Dan Thies and negative SEO

by slix
80 replies
  • SEO
  • |
It seems that Dan Thies is one more victim of negative SEO, as you can see it here: Google Groups .

IMO, If google doesn't do something about crazy stuff that has been going on lately, I don't think they will last much longer.

Slix
#dan #dan thies #negative #negative seo #seo #thies #unnatural links
  • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
    I dunno. These penalties are only a small portion of the online community, even though we complain about them so much.

    It may or may not harm them in any way.
    Signature

    No signature here today!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6062956].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryHaywood
    Wow... this is crazy. People already setting up Negative SEO businesses.
    Signature

    Doing what everyone else is doing? You'll get the same results... 97% fail. Are you a sheep or a wolf? My team and I are changing the game. It's not as hard to make it online as you might think. Let's connect and see if we can help you.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6062974].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Originally Posted by LarryHaywood View Post

      Wow... this is crazy. People already setting up Negative SEO businesses.
      That guy can't prove anything.

      As far as we know he could be the one that created the links & wants to stir things up in the SEO community to drive more traffic/sales on his own sites.

      If he can't prove anything one way or the other, why would he even bother posting on the Google forum?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6063834].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
      Originally Posted by LarryHaywood View Post

      Wow... this is crazy. People already setting up Negative SEO businesses.
      Starting?

      Dude, back in October/November last year, WE warned you guys! This is just the beginning. Google opened a huge box and NOW they won't be able to fix it - unless they re-do a big part of their algo.

      Sad news for all IM industry.
      Signature
      People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6068267].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author LarryHaywood
        Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso View Post

        Starting?

        Dude, back in October/November last year, WE warned you guys! This is just the beginning. Google opened a huge box and NOW they won't be able to fix it - unless they re-do a big part of their algo.

        Sad news for all IM industry.
        Guess I've been out of the loop a bit as I just learned of the "negative seo" stuff... To me, it seems like they could fix it if they wanted to. Do they want to?
        Signature

        Doing what everyone else is doing? You'll get the same results... 97% fail. Are you a sheep or a wolf? My team and I are changing the game. It's not as hard to make it online as you might think. Let's connect and see if we can help you.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6069129].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author slix
    It's painfully obvious that you can ruin years of someone's hard work by using negative SEO. Wait until your average Joe find out about this - it's gonna be mayhem.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6062979].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
      Did you see this moronic response on the Google thread:

      The path seemed quite clearly spelled out. All the links must be either removed or the effort documented in detail, within a Google Docs file if needed. With enough detail that Google can trust that these kinds of issues will not come back in the future for a specific website. These actions should be completed before any reconsideration request is submitted.

      The list of questions seems to imply that Google should do this work for webmasters within Google's algorithms.
      Although apparently not from Google, this is the type of response Google provides.

      Instead of working on your site, a competitor could make you spend endless amounts of time creating "documentation," preparing a Google Docs file, and submitting endless requests for reconsideration.

      When you think about it, does Google really want a dossier, argument, and report about every website prepared by webmasters about what links they did not create, and have it reviewed by someone?

      And what about most of the planet which does not have a Google Webmaster Account?

      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6063074].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dellco
        Thanks for bringing this to our attention; deserves a bump.

        It is funny to see someone who was so happy to see the blog networks getting squished now suffering from the result of Google's actions.

        The irony. I would have preferred Matt Cutts' site to be targeted instead though, and get that message

        I think continuous pressure needs to be applied to Google to reverse their moronic stance. Its not good for the internet, its not good for Google, and it's not good for anyone. It's akin to those witch hunts of the last century to go around penalizing sites for incoming links.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6063274].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author slix
    Exactly... I have no idea how they've come up with this "strategy". It seems so retarded.

    Not to mention there is no way you could remove 100k+ xrummer links...doh.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6063137].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lovboa
    Banned
    Originally Posted by slix View Post


    IMO, If google doesn't do something about crazy stuff has been going on lately, I don't think they will last much longer.

