Can Your Site Lose Its Rankings Because Of Competitors' Negative SEO?

31 replies
  • SEO
  • |
just came across on a very good article about negative seo.

read here Can Your Site Lose Its Rankings Because Of Competitors

post your comments and thoughts below.
#competitors’ #lose #negative #rankings #seo #site
  • Profile picture of the author WittyT
    One of the factors that will determine whether it can impact your ranking negatively or not is if your site's new or an authority site. If it's only a few weeks/months old with a low PR, I'm afraid that a big and nasty scrapebox blast will only result in your website being sandboxed... So yes, the competition can hurt you if you're not established yet.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6091799].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by WittyT View Post

      One of the factors that will determine whether it can impact your ranking negatively or not is if your site's new or an authority site. If it's only a few weeks/months old with a low PR, I'm afraid that a big and nasty scrapebox blast will only result in your website being sandboxed... So yes, the competition can hurt you if you're not established yet.

      You might want to read the stories before commenting...

      Otherwise, your theory may not wash... :p
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6091821].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    I read the story referenced in that article last night:
    Case Study Negative SEO Results

    I have always suspected that it could be done, but I had never done the work to prove it could be done.

    Now I don't have to test it, because Traffic Planet did it already. LOL

    It would seem that they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Matt Cutts is WRONG, and that Negative SEO does work.

    I am pretty sure that Dan Thies is a Warrior. Maybe he would like to come around and talk about this.
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6091809].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
      Originally Posted by tpw View Post

      It would seem that they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Matt Cutts is WRONG, and that Negative SEO does work.
      Said so back in November 2011... and people told me I was crazy.

      Well...

      Google started a huge destruction path with all this mess. How the hell are they going to re-adjust their algos to remove a classic bad move? How long for people to see it? How many small sites/companies will lose "everything" because of this single error?

      And HOW in the freakin world of Google, with so many bright minds, NO ONE saw this coming - and yet, a bunch of webmasters saw it for months?!?!?!

      More disturbing then what Google did, it's what they didn't do...

      That's the scary part.
      Signature
      People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6091853].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by tpw View Post

      It would seem that they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Matt Cutts is WRONG, and that Negative SEO does work.

      I am pretty sure that Dan Thies is a Warrior. Maybe he would like to come around and talk about this.
      I guess this was moved from the main board again? Dan thies answered in that thread and in other places.

      Did you even actually read the thread? Its FAR from conclusive and yes Thies has responded and indicated he's lost little traffic. Last time I read a day or two ago he was pronouncing the test a complete failure. However its clearly possible to do to some sites.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6099170].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ExRat
    Hi buzz4me,

    Along with what tpw said, check out THIS thread.
    Signature


    Roger Davis

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6091831].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

      Hi buzz4me,

      Along with what tpw said, check out THIS thread.

      The absolutely most telling comment in the thread you referenced is this one:


      Originally Posted by mrultra View Post

      It shatters it at least as much as the anecdotal evidence you posted on your site disproves it.

      He was at number 8 before the experiment.....he's at 30-35 now. Make of that what you will.

      Meanwhile, something for folks to keep in mind....if negative seo isn't possible, then you no longer have to worry about building spam links, buying links, etc because they can't hurt you. If a competitor can't hurt you with spammy links, then you can't hurt yourself with spammy links. If you can hurt yourself with bad links however, then guess what? So can a competitor.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6091886].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MidlandsMarketer
    I'll admit, my poll response was before I'd read the articles linked to in this thread.

    In the face of the evidence, I would have to say that it appears negative SEO can work, however I think an algo change will come down on that in the future.

    Otherwise, we could feasibly see a vicious cycle where a competitor bombs top ranking sites so that they leapfrog in the rankings, and the bombed sites try to regain their positions by bombing their higher-ranking competitors, and so on.

    I've always held the belief that off-site SEO should have little impact on a site's rankings, especially if it is already an established authority that has been providing quality information for years.

    I assume that Google want their results to reflect the best possible results for the searchers' needs- and I don't think that the allowance of negative SEO does this.

    The only solution I can see is a system in which G ignores suspicious backlinks, rather than penalizing them. That way, the site sees no benefit from them, yet established sites can't be derailed by malicious activity.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6091874].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JCTorpey
      After reading the case study thread at TrafficPlanet last night, (found the link to the case study in another thread) I absolutely do believe it is possible, whereas before I read it, I really was naïve enough to think the big G would catch a tactic like that and nip it real quick.

