ridiculous to start gong around discussing the end of SEO on the basis of what was known all along.

      You can stand by and teach unethical solutions, and scoff at people that are trying to wrap their heads around googles true intentions,
      ROFL Thank you for that. Really. I am not offended. In a thread that has talked about arrogance and hypocrisy you could not have done better by illustration than you did there. Waxing about "unethical solutions" when you got dinged for using a SEO network (BMR) yourself? Classic stuff. SO you use the networks I teach people to build in the SEO you charge people for but you can wax about me being unethical for teaching how they are built

      BUt alas sorry I am for working with Google where I can but I never claimed that they nor you set my definition of unethical. I don't subscribe to ANY single company defining what is white as in right and what is black as in wrong. I know of no business that will not use or buy one company to support and promote one of its others business. Google has always both been ridiculous and ignored by some of the top companies in the world (who they continue to rank very highly I might add) when they tell them not to link to their other partner and sister sites with followed links to promoted them. Networks are far more sophisticated and varied than you imagine. As I have said several times I have in the past seen Google link from their own properties (YOutube partner pages in particular) to sites they have a financial interest in. Unethical? IF tomorrow a business man bought a bankrupt company with the only purpose of leveraging its advertising assets he would be heralded for doing smart business.

      At the end of all of that though - theres nothing new offered. Still nothing actionable or constructive. Totally pointless to try and "wrap our heads around intentions" like marketers are a bunch of mind readers. We have a new algo about to come out that no one knows what is in it but so many marketers are making all kinds of projections and claims they have not a clue about until that algo either addresses or fails to address negative SEO or anything else that allegedly is about to "collapse" the number one search engine in the world.

      IF you are a newbie just skip the nonsense and go work on your sites, Nothing to see here.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5923672].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hicksdelight
    Bottom line is no point bitching and moaning, Google make the rules for there site, either play along or don't, NOTHING you can do about it,

    End of.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5923218].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
    I recently had a DMCA takedown request for an article posted to one of my spun blog network sites because the publisher of the article had received a Google penalty to his/her site, so said the legal representative.

    A quick analysis of the Plaintiff's home page sure enough showed the site ranking between pages 6 and 7 of the Google serps for the home page optimised key phrases.

    I analysed the home page using SEO Spyglass and found that many of his/her backlink profile consisted of links from spun networks. More interestingly, the footprint of many of the links/articles was consistent with the footprint of the links/articles I had created and was subsequently penalised for. This leads me to two conclusions:

    1) Google can detect any links created by you to any site you own (Highly Unlikely)
    2) Google can penalise you for links that include this and similar types of footprints (Slightly More Likely).

    The trigger happy folks amongst us will probably interpret 'Negative SEO' as blasting targets with cheap, spammy and worthless links which will probably be discounted as per Google's generic response to the subject.

    However, the more creative individual might look to replicate the offending footprints as a means to manipulate rank.

    Due to the unethical nature of 'Negative SEO' as pointed out by others in this thread, I am no longer interested in pursuing this theory. However my friend, Fat Dave is interested in trying this theory out and I will relay his findings if and when he deems them newsworthy!
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5925525].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

      Due to the unethical nature of 'Negative SEO' as pointed out by others in this thread, I am no longer interested in pursuing this theory. However my friend, Fat Dave is interested in trying this theory out and I will relay his findings if and when he deems them newsworthy!
      And is this new friend Fate Dave an alter ego?

      But tell Fat Dave to at least wait to see if it works with the significant change about to drop in a few weeks. Testing a theory against an algo that is past tense is a waste of time.

      You should put it in a thread like last time. You did a really good job with that one you started before. Good stuff. Wish you the best.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5925627].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore


        Good idea Mike, I'll start another thread shortly. Just need to finish off the project I'm currently working on and then I can put some focus on this. Should be fun!

        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        And is this new friend Fate Dave an alter ego?

        But tell Fat Dave to at least wait to see if it works with the significant change about to drop in a few weeks. Testing a theory against an algo that is past tense is a waste of time.

        You should put it in a thread like last time. You did a really good job with that one you started before. Good stuff. Wish you the best.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5990904].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author coreytucker
    LOL this sucks. I do not even want to create new sites now. I guess im done with SEO until this is all sorted out. I will have to advertise with social sites like twitter, craigslist, facebook, youtube etc.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5925860].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jetsetter883
    Google knows that statistically 60-70% of users click on organic results. the idea of 'killing' SEO would shake the very structure of natural search. unless Google starts counting links only from Wikipedia and a handful of authoritative sites, SEO will still be around. there are many authority sites with crappy content, and vice versa. Google couldn't possibly place a weight only on 'authoritative' sites, because certain 'non-authoritative' sites might also have good content. Google's mission is to provide the most relevant content to its users so as long as content remains king, it will be hard to 'kill' SEO.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5933644].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author chris_surfrider
    My biz partner recently had one of his sites get tanked due to mass, spammy links aimed at him by a competitor.