    Slix
    Not last any longer? Google doesn't need us.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6063424].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author zannix
      Originally Posted by lovboa View Post

      Not last any longer? Google doesn't need us.
      Really? Think again.
      Signature
      All you can do is all you can do - Art Williams
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6063574].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nik0
    Banned
    Interesting read, thanks for sharing
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6063521].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mrultra
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6064162].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JeanneLynn
      Originally Posted by mrultra View Post

      This can't be. Dan assured us during a webinar recently that negative seo wasn't possible because it wouldn't make sense, lol.
      Isn't he the same guy that tweeted Cutts to congratulate him on cleaning up the blog network spam?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6064338].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author jimmyn
        Originally Posted by JeanneLynn View Post

        Isn't he the same guy that tweeted Cutts to congratulate him on cleaning up the blog network spam?
        He's only pretending to be "white hat".

        i wonder if it actually affected his site, or did he just get the message like a load of other webmasters?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6068221].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sovereignn
    SEO is getting too intense for me -____-
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6064174].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
    Oh my. What a good laugh, thanks OP!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6065201].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jimmyn
    I've just read it again, and he's received the message, like lots of people using WMT will have, but he also says it hasn't affected his site, like it won't have affected lots of people's sites.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6068334].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author slix
      Originally Posted by jimmyn View Post

      I've just read it again, and he's received the message, like lots of people using WMT will have, but he also says it hasn't affected his site, like it won't have affected lots of people's sites.
      Umm yeah...on a second though, take a look at this: Negative SEO case study RESULTS on Dan Thies
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6072291].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author boxoun
      Originally Posted by jimmyn View Post

      I've just read it again, and he's received the message, like lots of people using WMT will have, but he also says it hasn't affected his site, like it won't have affected lots of people's sites.
      Why do you say stuff like this? He can get it fixed because he is popular figure but small business owners will be affected.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6072371].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author daisy172
        He still ranks at #1 with sitelinks for "SEO Fast Start", which is the name of his site, so he hasn't been hurt by this at all.

        All that has happened is that Google has notified him that he has some dodgy links.

        If they hadn't have notified him, the links would still have been there, and Google would still have noticed them, he'd just have been the only one who was in the dark about it ... So not sure what he's complaining about - perhaps he's narked that Google has decided to communicate with people about what the know about your site?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6072706].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Gram
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6072974].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author chukcha
            Yes... new age of SEO has begun.

            This is going to be game changer will see what google response would be.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6073166].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author boxoun
          Originally Posted by daisy172 View Post

          He still ranks at #1 with sitelinks for "SEO Fast Start", which is the name of his site, so he hasn't been hurt by this at all.

          All that has happened is that Google has notified him that he has some dodgy links.

          If they hadn't have notified him, the links would still have been there, and Google would still have noticed them, he'd just have been the only one who was in the dark about it ... So not sure what he's complaining about - perhaps he's narked that Google has decided to communicate with people about what the know about your site?
          Wrong. Who cares if he still ranks first for fast start seo read the link above me
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6073656].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author chukcha
            This is some awesome story I enjoyed the read.
            I do like random profile blasts to my competition.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6073876].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author negativeseo
              Thanks, its been a long time in the making, of course people/mods should understand that I needed to create a new account on here to post this. Its very important that this info is out there otherwise this stupidity from Google will continue to destroy reputable businesses.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6073891].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author paulgl
                Why do people quote people like they're some god or
                something? Dan Thies is nothing to me. Who really
                gives a rip?

                The nonsense propagated on this forum in this section
                is becoming as thick as a clogged up sewage line.

                And stinks just as bad.

                Originally Posted by negativeseo View Post

                Thanks, its been a long time in the making, of course people/mods should understand that I needed to create a new account on here to post this. Its very important that this info is out there otherwise this stupidity from Google will continue to destroy reputable businesses.
                ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!! If you have a "reputable business,"
                A) You don't need google.
                B) Google cannot destroy your business.

                If reputable business means some site you just happen to make
                up to lick up some crumbs from google, then you deserve exactly
                what you get. But that's not a "reputable business" in my book.

                Paul
                Signature

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

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6073992].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author chukcha
                  Funny you say that, unless you invest $$$ in adwords or SEO your business is not going to fly. What sort of reputable business you have in mind? Airplane making? or maybe local pub? 80% of online business rely on 90% of traffic from google, so I'm not sure what sort of business you are talking about Paul?

                  Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

                  ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!! If you have a "reputable business,"
                  A) You don't need google.
                  B) Google cannot destroy your business.

                  If reputable business means some site you just happen to make
                  up to lick up some crumbs from google, then you deserve exactly
                  what you get. But that's not a "reputable business" in my book.