      I have to agree with MidlandsMarketer with his idea of ignoring suspicious links. It is obvious there is no way to know whether the competitors are creating them or not.

      This study also makes me wonder whether the JC Penny/Overstock linking "scandal" was a result of their campaigns or competitors trying to make their sites/businesses bomb.



      Originally Posted by MidlandsMarketer View Post

      I'll admit, my poll response was before I'd read the articles linked to in this thread.

      In the face of the evidence, I would have to say that it appears negative SEO can work, however I think an algo change will come down on that in the future.

      Otherwise, we could feasibly see a vicious cycle where a competitor bombs top ranking sites so that they leapfrog in the rankings, and the bombed sites try to regain their positions by bombing their higher-ranking competitors, and so on.

      I've always held the belief that off-site SEO should have little impact on a site's rankings, especially if it is already an established authority that has been providing quality information for years.

      I assume that Google want their results to reflect the best possible results for the searchers' needs- and I don't think that the allowance of negative SEO does this.

      The only solution I can see is a system in which G ignores suspicious backlinks, rather than penalizing them. That way, the site sees no benefit from them, yet established sites can't be derailed by malicious activity.
      Signature

      JC Torpey ~ Freelance Writer for Hire
      Read samples and view my portfolio @ Virtual Copy
      Read the VCopy Blog before Sept. 30 and get a discount off all services

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6091932].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by JCTorpey View Post

        This study also makes me wonder whether the JC Penny/Overstock linking "scandal" was a result of their campaigns or competitors trying to make their sites/businesses bomb.

        It has already been established that the JC Penny / Overstock linking scandal was the result of the SEO companies that JC Penny and Overstock hired to work on their behalf.
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092025].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author yukon
          Banned
          Originally Posted by tpw View Post

          It has already been established that the JC Penny / Overstock linking scandal was the result of the SEO companies that JC Penny and Overstock hired to work on their behalf.
          JCPenney was narked out by the media & a few self proclaimed SEO gurus milking free traffic/publicity.

          JCPenney didn't drop in the SERPs until after the story had went viral.

          The JCPenney incident was a manual smack down. Google covered their own arse so it didn't look like the backlink network that JCPenney paid for was worthy. Lol, by the time Google took action everyone else had already seen the links that were ranking JCPenney, Google was late to the party.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092114].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author tpw
            Originally Posted by yukon View Post

            The JCPenney incident was a manual smack down. Google covered their own arse so it didn't look like the backlink network that JCPenney paid for was worthy. Lol, by the time Google took action everyone else had already seen the links that were ranking JCPenney, Google was late to the party.

            Yeah, I knew that Google manually smacked them.

            And Google is usually late to the party, because like all big companies, they simply react, rather than act.
            Signature
            Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
            Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092530].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by MidlandsMarketer View Post

      I've always held the belief that off-site SEO should have little impact on a site's rankings, especially if it is already an established authority that has been providing quality information for years.

      I assume that Google want their results to reflect the best possible results for the searchers' needs- and I don't think that the allowance of negative SEO does this.

      The only solution I can see is a system in which G ignores suspicious backlinks, rather than penalizing them. That way, the site sees no benefit from them, yet established sites can't be derailed by malicious activity.

      If Google negates the penalty on spammy link building, then their search results will be as polluted as they were in the summer of 2011.

      I suspect that Google doesn't want to go backwards, before moving forward. I seriously doubt that they will deconstruct the updates done in October / November 2011. I am betting that they will instead try to understand it in a greater context, so as to nullify link bombs.

      They have done this before when they eliminated the effectiveness of the Google Bomb.

      Interestingly, I see Google moving more the direction of Bing.

      LOL

      People say that Bing is so small still that it will not ever overtake Google, but Bing has picked up at least 10 points in market share against Google, since Bing was born.

      This conclusion is drawn against Google's total market share since the launch of Bing.

      The Google losses are going to Bing/Yahoo, and since Yahoo is now Bing, we might as well call it as it is, that Google is losing to Bing.

      Google built itself on the basis of tracking "social proof" on the Internet -- the number of inbound links to a site.

      Unfortunately for them (I was writing about this in 2007) they made the mistake of telling the web world that their system was based on links. As soon as they let the genie out of the bottle, they could not put him back into the bottle...

      cue the following video to 5:50 to 6:08



      Now every day, webmasters beat them over the head with back links -- offering real and fake social proof.