    On a related and publicly-announced note, so did AffHelper.com. (There's your long-awaited case study).

    Anyone who says Negative SEO is a myth is retarded, or just plain inexperienced. Why would Google be handing out "unnatural linking" notices in WMT if it wasn't possible?

    Do you honestly believe their "algo" is smart enough to determine who paid for, or orchestrated such campaigns, and then match that to WHOIS data or something? Of course not. It's all based on an assumption.

    The bottom line is that anyone with $50 to spend on Fiverr or who has a good handle on using xrumer / scrapebox can bring down heat on another site. If you don't think that's the case and you're so confident about it, then why don't you go and blast 500,000 auto-comments at your own money sites, and prove us all wrong?

    It may not result in de-indexing or penalties necessarily in every case, but it does create problems, and it wastes time.

    Other factors are things like organic profile, etc. What if you want to go and sell your site in a year or so, and someone goes and pollutes your backlink profile with 6-figures worth of **** links? Again, that's a big problem. And it potentially reduces the asset value you've built up.

    Yes, the "answer" is to adapt, focus on marketing, etc. As all the parrots and regurgitating idiots on this forum have been saying. (Blah blah blah - thanks for adding nothing to the conversation.)

    But that doesn't mean this isn't an issue, and anyone who starts attacking others who have been knocked out by stuff like this is nothing more than an arrogant prick in my books, who hasn't been around long enough or built enough sites to realize that Google DOES NOT CARE if you're following their "rules" or not. Their moves ARE political, and they DO have other motivations.

    Sites that I've personally seen get knocked out or deindexed usually end up that way simply because Google doesn't like the product, or the fact that I'm an affiliate in that niche. This is irrespective of user experience or quality, or even what I'm doing for external SEO. This actively happens in niches like Travel and Hotels, among several hundreds of others. (Don't believe me? Read this: Branding & The Cycle | SEO Book.com )

    Also, keep in mind that what we now consider "GrayHat" or "BlackHat" was, just a few years ago, as pure as Mother Theresa. For example, buying text links and mass-syndicating articles.

    Some food for thought

    -Chris
    Signature

    Making 6 Figures From Affiliate Marketing is Easier Than You Think. Here's Proof:

    http://www.TheLazyMarketer.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5933948].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by chris_surfrider View Post

      Anyone who says Negative SEO is a myth is retarded, or just plain inexperienced. Why would Google be handing out "unnatural linking" notices in WMT if it wasn't possible?
      As they say - reading is fundamental. I haven't seen ANYONE ANYWHERE say that you cannot tank some sites . Before you start throwing around the word retarded at least learn how to read.

      The point is and which despite all the blather and throwing around of insults and name calling you are doing you cannot give any evidence for is that you can tank ANY site at will. It has NOT been demonstrated that ALL sites can be blasted to kingdom come. Google could care less if they take out a few good with 10,000 bad. They don't give a rip unless all the good sites they love are tanked and I aint seeing that in the serps yet

      Second neither you nor anyone else in this thread has demonstrated that getting all hot under the collar and whining incessantly about the changes is going to do anything to change Google's minds. They LIKE even LOVE that marketers are screaming

      Sites that I've personally seen get knocked out or deindexed usually end up that way simply because Google doesn't like the product, or the fact that I'm an affiliate in that niche.
      Well welcome to the real world that doesn't care a hoot about affiliate marketing. Why you and ever other marketer are so surprised by this i have no idea.

      Meanwhile with all the retarded , parrots name calling you are throwing around (which you were thanked readily by those who CLAIMED they were on the side of civility only a few days ago when it suited them) I must have missed where you changed the dialogue and actually gave anyone something ACTIONABLE TO DO. With all the talk of adding something you failed to do so yourself.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5954162].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author chris_surfrider
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        As they say - reading is fundamental. I haven't seen ANYONE ANYWHERE say that you cannot tank some sites . Before you start throwing around the word retarded at least learn how to read.

        The point is and which despite all the blather and throwing around of insults and name calling you are doing you cannot give any evidence for is that you can tank ANY site at will. It has NOT been demonstrated that ALL sites can be blasted to kingdom come. Google could care less if they take out a few good with 10,000 bad. They don't give a rip unless all the good sites they love are tanked and I aint seeing that in the serps yet

        Second neither you nor anyone else in this thread has demonstrated that getting all hot under the collar and whining incessantly about the changes is going to do anything to change Google's minds. They LIKE even LOVE that marketers are screaming

        Well welcome to the real world that doesn't care a hoot about affiliate marketing. Why you and ever other marketer are so surprised by this i have no idea.