                  Paul
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6074081].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author negativeseo
                    Originally Posted by chukcha View Post

                    Funny you say that, unless you invest $$$ in adwords or SEO your business is not going to fly. What sort of reputable business you have in mind? Airplane making? or maybe local pub? 80% of online business rely on 90% of traffic from google, so I'm not sure what sort of business you are talking about Paul?
                    Well said
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6074126].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                      [DELETED]
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6074986].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author michael scott
                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                        Sheesh this thread is so tired. Did anyone bother to read what Dan said?

                        Yes he got the notice but NO his site has not shown any sign of being penalized yet . He says several times in the thread if anyone cared to read it that he is still uncertain about negative SEO because HE HAS SEEN NO CHANGE IN HIS RANKINGS that would be attributable to the links.
                        Mike, Dan's site got torched:
                        CASE STUDY: Negative SEO - Results - Main Backlinks/SEO Discussion - Traffic Planet

                        But I do agree what negativeseo did was scuzzy, no doubt about that. But Google has made it clear that you can indeed hurt someone's site with spiked crap links and it's been proven again and again in the past. Now it's mainstream. Guess I'm a SEO hipster.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6075364].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author negativeseo
                  Hmm paulgl, I am not sure I can agree with you, what you are saying is very old fashioned. You are suggesting that a business should not reply on a large portion of its income from Google natural SERPS.

                  A reputable business, can survive this situation but may be forced to layoff additional staff they may have or reduce the type of service they offer due to a slow down in income.

                  For example the target in question was at the UK Motor Show and apparently advertises in Magazines in the UK. But if the business is heavily weighted towards online traffic which many businesses need, then you are kind of screwed. The same would be for Autotrader, they may get people to spend money on advertising a vehicle but what happens when they get no response to their ad because there is no natural search results going to their pages? Same could be said for amazon or ebay, what would happen to them if natural search stopped delivering. It would impact them in a very bad way.

                  So to suggest that Google is not an integral part of a businesses survival in todays world is a very nieve and old fashioned way of looking at business. bricks and mortar are dying and so is print media.

                  The loss of traffic to small business is most likely to be picked up by a large brand, distancing the possibility of small business competing and creating a healthy price war or market competition. Thus creating a monopoly like Google itself.

                  paulgl I respect that you have an opinion but its not really well thought out.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6074119].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by negativeseo View Post

            I created a new thread for this but no idea why it was deleted.. Moderators please explain if I am doing something against the rules here.
            Maybe because your business practices are about as scuzzy as scuzzy can get.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6075025].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author negativeseo
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              Maybe because your business practices are about as scuzzy as scuzzy can get.

              Thats the whole point Mike, the world can't go on any longer pretending that people like myself do not exist.We do and we are being PAID to destroy businesses.

              Its not a main source of income fro me and I would rather see the loophole closed than profit from it to be honest, but while its there I will cream it for all its worth. Sorry but thats just who I am. If you feel the same way, perhaps we should ignore things like kony 2012 as well. I am sure it will just go away (if its not just propaganda,but thats not the point so lets not get into that conversation in this thread please.)
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6075313].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Originally Posted by negativeseo View Post

                If you feel the same way, perhaps we should ignore things like kony 2012 as well. I am sure it will just go away (if its not just propaganda,but thats not the point so lets not get into that conversation in this thread please.)
                Unless a mod disagrees you won't be telling any of us what we can or cannot get into in this thread. Yours is a scuzzy practice to the extent that you are actually even any good at it. Taking down other peoples sites in order to rank is not a big step up from people who do that through hacking. Want to show us your expertise lets see you rank for something and tell us before you actually do it so we can verify not after the fact when we can't.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6075625].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author OneManSEO
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              Maybe because your business practices are about as scuzzy as scuzzy can get.
              I wish we'd kept that thread, simply so we could somehow forward the link to Google and let them figure out who was engaging in this destructive behavior.

              After all, we know it was in UK, automotive, and one of the affected businesses is fighting hard to clear his name(a name which this dbag copied and used to hurt him even more). It couldn't be too hard to find out which company profited from this (considering Google sees all backlinks) - then deindex that company out of spite. I'd be okay with that!

              I'm dreaming, Google is impossible unless you are gaming high PR blog links.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088279].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author jxam69
            Originally Posted by negativeseo View Post

            Nothing illegal was done here and can be easily replicated.
            The entire aim of what has been done is to effectively prevent access to a business.