      According to someone I know who was in the programming team at Bing, Bing was designed as the anti-Google.

      Google was designed to order ranking by:
      1. External Links;
      2. Internal Links;
      3. Then On-Site Content

      Bing was designed in reverse of Google:
      1. On-Site Content;
      2. Internal Links;
      3. Then External Links;

      Bing will never have the issues that Google has, because it is the polar opposite of Google. Bing cannot be manipulated with external links.

      I have been sensing from the Google folks a shift towards the Bing model, where External Links are becoming less and less important...

      How far Google will go in that direction is yet to be seen, but the Negative SEO aspects of the current Google algorithm may push them faster towards adopting the Bing ranking model.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092019].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    The real question should be:

    Are you going to waste your time pissing in the wind trying to drop all competition in the SERPs?
    Think about this without the kill Google mentality. If a keyword is worthwhile, fresh competition will never stop (never)!

    Long term, it's the lamest strategy I've ever heard anyone want to do in SEO. Might want to call up Warren Buffett to bankroll the scheme. Does it make financial sense long term, I doubt that very much.

    Sounds like a house of cards scheme, at best.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092049].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author LarryHaywood
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      The real question should be:



      Think about this without the kill Google mentality. If a keyword is worthwhile, fresh competition will never stop (never)!

      Long term, it's the lamest strategy I've ever heard anyone want to do in SEO. Might want to call up Warren Buffett to bankroll the scheme. Does it make financial sense long term, I doubt that very much.

      Sounds like a house of cards scheme, at best.
      I think you're spot on Yukon. Not only will the loophole be closed sooner or later, that is really putting out some bad karma IMO. I don't want any part of trying to destroy someone's business.
      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[6092127].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author PriceMaster
        Its definitely possible but nothing to be sure of. If your competitor is building your links in paid blog directories and you get caught you sure could suffer the penalties.

        On the other hand adding your link to spam/malicious websites won't make too much of a difference.
        Signature
        DoFollow Backlinking, SEO and Internet Marketing Forum - Discuss SEO, IM and everything else!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092138].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    Google can stop this any time they want. I honestly can't come up with a logical reason why they don't.

    Here's all they have to do: Platform links don't count for or against any site, they are simply ignored.

    A platform link is defined as a link found by using footprints of common web site building software, such as:

    "powered by wordpress"
    "add a comment"

    ...etc.

    This is how every link spamming tool finds links, and if they can do it, so can Google.

    Google then needs to slightly tweak their algo for these platforms so that incontext links on Wordpress blogs count, but links in WP comments don't. Links in vBulletin posts count, links on VB profile pages and sigs don't.

    These platform links mean nothing. They shouldn't be used to increase ranking and they shouldn't be used to decrease ranking, either. And I don't believe for a second that it is that hard for Google to figure out what is an automated platform link and what isn't.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092237].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Kurt,

      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      Google can stop this any time they want. I honestly can't come up with a logical reason why they don't.

      Here's all they have to do: Platform links don't count for or against any site, they are simply ignored.

      A platform link is defined as a link found by using footprints of common web site building software, such as:

      "powered by wordpress"
      "add a comment"

      ...etc.

      This is how every link spamming tool finds links, and if they can do it, so can Google.

      Google then needs to slightly tweak their algo for these platforms so that incontext links on Wordpress blogs count, but links in WP comments don't. Links in vBulletin posts count, links on VB profile pages and sigs don't.

      These platform links mean nothing. They shouldn't be used to increase ranking and they shouldn't be used to decrease ranking, either. And I don't believe for a second that it is that hard for Google to figure out what is an automated platform link and what isn't.
      I see where you're coming from, but don't you think that this would 'help' to solve the problem rather than 'stopping' it entirely?

      In other words, they solve one problem and then create another (due to the huge amount of people trying to manipulate rankings.)

      For example, if they nulled platform links as you suggest, but still counted in context links on wordpress blogs, then all efforts switch over immediately to creating under the radar blog networks with in context links, plus the SERPs get overrun with linkbait type posts trying to get genuine links - plus 100 other related issues that I haven't thought of yet, which would become problematic due to the sheer number of people trying to get ranked.