        Meanwhile with all the retarded , parrots name calling you are throwing around (which you were thanked readily by those who CLAIMED they were on the side of civility only a few days ago when it suited them) I must have missed where you changed the dialogue and actually gave anyone something ACTIONABLE TO DO. With all the talk of adding something you failed to do so yourself.
        The real problem with this thread, Mike, is that you seem to think you're really important, or that I have the time to read your posts in depth.

        I don't give two ****s what you said or anyone else said. In fact, I wasn't necessarily even referencing your posts in making that statement. But because you obviously have an ego complex - you automatically assumed that I was.

        What I did see in this thread, however, was that there were people who were for the Negative SEO argument, and those who were against it - and heaping insults at the recent victims in this shakeout.

        Re: "welcome to the real world that doesn't give a hoot about affiliate marketing."

        Would you like to compare realities, Mike?

        It's probably not a pissing match you want to enter...

        And yes, they real world does care about affiliate marketing. It's a multi-billion dollar industry that is a key pillar for massive companies like Ebay, Amazon, etc.

        You need to get off your high horse and realize that not everyone on this forum is building 3-page scraper sites.

        I have an entire staff of quality writers and my average "affiliate site" is close to 1000 pages deep, newsroom quality content, obviously all original. I also have my own in-house programming team, right here in our ocean-front office space.

        And by the way, none of my major properties have been hit by this.

        I'm just standing up for the ecosystem here in general. Yes, Google has a bias against thin aff marketing, or aff marketing in general depending on the vertical or style. We've always known that. You really don't have to enlighten us, Mike. I've been in this game for a long time.

        The problem is that there are documented cases (like my business partner's site - which was NOT an affiliate site, btw) where competitors can knock out or damage rankings with external SEO. Same with brand value and risk-quotient from the perspective of SELLING a site - even if no G penalty is incurred.

        If you can't see that - especially the latter - then I am afraid that my initial statement regarding retardation still stands. And this time, it's directly aimed at you Mike. (But try not to let that go to your head...)

        -Chris
        Signature

        Making 6 Figures From Affiliate Marketing is Easier Than You Think. Here's Proof:

        http://www.TheLazyMarketer.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5968307].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kaseygreer
    Th whole process of constantly changing ranking rules is to force paid advertising on adwords - thats what will eventually be the only sites shown.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5934516].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hicksdelight
    You can easily get your competition slapped (as long as your competition isn't youtube ).

    Say for example you rank well for a term, along comes a site that is fairly new and is creeping up behind you, all you'd have to do is spam link the site with the same keyword anchor text...As the site is new Google is obviously going to think its their attempt to jump up the rankings, and their will be nothing you can do about it if someone does it to you.

    Not just for new sites, either, as long as the site isn't a big authroity site I see no reason why you can't get them bitch-slapped.

    Thing is, their isn't a lot Google can do about it and know for certain it wasn't you and that it was someone else who done it, which is very worrying.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5936962].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steadyon
    If the site has some authority in-coming links, logically it would be harder to slap in this way.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5937781].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jsherloc
    I posted this on another forum and it applies here. Negative SEO is very real and is certainly a rapidly-growing problem right now, I would not let people tell you guys otherwise. We all can only hope that with enough exposure on this issue that maybe Google will do the responsible thing here. Hopefully they won't force business owners that are interested in growing their online presence to continue operating in an environment where their competitors ALONE can severely negatively impact their online-based revenue/rankings:

    Lolz this story just keeps getting better and better. So, Google used to say competitors cannot harm your site: "There is nothing competitors can do to harm your site." Then they recently changed that message in their webmaster guidelines to state: "There is ALMOST nothing competitors can do to harm your site."

    Now, they've unleashed this public relations gem for the webmaster community:

    Can competitors harm ranking? - Webmaster Tools Help

    What I find hilarious is the last sentence in particular: "Google aggregates and organizes information published on the web; we don't control the content of these pages." Umm, isn't that what the majority of webmasters/publishers on the Internet do too, and just like Google, webmasters/publishers have ZERO CONTROL over the content of other web pages...including the links they create.

    What I DON'T find hilarious is coming across posts like this on DP while researching this issue and knowing with certainty this type of thing is actively going on all over the place and increasingly becoming more popular as Google and friends continue to dance around the giant elephant in the room:

    [METHOD] Illuminati Link Domination Strategy

    Google does not have enough data for reliability purposes other than data related to links to base the majority of their crap off of right now IMO, obviously they're heading for much more social/Author rank, but they are certainly a ways off and will need to do link evaluations for the foreseeable future. Taking this route seems pretty risky from a PR standpoint... It should be an interesting year ahead is all I can say...GETCHAAAA POPCORRRRRRN
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5948522].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author outwest
    Even most of the recent penalties are bouncing back according to people affected, most google penalties are timed, i lost a lot of backlinks to my resort site in january, it kicked me way down for about a month then back to where i was before
    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[5948559].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jsherloc
    Regardless of if the penalties are timed or not, business owners should not have to suffer for half a year or whatever it may be all because some competitor blasted their site and reported it for paid links, etc...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5952813].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Threaver
    I would like to think this is just the awkward stage until google gets their algorithm like they want it. I think SEO will still be around, but you will just have to be careful who you link your site too.