            I believe that in some jurisdictions that if you block access to a competitor's business, then that can be viewed as an anti-competitive/anti-trust situation and you can be prosecuted for it.

            Are there any lawyers on the forum who could give an opinion on this?
            Signature

            This space will be awarded to the first WSO owner who can prove they make Million$ from their methods.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6075902].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author bboyspyder
              Originally Posted by jxam69 View Post

              The entire aim of what has been done is to effectively prevent access to a business.

              I believe that in some jurisdictions that if you block access to a competitor's business, then that can be viewed as an anti-competitive/anti-trust situation and you can be prosecuted for it.

              Are there any lawyers on the forum who could give an opinion on this?
              Nobody is gonna get caught for doing negative SEO.
              When using a company to do the negative SEO they have their privacy policies and hide well with proxies etc.
              If you are doing it yourself then you should use proxies yourself.
              Thinking that someone else on page one is attacking you - well there are 9 more sites. Try going after all of them.

              The problem should be solved by Google and not by webmaster themselves. It is stupid to lose time trying to prosecute someone who was able to "block access" to your site because Google allows such techniques.
              It is also a waste of time documentation and submit for reconsideration to fight backlinks made by competition targeting your site. This time can be used to improve the experience of users visiting the site or adding more unique content.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6076391].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author jxam69
                bboyspyder - I appreciate what you're saying, however my question was about the legality of the practice, not about the probability of being caught.

                That said, anti-trust activities are often exposed by someone on the 'inside' - so at least in that case proxies and VPNs aren't going to offer protection. An example would be if a receptionist at a company paying for negative SEO services went to the authorities with proof of the activities.

                Anyway, I think it would be interesting to hear what a legal professional has to say about this.
                Signature

                This space will be awarded to the first WSO owner who can prove they make Million$ from their methods.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6076621].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                [DELETED]
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6078096].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author jimmyn
        Originally Posted by boxoun View Post

        Why do you say stuff like this? He can get it fixed because he is popular figure but small business owners will be affected.
        That's not what i meant. And from what i gather he isn't a popular figure.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6084600].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sanjuu
          Before everyone starts shaking negativeseo's hand and nodding in agreement to what he says he's done - maybe we should be questioning what he's posted?

          A quick look at the site he mentioned shows that it was using spammy techniques to get ranked in the first place, and a cursory glance at Alexa shows that the site took a dive in traffic when the panda update hit the UK in April 2011 (and then had subsequent drops that probably coincide with further panda updates).

          Maybe 'negativeseo' is someone who works for the site and he's looking to create excuses the the site's demise for some reason and wants it plastered across the web? He does seem to know a lot about the site and the industry, and the idea that someone would have targeted that particular site for the last 12 months is questionable in itself (especially as it had very little traffic post-panda, i.e. the last 12 months).

          Just saying.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085059].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mosthost
    Negative SEO has been possible for years. It's great to see a 'gooroo' figuring it out a few years late
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6069164].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6073275].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ghedman
    it's sucks
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6075143].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rosesmark
    I think those users who are using illegal software's then this kind of message Google send to users
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6075668].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
    Incoming links can and DO hurt rankings. We (me, you...) have absolutely no control over those links and there is no way to remove them. Deal with it, I guess.

    Google no longer state that incoming links can't hurt you. They say "we're doing our best to make sure your competitors can't hurt your rankings", we all know what that means.

    So yeah, deal with it. I think this is all temporary... maybe there's a machine learning algo in progress and things will go back to better once it's finished re-evaluating the whole ****ing internet. Who knows?

    Seriously, learning algorithms can take weeks/month/years to complete. I'm sure they've tested things well with smaller samples and we're currently in some sort of transition stage. The GWT messages are a legal thing, nothing else. Just like the changes in their Webmaster FAQs/Guidelines/Whatever and all that stuff. You have to be very naive not to see this. Google appears to be confident in their actions, probably for a reasons better/bigger than most people could even begin to understand (from a technical point of view).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6075697].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author clarajames
    Setting up negative SEO will be harm and will not produce results for longer period of time.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6075731].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pd
    Don't not need to destroy Google. Build your backlinks with white hat SEO. Then run with Google and beat your competitor.)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6075759].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Legit SEO
      Originally Posted by michael scott View Post