      My point being that there is such a critical mass of effort applied to whatever is touted as 'the latest way to get ranked' that whatever Google do, their SERPs are crap, good sites get penalised, other new issues arrive and people continue to make money pushing the latest fad for gaming the SERPs.

      If you take 'juice' away from one method, that means that other methods must gain more rank-juice and unless they find a way to isolate these methods into a group that are purely organic and unmanipulatable (made up word?) then they still have the same problems (or a similar number of slightly different ones.) Or am I missing something?
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6099063].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        Hi Kurt,



        I see where you're coming from, but don't you think that this would 'help' to solve the problem rather than 'stopping' it entirely?

        In other words, they solve one problem and then create another (due to the huge amount of people trying to manipulate rankings.)

        For example, if they nulled platform links as you suggest, but still counted in context links on wordpress blogs, then all efforts switch over immediately to creating under the radar blog networks with in context links, plus the SERPs get overrun with linkbait type posts trying to get genuine links - plus 100 other related issues that I haven't thought of yet, which would become problematic due to the sheer number of people trying to get ranked.

        My point being that there is such a critical mass of effort applied to whatever is touted as 'the latest way to get ranked' that whatever Google do, their SERPs are crap, good sites get penalised, other new issues arrive and people continue to make money pushing the latest fad for gaming the SERPs.

        If you take 'juice' away from one method, that means that other methods must gain more rank-juice and unless they find a way to isolate these methods into a group that are purely organic and unmanipulatable (made up word?) then they still have the same problems (or a similar number of slightly different ones.) Or am I missing something?

        Hey Roger,

        I agree with your points. My response is "nothing is perfect" and that the platform links as I define them don't mean a thing except who clicks a button the most.

        Google could just take away the incontext links from WP, but that would harm legit bloggers. Setting up multiple WP blogs across different IPs for incontext links is possible, but it's much harder than simply using automated tools to post comments on existing blogs.

        Plus, the comment spamming provides incentives for some to spam others' sites. Incontext links are created only by the blog owners on your own blogs nd doesn't hurt anyone else, other than maybe Google and it's up to them to figure out how they want to count links, not me or you.

        They way it is now (and has been), Google provides tons of incentive for people to vandalize others' sites through comment spam, profile spam, etc. Google needs to stop these incentives for no other reason than the harm it does these sites, let alone the fact that these types of links are no indication of the quality of the sites they link to.

        Honestly, I'm trying to create a hosting exchange club with the purpose of getting an advantage in Google. However, it's between willing partners and it's up to Google to do something about it. No one is making Google rank or even index any of these domains.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6099366].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JeanneLynn
    I'm very worried about the possiblity of negative SEO.

    I see people doing studies about taking down some big sites. I'm sure if Wikipedia gets a bunch of spam backlinks that Google will take care of it. As the webmaster of a small site, I'm concerned about the effect on small sites.

    There is a competing site in my niche. It's a pretty pitiful site as far as user experience goes. It doesn't have a privacy page, yet runs Adsense. The owner of this site butts his adsense ad blocks right against his images. The quality of his content is terrible. He adds new content each week (usually 10 articles). However, the content offers the visitor nothing. The content is full of fluff. The website has PR2 and is about 18 months old.

    Yet, this website appears on the front page of Google for many high paying keywords.

    So, according to negative SEO, I can remove this thorn in my side simply by buying some Fiverr Xrumer and Scrapebox spam gigs today? I guess what I want to know is if it would actually work. And if not, what am I missing?

    I would never actually do such a mean thing to another person, but it scares me to think this may even be a possibility. And someone could do it to my next site.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092592].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dburk
      Originally Posted by JeanneLynn View Post

      I'm very worried about the possiblity of negative SEO.

      I see people doing studies about taking down some big sites. I'm sure if Wikipedia gets a bunch of spam backlinks that Google will take care of it. As the webmaster of a small site, I'm concerned about the effect on small sites.

      There is a competing site in my niche. It's a pretty pitiful site as far as user experience goes. It doesn't have a privacy page, yet runs Adsense. The owner of this site butts his adsense ad blocks right against his images. The quality of his content is terrible. He adds new content each week (usually 10 articles). However, the content offers the visitor nothing. The content is full of fluff. The website has PR2 and is about 18 months old.

      Yet, this website appears on the front page of Google for many high paying keywords.

      So, according to negative SEO, I can remove this thorn in my side simply by buying some Fiverr Xrumer and Scrapebox spam gigs today? I guess what I want to know is if it would actually work. And if not, what am I missing?