    I also think google is smart enough to tell if someone is purposely trying to get you banned, or i would like to think this...
    Signature

    A new PPC Ad Network http://www.adnection.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5953427].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author josephseeley
    If site X gets hit with a fiverr gig, how is Google going to know who ordered it?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5953959].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tbtb123
    So should Google ignore all the bad backlinks and only consider the good ones ?
    In that case there will be a chaos, as SEO people will know they can do whatever they want.
    Signature
    » Number 1 Source of High Quality SEO Domains! «
    100% Spam Free Domains! Without Manipulations! With Natural High PR Backlinks! Ideal For PBNs!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5954573].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author josephseeley
      Originally Posted by tbtb123 View Post

      So should Google ignore all the bad backlinks and only consider the good ones ?
      In that case there will be a chaos, as SEO people will know they can do whatever they want.
      No.

      Consider the three applicable possibilities:

      a) Google realizes a link is "bad" and discounts it.
      b) Google realizes a link is "bad" and has it negatively affect the site it's pointing to.
      c) Google doesn't realize the link is "bad" and treats it as any other link.

      You are claiming that if !b then c. That is incorrect because Google will still know the link is "bad". The truth is if !b then a.

      In case c nothing changes regardless of how Google treats the bad links, because Google doesn't realize c is a bad link and so could neither apply a penalty or discount it.

      The real difference between a and b is simply that b allows 3rd parties to hurt a website. There is no difference in how people will link to their own sites because in both cases a and b, a knowledgeable SEO isn't going to want to build the links to their own site, and cases where a webmaster or SEO is unaware, they aren't going to be able to modify their actions to account for the things they are not aware of.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5958981].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author orpaz191
    For every problem in google algo you can find a solution. This is what SEO is all about. If you can't stay one step ahead, don't play.
    Signature

    Karma is sweet :)
    The only way to succeed is to make others successful.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5959909].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author savyeman
    Actually, I disagree. Google is not some broke company without financial backing, no and resounding heck no,

    Google got cake man they have scientist on staff they know how to bring up good quality results...

    I have done tons of searches on Google they all have been right on the money... I don't think you understand how many sites are out there right now... That number is nearing a billion... 612,843,429 to be exact..

    Do you think out of so many sites Google can't find a relevant site to show up in the search instead of some seo guru trying to make cake on Google...

    I don't think you understand how powerful Google is or how vast the internet is...

    I have always gotten great results lately when searching in Google. I don't think what your saying is going to happen...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5961577].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cypherslock
    Out of this thread, here's what I think:

    1. Google will do whatever it wants regardless of anything we say.
    2. The 2 Mikes know of WTF they speak and so I'll be learning from them as much as I can.
    3. Can we all just positively focus on our own sites rather than worrying about the other guy's?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5965684].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steadyon
    Taking bets now on who will be the last poster between Mike or Joe.....
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5967950].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steadyon
    Is this a constructive comment?

    Why don't you guys converse via PM if it isn't?

    Jeez.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5968439].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Steadyon View Post

      Is this a constructive comment?

      Why don't you guys converse via PM if it isn't?

      Jeez.
      Woah nelly no. If he wants to call people retarded and then get upset when people respond to it - and its out of line no matter who it was directed at - then let him do it in public where a mod can deal with him not to a PM box.

      Don't worry I have no need to respond to either of them again. Theres been enough to see that there are plenty of people with egos out of this world in this thread and they can see where the name calling and cursing has come from as well.

      I will add this though in defense of truly mentally retarded people since he has used the term again. I know a few mentally retarded people, one very well, and they are some of the sweetest people I know. Geniuses - I'd say even marvelous savants - when it comes to love and caring (And what else really matters). If some classless Forum poster thinks mentally retarded is a derogatory term he's free to wrap himself in that provincial backward thinking because he is showing his own lack of mental sophistication,

      So retarded in the way that those beautiful people I know are? I own it and hope one day its true.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5968723].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author savedbyhim01
    It's scary that years of hard work can be destroyed by a ruthless competitor. I had always heard that you couldn't be hurt by competitors who use black hat tricks to link to your site since you can't control what others do. If Google has changed their policy on this, that would be huge.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5968838].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author macker2298
    i guess the best strategy is to always have different channels to bring you traffic no matter what google is doing or whether seo is working fine...i myself have started to look into diversification because i can't sell seo to clients if i know it isn't working as it should be.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5969089].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steadyon
      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      Woah nelly no.