      Mike, Dan's site got torched:
      CASE STUDY: Negative SEO - Results - Main Backlinks/SEO Discussion - Traffic Planet

      But I do agree what negativeseo did was scuzzy, no doubt about that. But Google has made it clear that you can indeed hurt someone's site with spiked crap links and it's been proven again and again in the past. Now it's mainstream. Guess I'm a SEO hipster.
      Awesome case study right there!! Wow

      Originally Posted by pd View Post

      Don't not need to destroy Google. Build your backlinks with white hat SEO. Then run with Google and beat your competitor.)
      Building ANY backlinks = black hat according to Google
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6075897].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author 1byte
      Originally Posted by pd View Post

      Don't not need to destroy Google. Build your backlinks with white hat SEO. Then run with Google and beat your competitor.)

      Yeah, whatever. If that works for you, then go ahead and "run with Google." Good luck!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6125935].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author uoftenwinny
    negative SEO is not good , it should be penaltied by Google.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6075992].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Allard
    Wow this thread was an interesting read, negativeseo like others I don't agree with what you do but I did appreciate the insight to your methods. I'll leave the whole moral judgement thing out of it.

    I've always been one to believe links can't affect SERP's negatively, especially if the website is established (aged) and already has quality links pointing to it. But these case studies and new info about 'negative seo' proves all that wrong.

    Very shocking to me that Google would let this happen considering they're the industry leader. Anyways I think it's important for all of us who work with SEO to know about this whether we agree with it or not.
    Signature

    Facebook page for inspiration & JV opportunities-

    facebook.com/WantrepreneurToEntrepreneur

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6080264].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JeanneLynn
    I think what NegativeSEO did was highly unethical, but I sure appreciated reading his post.

    It would be very hard for me to destroy someone's site. How would I know if the owner of the site was some poor struggling mama who needed to support her children? How could you ever live with doing something so horrible to another human being?

    As far as the legality of negative SEO, I doubt it would be against the law. How would the website owner ever find out who was responsible for torching his site? Especially since Google says negative SEO doesn't exist. How could you be prosecuted for something that Google claims doesn't happen?

    Why doesn't Google just ignore the links instead of punishing the sites? That would eliminate the possibility of negative SEO and stop most of the internet spamming that is going on.

    I'm sickened that negative SEO is actually a possibility.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6080384].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
    I'm a NegativeSEO supporter... In such that I can appreciate what was done and think people need to wake up if they think it's anything besides the reality of what needed to happen.

    Fact is, there's a rumor of an organized and prolonged 'click attack' to devalue adsense advertising. Everyone will call that skeezy and dirty, etc... But what does google expect when they treat their publishers like crap?

    Well... What did they expect when negative SEO became a reality?

    What, they get to smack everyone else in the face and not get the favor returned? Why, what makes them special?

    Why is this shocking anyone and further more... Why attack the guy? It's an obvious and predictable conclusion and I'm glad N.SEO is doing what he's doing. Blame Google for giving people the weapon and motivation to use it... Congratulate this guy for the time, effort, and research.
    Signature
    Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
    http://www.godoveryou.com/
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082812].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan Allard
      Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

      IWhat, they get to smack everyone else in the face and not get the favor returned?
      They don't 'smack everyone in the face', the webmasters that get Google slapped are generally using methods that manipulate their system and cause lower quality search results. Google's updates are meant to provide higher quality results, which makes sense considering they're a business and have to provide quality products to their users to stay alive.

      This update might enable others to 'smack' innocent webmasters but do you really think Google will leave that door open for a long period of time? Obviously this whole 'negative seo' thing is gaining publicity and more and more people will use it to their advantage. When the search results drop in quality Google will make changes and close the loopholes.

      Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

      Why, what makes them special?
      It's their business! They can do whatever the hell they want! Just like you can choose a business model that doesn't involve Google.
      Signature

      Facebook page for inspiration & JV opportunities-

      facebook.com/WantrepreneurToEntrepreneur

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082998].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
    Both of you are painfully clueless. I'll have a discussion, but I can't fix a fundamental thought process problem.

    Your forum here is loaded with good honest people negatively harmed by google. You having your opinion on why that is ... Well that's your opinion.

    I'm not going to spend 100 posts talking to a crazy person
    Signature
    Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
    http://www.godoveryou.com/
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083119].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Both of you are painfully clueless. [...snip...] a crazy person
      The discussion has value. That sort of comment doesn't, and it's not likely to lead to any productive end in this circumstance.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083182].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan Allard
      Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

      Both of you are painfully clueless. I'll have a discussion, but I can't fix a fundamental thought process problem.