      I would never actually do such a mean thing to another person, but it scares me to think this may even be a possibility. And someone could do it to my next site.
      Hi JeanneLynn,

      I wouldn't think that it is that easy. If building a bunch of spamming backlinks to a web page is all it takes to tank it in the SERP then we wouldn't see many of the web pages ranking where we see them now.

      If you carefully read the details of the negative campaigns that were effective, they went far beyond building spammy links. They waged a destructive negative publicity campaign, posing as the owner of the website they were targeting, they contacted webmasters threatening serious consequences if they did not remove links to website targeted in their attack. That particular activity comes dangerously close to crossing the line into criminal activity. At the very least, they have exposed themselves to serious legal action.

      It seemed to me to be a colossal waste of money, since they could have saved themselves much time and money by hiring a cracker to hack their victim's website, just as effective, just as immoral, just as unethical and probably just as illegal.

      I seriously doubt, that spammy backlinks alone, will have any significantly negative impact on a well established website.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6093033].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JeanneLynn
        If I blast 20,000 spammy links to my website, I could lose rankings.

        If I blast 20,000 spammy links to a competitors site, they won't lose rankings?

        How does Google know who blasted the spammy links?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6093140].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author wolfmmiii
          Originally Posted by JeanneLynn View Post


          How does Google know who blasted the spammy links?

          Easy answer: they don't.
          Signature
          Want a REAL Online Business That's Fun to Run?
          CLICK HERE FOR INFO
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6093186].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author jsherloc
        Originally Posted by dburk View Post

        Hi JeanneLynn,

        I wouldn't think that it is that easy. If building a bunch of spamming backlinks to a web page is all it takes to tank it in the SERP then we wouldn't see many of the web pages ranking where we see them now.
        This in combination with other things can certainly cause folks months of headaches in my opinion though. It is not so much the inbound link blasts in and of themselves, but it appears forcing a significant volume of link loss in addition to the hammering of inbound links and other things like then reporting the website for paid links etc can do serious damage to most websites out there. Doesn't look good...


        I seriously doubt, that spammy backlinks alone, will have any significantly negative impact on a well established website.
        The problem is, the majority of people involved with IM don't have well established websites in the sense of passing enough quality/trust thresholds, branded results and manually reviewed and classified several times etc to be immune to these types of things. Many many folks DO have websites like these that frequently post on these forums, but I'd think from reading this forum and others like it over the years, most folks are at different stages of the IM process and really trying to establish that authority will be even rougher with these negative possibilities in the mix. And that's without talking about small-medium offline businesses etc
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6096914].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author EvcRo
    Do not cry do not freak

    Google has the right to put anything on their search results pages

    The result of this moves will be an example how "to big to fail" fails.
    Signature
    Looking for business partners or clients ? try https://businessconnect.directory/ , a business directory actively adding moderated content. Submit your business / website / service today !
    SEO Marketplace - SEO & Internet Marketing Products and Services for 10+ Years
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6093298].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WinsonYeung
    Expecting negative SEO to get more and more popular, there's even a fiverr gigs on negative SEO! This is just ridiculous ..
    Signature
    [WSO of The Day] Discount How To Generate 172.56% Positive Return OR build your List for FREE!

    "Case Study: Discover You Can Make $1371.66 With A Simple Blog Post by Clicking Here"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6096092].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author chetankm
    How i know some one doing negative seo for me
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6096547].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author krishan1982
    Yes i believe this because past 3 month ago i have lose my all keyword ranking now every keyword Good position
    Thanks
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6096837].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso


    I'll get back to some of you later on, when in a couple weeks/months this Negative SEO "thing" turns to be daily common sense and acknowledged by every webmasters in this planet - if Google don't revert the changes made last year.

    And for those still thinking "why is he mentioning last year, again???!" that's because this Negative SEO flaw was opened last year - not last week.

    Fernando
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6098963].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso View Post

      if Google don't revert the changes made last year.
      they'll fix some thing but its not going to revert to what things were.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6099182].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author patco
    I don't think this could hurt your website. The only thing the competitor can do is to help you rank better, because each backlink is a "vote" for your website!
    Signature

    A blog that will show you How to Lose Weight with a cool Quick Weight Loss guide...
    Also enjoy some of my favorite Funny pictures and photos that will make you smile :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6099112].message }}

Trending Topics