      I can understand that viewpoint. But some guys seem to enjoy going off topic and seeing who's got the biggest **** and don't actually provide any useable information:


      "I'm going to get a ferrari and a pool one day, 700 employees, and I've been doing seo for 40 years and I'm going to get a fit wife, so if I say that google are idiots then they must be." etc...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5970847].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author josephseeley
        Originally Posted by Steadyon View Post

        I can understand that viewpoint. But some guys seem to enjoy going off topic and seeing who's got the biggest **** and don't actually provide any useable information:

        "I've got a ferrari, a pool, 700 employees, been doing seo for 40 years and a fit wife, so if I say that google are idiots then they must be." etc...
        What useful information is there in your post here? Being condescending of those who continue a discussion is rather hypocritical when you are engaging in the very act you are deriding.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5970882].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Steadyon
          Originally Posted by josephseeley View Post

          What useful information is there in your post here? Being condescending of those who continue a discussion is rather hypocritical when you are engaging in the very act you are deriding.

          The fact he is getting a ferrari? That's useful information

          Over and out.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5970900].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by josephseeley View Post

          What useful information is there in your post here? Being condescending of those who continue a discussion is rather hypocritical when you are engaging in the very act you are deriding.
          SO now mouthing off calling people retarded is a "discussion"? Steady has a right to respond to any poster that has that kind of language in any post on WF. Whats hypocritical is leap frogging over an offense like that to complain against the person objecting to it.

          This is nothing but I got hit by google rant thread with nothing actionable. For any one still reading this thread theres a much more productive thread on this subject here

          http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...ml#post5968289
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5972352].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author josephseeley
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            SO now mouthing off calling people retarded is a "discussion"?
            It would be a discussion about the quality of the poster. I'm not claiming there is any value it in other than the argument itself. I was pointing out that there is also nothing of value in the discussion of the quality of the other poster (other than of course, the argument itself if one is into such things).

            Steady has a right to respond to any poster that has that kind of language in any post on WF.
            Of course. But if doing so while pontificating about the ills of engaging in conversations of that specific nature, that is hypocrisy.

            Whats hypocritical is leap frogging over an offense like that to complain against the person objecting to it.
            You obviously do not understand what hypocrisy is. If I were claiming it was wrong to leap frog over the comment, presented myself as someone above doing so, but still did it, that would be hypocrisy.

            I have done nothing of the sort. I have not claimed that anyone should not make any type of argument.

            And it can be easily inferred from my statements about arguments, and my revealed preferences via my actions, that I have no such desire that they do. Quite the opposite. I fully respect the right of others to say whatever they will, or converse about any topic which they wish. (The moderators may or may not agree, but that's their concern and they can enforce the rules as they see fit.)

            This is nothing but I got hit by google rant thread with nothing actionable.
            It is clearly more than that. For instance, several of the latest posts are in the "politically correctness railing against personal attacks for their un-pc-ish nature, 3rd party observation and discussion of the merits of such" camp.

            Further, you are incorrect that there is nothing actionable in this discussion on negative SEO. I have already addressed that in my last post to you. I have included actionable avenues in my post. There are also other potential actions that could be inferred from various points that have been made. They are there for you to address if you have the wish to continue the discussion. Pretending they aren't there is just another instance of you sticking your head in the sand.

            Also, you claimed you are finished with the discussion. Now you are bringing back up the topic you claimed you were finished discussing.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5974397].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by josephseeley View Post

              You obviously do not understand what hypocrisy is. If I were claiming it was wrong to leap frog over the comment, presented myself as someone above doing so, but still did it, that would be hypocrisy.
              Hypocrisy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

              "the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles,"

              read and learn for a change. In line with the definition you claim to have some virtue about not being condescending only when it is applied to someone who holds your position. As such your values or at bare minimum your standing up for your values is reserved only for those not holding your own position - hypocrisy and thats even more clear in this -

              For instance, several of the latest posts are in the "politically correctness railing against personal attacks for their un-pc-ish nature
              Utter garbage. calling people retards is not a matter of political correctness and claiming such double stamps your hypocrisy. If you had a problem with condescension in general we would have heard your voice against the worse of it in the word retard instead you skipped over a post that supremely violates your alleged standards to criticize someone else for objecting to precisely that kind of behaviour that you CLAIM to not stand for - which IS hypocrisy.

              You can take this as my last post to you in this thread . I often have heated exchanges but I seldom lose all respect for posters and I have none for you claiming that objecting to mentally retardation being used as a curse word is just a matter of political correctness. That puts you right beside the person that used the term TWICE in this thread.

              The use of it is so repugnant that on that basis alone I would do what I have not done in years and put the both of you on my ignore list except that if I ever see the word dropped again I would want to finally hit the report button.

              Further, you are incorrect that there is nothing actionable in this discussion on negative SEO. I have already addressed that in my last post to you.
              You have done nothing but string words together for pure verbage consistent with what you admitted to - arguing for arguing sake. actionable means action not waxing in one's mind about this or that. What have you told people to DO right now besides cry wolf so that maybe google will change their mind and talk about the possibilities of using negative SEO against others?