      Your forum here is loaded with good honest people negatively harmed by google. You having your opinion on why that is ... Well that's your opinion.

      I'm not going to spend 100 posts talking to a crazy person
      Fundamental thought process problem? Instead of focusing outward try focusing inward and changing your presuppositions that Google is out to get everyone, and the whole 'us against them' mentality. It's not going to get you anywhere.

      As far as good honest people being harmed negatively, every story I read so far (aside from negatvieseo's case study) admitted to building backlinks. I'm not trying to preach white hat seo, I take risks like many others here when the risk is worth it. But #1 don't base your whole business on manipulating Google when it obviously won't last (obvious considering their goals and past record) and #2 like I said Google will fix the loopholes. Yes that is my opinion but I'm pretty sure it's common sense.

      You along with a few others here have this radical idea that spammers are going to take over and the end is near for Google. And you call us crazy?

      Edit: Sorry Paul just noticed your post above, will try to bring the tone down to a more neutral level.
      Signature

      Facebook page for inspiration & JV opportunities-

      facebook.com/WantrepreneurToEntrepreneur

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083194].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

      Both of you are painfully clueless. I'll have a discussion, but I can't fix a fundamental thought process problem.
      I can't either so good luck to you as you move along

      Your forum here is loaded with good honest people negatively harmed by google. You having your opinion on why that is ... Well that's your opinion
      Like I said we are grown ups. Most of us knew we were gaming and are looking for ways to move forward. Whining about how Google harmed us doesn't do a stick of good and frankly this push to utilize negative SEo is just short sighted and strategically dumb (not saying you are saying the strategy when thought through is) . It assumes one of two illogical things

      A) that the other people you use it on will just sit there while you tank them and not turn around and tank you. Competitive serps won't have that result. Its all good for weak serps where people don't know anything going on with SEO but go ahead and tank a site of mine with backlinks and you won't be at the top for very long. I'll return the favor and so would any SEO worth his sauce. So its for weak serps where no real SEO working.

      B) that as a campaign against Google they will return to the status Quo rather than put safeguards in that will STILL leave marketers without many options for links that matter.

      So frankly go for it . Some of us will leave you guys to it and you can burn your wheels for us while we move ahead with building things that last and will survive the change that will inevitably come.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083220].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jonathanleger
    Dan Thies' response comment on SEOBook's article on the matter:

    So far, I have gained more Google traffic from this than I've "lost." They drove my site all the way to page 1 for [seo] before it fell back some, but it's still higher than before.

    Negative SEO is a big fat fail here. They selectively choose which rankings to measure when, but Analytics will show you....

    Twitter / Dan Thies: Say something stupid, get ...
    GoogleBowling, Negative SEO & Outing | SEO Book.com
    Signature
    The Best Spinner - Hands-down the best content spinner on the planet. Version 3.0 adds a massive number of powerful new features (and a super-improved interface).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083264].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author zaco
    Dan's website wont tank because they made it public, so basically Google's engineers will exclude his site from being penalized but if a small business gets this amount of links then it will tank and get penalized...

    Everything is considered blackhat now, even guest blogging! Google wants you to get links without building them so people link to you if you have great content but the question is how would people get my content if I don't rank..

    The whole argument about quality content is BS..Google cannot value your content if its quality or no "as long as its written in a good way"

    As I said before, Google wants us to write what they want even if we wont rank..but alot of the sites that are ranking have rubbish content.

    If we want to depend on Google then we should accept their terms, at the end its their service, as much as I hate to say it but its their search engine and they can do what they want..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083310].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author footfoot
    Guy's a big mouth butt kisser anyway. deserves it
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083643].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JeanneLynn
      Originally Posted by footfoot View Post

      Guy's a big mouth butt kisser anyway. deserves it
      Dan Thies sort of apologized for the Matt Cutts tweet in the thread at Traffic Planet. He said something like he shouldn't have said it (it was insensitive) and he was just trying to get information out of Cutts that could benefit his readers.

      He also said that the decreased rankings could have been caused by him recently changing his theme.

      A lot of people say that you don't lose rankings when you change your theme, but one of my sites disappeared from Google for over 3 weeks when I changed mine.