              Nothing.

              and having asked several times and got nothing but said verbage you can have the last word. This thread is dead to me. Others can read it and any other defense you want to make about objecting to words like retardation just being a matter of political correctness. I will not however be reading it because its beneath me to read that garbage again.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975298].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author josephseeley
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                In line with the definition you claim to have some virtue about not being condescending only when it is applied to someone who holds your position.
                I find condescension perfectly reasonable when dealing with someone who is deserving of it. I have been condescending in many cases in this thread already. Nowhere have I said condescension in itself is bad or shouldn't be done.

                Condescension is simply one element of what makes hypocrisy. You need the other elements as well.

                As such your values or at bare minimum your standing up for your values is reserved only for those not holding your own position - hypocrisy and thats even more clear in this -
                You are not the only one who has expressed views I don't share in this thread.

                You and I are having a discussion, don't feel bad that I target you. After a simple correction of a mistake you posted, you chose to make things personal by harping about my emotional state and various other things instead of sticking to the issues we were discussing. That's the reason we're here, not because you're the only one in existence who disagrees with me.

                You bought it. Stop whining and deal with it.

                Utter garbage. calling people retards is not a matter of political correctness and claiming such double stamps your hypocrisy.
                Again, you show here clearly that you don't have the first clue what hypocrisy is. Claiming that an action is PC is not hypocrisy unless it's done in a manner which is condescending to being PC while the claimant is acting PC as well.

                I am definitely not PC. This should be rather clear...

                You've definitely taken a PC approach to the use of the term "retard". It's generally a derogatory term that is used synonymously with "stupid", "idiotic", "moronic" or other terms. Instead of address it in that context, you want to make it an issue about someone talking badly about mentally handicapped or learning impaired even though no one here has expressed any negative views about those groups.

                Whether it is a good term to use or not, your reaction to it is prototypically PC.

                If you had a problem with condescension in general we would have heard your voice against the worse of it in the word retard instead you skipped over a post that supremely violates your alleged standards to criticize someone else for objecting to precisely that kind of behaviour that you CLAIM to not stand for - which IS hypocrisy.
                Nowhere have I claimed there was something fundamentally wrong with condescension. Reading comprehension is your friend... (<---that is condescension, and you deserve it )

                You can take this as my last post to you in this thread .
                We shall see. It's the second time you've claimed such, the first obviously didn't take.

                You have done nothing but string words together for pure verbage consistent with what you admitted to - arguing for arguing sake.
                Arguing for argument's sake does not mean there haven't been applicable points made. That you conflate those divergent issues shows clearly how confused you have been in this discussion.

                actionable means action not waxing in one's mind about this or that. What have you told people to DO right now besides cry wolf so that maybe google will change their mind and talk about the possibilities of using negative SEO against others?
                I don't coddle people and tell them what to do. I do explain concepts, and they can choose to take action on that information or not.

                If however you're looking for someone to coach you, I might be available for the right price.

                and having asked several times and got nothing but said verbage you can have the last word. This thread is dead to me. Others can read it and any other defense you want to make about objecting to words like retardation just being a matter of political correctness. I will not however be reading it because its beneath me to read that garbage again.
                Someone's got their panties in a bunch... :p

                See you later then Mike. It's been fun.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975796].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    Still discussing SEO (how da **** THAT ain't funny? :p)...?

    Google is wrong to allow links to harm sites, because they can't control who builds links, and they can't identify who commissions the links.
    Nothing new. Been saying this lat least since October/November '11. Probably last updates rolled out this one to you folks, but in Google.pt this was available long time... and for those of you wondering "who da **** is this moron" better check my posts about THIS last year.

    It was clear as water people could harm competitors.

    Edit:
    Oh I see this is now in the "you're a retard" section. Good. Thanks for reminding me again why I rarely visit this supa-dupa sub-forum.

    Have a good day!
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5971004].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author slazer90
    Maybe it is for the better. Fake backlinks like blog comments and spam sites with pyramids gets little or not value and social links gets a boost. This means people will need better content on their website that people will actually like to share with their friends.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975254].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
    I wonder what the legal ramifications are for purposefully and aggressively harming another company's income and reputation for your own company's gain.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975454].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    It's been exactly one week since I asked anyone that thinks they can do negative SEO to have this forum thread removed from the SERPs for it's exact page title/keywords.

    This thread still ranks #1 in Google SERPs for it's thread/page title Negative SEO - The Death of SEO.

    I see a bunch of smoke.
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975698].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author josephseeley
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      It's been exactly one week since I asked anyone that thinks they can do negative SEO to have this forum thread removed from the SERPs for it's exact page title/keywords.

      This thread still ranks #1 in Google SERPs for it's thread/page title Negative SEO - The Death of SEO.