      I'll still be watching the situation to see if the negative SEO ends up working. I really enjoyed reading the thread about it! I think that Google will probably fix the situation with his website, especially if he's friends with Matt Cutts.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083767].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author danblinman
    I say we all get together and spam the **** out of Matt Cutt's website with bad SEO and see how he likes it!
    Signature

    Left my job at 19 to try and make money as a blogger. An unsuccessful start was quickly followed by the greatest discovery I made in my entire life. Click here to learn more.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6084064].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Adaptise
    Looking at justgoodcars.com that negativeseo mentions taking out, according to their backlink profile in majestic, they built in excess of 20 MILLION links between July 08 and March 09 - well before negativeseo said he/she started the campaign (he/she mentions starting "about a year ago"). The only way you can build that kind of volume of links is through automation, which leads to the conclusion that justgoodcars.com was ALREADY dealing in some pretty shady stuff to begin with....
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6086506].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Great find adaptise. This is one of the reasons I take people's claims with a huge grain of salt. Its easy to claim things and have people going oooh and ahh

      Originally Posted by Adaptise View Post

      Looking at justgoodcars.com that negativeseo mentions taking out, according to their backlink profile in majestic, they built in excess of 20 MILLION links between July 08 and March 09 - well before negativeseo said he/she started the campaign (he/she mentions starting "about a year ago"). The only way you can build that kind of volume of links is through automation, which leads to the conclusion that justgoodcars.com was ALREADY dealing in some pretty shady stuff to begin with....
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6086964].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Lol, my gut tells me this is a publicity stunt to drive traffic to Dans site/s.

    Looks like it's working:

    Dan Thies negative SEO - Google Search

    Once again, drama delivers traffic. :rolleyes:
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088117].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronmojohny
    Google will fix this, I'll bet. it's always been possible to cause someone's site to "dance" for a while in Google and temporarily lose rankings by sending tons of spammy links; but it wasn't worth it because usually the site would come back quickly even stronger than before. Now it seems this new filter could result in a site being deindexed or stuck in the penalty for an extended period of time. I'll bet Panda 3.5 (when it comes out) will fix some of the problems. (God, I hope so) BTW, I know Dan Thies, and he is a very smart, stand up guy. He has taught myself and many thousands of others valuable Insights about SEO and IM.
    Signature

    ATTENTION WARRIORS: Join -> MonsterResource.com <- 100% Free! (For A Limited Time)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101385].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
      Originally Posted by ronmojohny View Post

      I'll bet Panda 3.5 (when it comes out) will fix some of the problems.
      Very much doubt it, since Panda has nothing to do with backlinks. It's a site quality filter (a machine learning algorithm).

      Sure, Google will try to fix things, but it isn't that easy (tweaking things). They can't just remove the penalties.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6103961].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author negativeseo
    I wrote a good response that answers many questions but Mike Anthony cried like a baby and had the post remove. Please thank him for his efforts on making sure you are kept in the dark.

    Ok Mike Anthony thanks for the second warning email Is it a 3 strike rule?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6108016].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mrconcdid
    I think continuous pressure needs to be applied to Google to reverse their moronic stance. Its not good for the internet, its not good for Google, and it's not good for anyone. It's akin to those witch hunts of the last century to go around penalizing sites for incoming links.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6108344].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jsherloc
      Regarding "holes in the negative seo theory", even if his theory could not be replicated exactly across many sites etc...

      I honestly believe that what NS posted is just one part of many devious processes that people use to hurt websites' rankings. I personally want Google to develop an algo that identifies quality content, gives proper credit where its due, and rewards quality content and user experience with great organic rankings and traffic, and want them to develop an algo that doesn't allow external factors out of webmaster's control to have such potentially drastic longterm affects and implications...because then we wouldn't be in this mess and people could without a doubt focus on providing the most quality content for users and rewarded accordingly. If Google was the Google that Google has been saying they are for the past decade, well lets just not go there lol...though they are certainly rushing around to get other reliable data signals for rankings, pushing AuthorRank, etc. BTW, the whole g plus author thing is a HUGE win for Google in terms of fighting SPAM, similar to Facebook comments, etc. THE PROBLEM IN MY OPINION IS THAT WE SEEM TO BE A FEW YEARS AWAY FROM THIS TYPE OF ALGO being "complete"...what do you guys think?