      I see a bunch of smoke.
      Are you claiming negative SEO can't work?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975829].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author neil_patmore
      Whilst I'm a firm believer that negative SEO is possible, I also think that anyone who trys to tank a site that has domain age and/or domain authority is completely waisting their time and money. I believe the target site has to match a set citeria, which the Warrior forum does not!

      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      It's been exactly one week since I asked anyone that thinks they can do negative SEO to have this forum thread removed from the SERPs for it's exact page title/keywords.

      This thread still ranks #1 in Google SERPs for it's thread/page title Negative SEO - The Death of SEO.

      I see a bunch of smoke.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5990955].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author The A
        I agree with you. Negative SEO won't work for some sites with huge authority. Seriously, you're a fool if you think you can tank wikipedia or some big forums no matter if you have them blast with so many spammy links.
        Originally Posted by neil_patmore View Post

        Whilst I'm a firm believer that negative SEO is possible, I also think that anyone who trys to tank a site that has domain age and/or domain authority is completely waisting their time and money. I believe the target site has to match a set citeria, which the Warrior forum does not!
        Signature
        "And all what's left is nothing but a bunch of weeping competitors..."
        Read more >>>
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5997920].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author jsherloc
          Originally Posted by The A View Post

          I agree with you. Negative SEO won't work for some sites with huge authority. Seriously, you're a fool if you think you can tank wikipedia or some big forums no matter if you have them blast with so many spammy links.
          The real question is, what experienced IMer in any competitive industry is going to think they can knock-off sites like wikipedia, cnn, etc? The answer is somewhere close to 0. So when people bring this up (a point that I agree with) I don't think it really brings anything productive to the table other than give Google and friends a reason to say: "Hey, see that website, you can't harm it! So therefore you can't probably harm ANY website...lol" It is a very good point, I just don't want this thread to get derailed for pages on end because people argue about whether you can tank certain authority websites...probably not.

          What really matters to all us here going forward is that negative SEO is seemingly a very real concern for the majority of websites on the Internet. IMO this won't really change much unless there is major publicity and studies being done, many of which are in the process, etc...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5997985].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jsherloc
    I posted this elsewhere,

    Things are finally getting interesting lol:

    https://groups.google.com/a/googlepr...k/-Lb4TE0yuqIJ

    The discussion there and Mu's response does seem to indicate there may be some type of "penalty" involved in this whole deal or whatever name we wanna call it, and if so IS based on a certain length(s) of time per usual Google practice.

    Mu says that he recommends NOT to wait it out and people should submit the reconsideration request (even if they don't have an idea if their drop was due to algo or manual reasons etc) which leads me to that conclusion, BUT it makes you wonder the way he phrases things. Cryptic fear-mongering with a corporate touch at its finest. How long for some people is gonna be the question I guess...

    I'm hoping that thread goes viral especially "coolguy's" post lol...

    I'd say this is a pretty clear indicator that you can "penalize" the majority of newer, less established websites owned by average individuals that make up the majority of the Internet. The severity/length of time the "penalty" lasts is probably dependent on some other factors we won't know.

    How anyone could read that discussion there and then conclude that you can't do that to just about any URL owned by an average Warrior here...I have no clue, because this type of thing is currently happening all around us. I don't care to argue with folks that don't believe is happening, because evidence certainly suggests otherwise.

    The thing is, competitors don't even have to "tank" your site several places/pages to do damage, now that we know incoming links can directly harm you in certain ways, it is very easy for competitors to REALLY "junk up" your website's backlink portfolio. WMT is only going to show you SOME stuff, imagine the backilink scanning power and vast knowledge of inbound links that Google now has, all being organized into type, class, etc...

    So your competition can directly hurt your assets (many of my own websites I consider assets, dunno about others). What if they send links that don't trigger any filters today, but when you go to sell some of your assets in a year the buyers get weary looking at the type of inbound links your assets have accumulated over the years? etc...

    Hell, certain types of links could basically be a "ticking time bomb" for some people's assets. Meaning if Google doesn't have an issue with them now, they might 6 months from now. Just the tip of the iceberg of things to consider in this type of "eco-system" that apparently is existing...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5997344].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dracoboar
    @Mike Anthony

    #1) you mentioned that sites rise and fall all the time and that noone know s why, then in another sentence you seem to say that you know for sure noone has tanked a site these 2 arguements seem mutally exclusive.

    #2) you say I cant tell how many sites i need to ank, but honestly atleast in my niche that is not true. Most of the keyowrds I pay attention to hve a VERY steady top 5 . My biggest moneymaker has had the same top 3 since i moved into #3 a long time ago. Although numbr 1 is an exact phrase match for wikipedia and would probably be immune to such attacks but the 2nd is an im site like mine and could certainly be vulnerable.