      Posts and discussions like the following just illustrate the type of storm we have brewing it seems...

      Google the following for an example: "[METHOD] Illuminati Link Domination Strategy", some of the traffic planet posts, etc

      AdWords advertisers can ofcourse use their account reps for "sway" in this regard as well, reporting sites they might find minor issues with etc this can be heavily abused certain ways...and is.

      301 redirects can be used to funnel "spammy" linkjuice and force subsequent link loss in all kinds of devious ways as well...building 1000's of links with one anchor text used on crappy properties you control, and then reporting the site and removing-deindexing those properties en masse will certainly not help people's websites. Do you believe stuff like this wouldn't hurt newer "average" websites in "average" niches? Do you believe stuff like these processes isn't happening more and more behind the scenes now that the different Google "triggers" seem extra sensitive in many regards?

      Many, many options out there for people that don't necessarily include just blasting crappy links, reporting their competitors for linkbuilding, etc...

      I dunno about you guys, but I'd love for Google to be the Google they claim they are, so I can get on with creating quality content that my demographics are asking for without even worrying about "SEO/links/negative seo/competitors using visible loopholes that have existed for some time even after being pointed out many times, etc". If you provide HUGE VALUE you want Google to address issues like these, no? Discussions on this negative seo topic provide more LONG-TERM value for the ENTIRE WEB COMMUNITY AT LARGE and RELEVANCE than 90% of discussions on here in my opinion. EDIT: For those that might misunderstand me on this point, I mean THIS STUFF NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH, BUT THEY CONTINUE TO EITHER IGNORE OR JUST GENUINELY CAN'T STOP IT AT THIS CURRENT TIME I GUESS. In the mean time, the small-medium-sized guys are at risk IMO...which is the majority of the Internet.

      For example, discussing activities that occur in order to come up with a realistic solution does not equate to endorsing these activities. In my opinion, a certain political party here in the States has a huge issue with making this "logic leap" a lot of the time and they fight the same way many on this board do to harass others and "shut up about what is actually going on in the world" lol...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6108492].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jsherloc
    Also, can anyone update this thread with ANY related relevant legal cases (from any country) where companies have gone after individuals/companies for applying negative seo methods and the like, it would be VERY relevant?

    I was reading the Google thread on this issue and one guy mentioned some cases, but they didn't seem all that relevant to the stuff we are discussing here in terms of very specific negative seo methods. Some were going for criminal damages, etc. Since Google algo is proprietary info etc, how would cases like this actually translate across different continents?

    Just curious as I've seen people make suggestions that some of these types of activities are illegal in certain jurisdictions or could be found to be illegal for civil damages, and I wouldn't doubt it. But in terms of actually making a case that some guy tanked your website based on the interaction of factors no one OFFICIALLY knows aka the Google algo, probably living a continent over, used thousands of services and broke the TOS of thousands of sites during negative seo attempts, etc...I'd love to see some linked cases maybe I'm missing that are in process/appeal etc.

    I guess it would be all about proving "intent", and that's gotta be pretty difficult on a global scale regarding something so flimsy as SERPs and cross-continent laws, etc...

    Also I wanted to be a lawyer before getting into IM, so I like reading cases like these law cases lol.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6108567].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author andrewp82
    I reckon for $20 you could by 5 Fiverrs and bring down a small site.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6108659].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gearmonkey
    I have this strange feeling that Dan Thies isn't very well liked....

    What's the deal?
    Signature

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

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6109547].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jsherloc
    What do ya know, here's a quote from a post over on the TP forum for another example:

    "And again to keep whipping a dead horse because apparently some just arent listening...

    If you go setup 10-30 blogs, add your competitors links to the homepages, wait a few days for all of them to be crawled, then delete half the competitors links all at the same time, the 10-30 blogs will be deindexed in 3-6 weeks and your competitors sites will tank for their main keywords and in some cases it will not be possible for them to rank again for those keywords in the future.

    So yes SEO is not going away, but does the above kind of SEO sound like a fun place to be?"


    I agree with that poster about not wanting to operate in that sort of negative hostile environment, Google "TrafficPlanet Negative SEO Fiverr Gigs Now Available" for full thread.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6112642].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author advancedmile
    How do you know Dan Thoes doesn't do blackhatseo himself?

    "He is seo guru"

    You can that only if you know all domain names he have or he work on.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6125409].message }}

Trending Topics