    #3) I think we should all agree that unless the creator does soemthing extremely stupid google has no idea who crated a link on a webpage, especially automated junk, secondly we can agree negative seo is a complete change from long standing and well considered google policy. IMO there are very good reasons why that policy stood for so long

    #4) you seem to make the arguement that what google does behind the scenes in unknowable (certanly true) but then use that arguement to prove nothing has ever happened when if it had we are likely never to have heard about it.

    #5) I see no benefit to negative seo, if google is so good at spotting spam links then they can easily discount them, if they are not it is dangerous to throw around penalties. But in the end you are rght they are a private company and can do what they want.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5998236].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6006044].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author xrcv
    I can't believe there are still people who don't believe in link penalty. Also - $50-100??? What are you talking about? Penalizing a less-than-two-months old site shouldn't take more than 10 bucks and you would send it to nowhere for months (usually permanently). I got one of my sites out of google for good (been gone for ~2 months) with 5 web 2.0s (UNIQUE, non spun) with comment links to them. The site had several 1000-word articles too (UNIQUE). The new algo will prevent sites from ranking sometimes without good reason.

    BTW, the new update has definitely upped the quality of G search results - 5-word dashed-domains and no-content godaddy expired sites are common place on the front page now. I'm officially switching to bing for my searches.

    Negative seo is so easy to do its a joke. However - only on new domains. Doing neg. seo on authority sites won't do anything IMO. This si exactly the reasons why google won't bother changing this.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6006207].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author himanuzo
    If you want to beat your competition at Google, you hire someone to add thousands of backlinks from bad sites toward the competitor site. Will Google ban the competitor site? I think Google will not ban it because of the bad backlinks.

    Only bad content of a site (SEO on page) can be banned by Google, not backlinks (SEO off page).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6006843].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author xrcv
      Originally Posted by himanuzo View Post

      If you want to beat your competition at Google, you hire someone to add thousands of backlinks from bad sites toward the competitor site. Will Google ban the competitor site? I think Google will not ban it because of the bad backlinks.

      Only bad content of a site (SEO on page) can be banned by Google, not backlinks (SEO off page).
      Sounds good in theory. Too bad you're wrong.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6006997].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
      Originally Posted by himanuzo View Post

      If you want to beat your competition at Google, you hire someone to add thousands of backlinks from bad sites toward the competitor site. Will Google ban the competitor site? I think Google will not ban it because of the bad backlinks.

      Only bad content of a site (SEO on page) can be banned by Google, not backlinks (SEO off page).
      Have you been paying attention at all?

      Even Aaron Wall at SEOBook.com knows negative SEO is on the rise, and you seem oblivious.

      Patience is a Virtue | SEO Book.com
      Signature

      No signature here today!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6007062].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garlex
        I have to say I am very unhappy with SEO Link Monster. I have been a member for just over a month and have added eight articles to the site.
        I have monitored the statistics and there seemed a steady rise according to the site itself in the number of links from these articles that I was achieving.
        However, I also use other tools to track how my site and keywords are doing. I haven't seen any signicant progress since starting my membership and in fact statsitics from elsewhere showed a variance with what was displayed on the SEOLink Monster site.
        I asked for a link to one of the article sites to prove that my articles were live, I was told they had a policy not to do this, some cock and bull story about Google employees finding out and banning the sites.
        Eventually, they told me to put the title of my articles in Google to find the sites where my article sit. Well I did this and it was most revealing, every single article title returned with the information that it could not be found, in other words it didn't exist or was banned by Google.
        I am about to ask for a full refund.
        This must be illegal too!!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6062925].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
          Originally Posted by garlex View Post

          I have to say I am very unhappy with SEO Link Monster. I have been a member for just over a month and have added eight articles to the site.
          I have monitored the statistics and there seemed a steady rise according to the site itself in the number of links from these articles that I was achieving.
          However, I also use other tools to track how my site and keywords are doing. I haven't seen any signicant progress since starting my membership and in fact statsitics from elsewhere showed a variance with what was displayed on the SEOLink Monster site.
          I asked for a link to one of the article sites to prove that my articles were live, I was told they had a policy not to do this, some cock and bull story about Google employees finding out and banning the sites.
          Eventually, they told me to put the title of my articles in Google to find the sites where my article sit. Well I did this and it was most revealing, every single article title returned with the information that it could not be found, in other words it didn't exist or was banned by Google.
          I am about to ask for a full refund.
          This must be illegal too!!
          At this point you could probably get someone a penalty with that service. It is really atrocious.
          Signature

          No signature here today!

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6062941].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
    I've been using Bing for quite a while. Google is just garbage.

    There will never be a death of SEO because something must be used to rank websites to return in response to a search query. Google talks about hundreds of ranking factors continually being tweaked. But I'm not sure Google has any clue how to spot relevancy or quality, so it is falling back to showing major 'brand' websites for many searches.

    .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6063131].message }}

Trending Topics