Negative SEO is Alive and Well

11 years ago

Thats horrible. My local internet marketing meetup had a few cases this past month.

I wouldnt recommend disavow though, doesn't help much. Gonna have to be more proactive and remove the links.

I feel for her though its so easy to game Google with negative SEO and you are seeing it everywhere now.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607266].message }}

SEODollz

11 years ago

27,000 is hard to remove manually. Trust me I haven't had to use disavow for anyone yet but in the case of 27,000 I think I'd give it a go. That's a lot of man hours!

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607274].message }}

DizenSounds

11 years ago

Ya I mean keep us posted but I havent had luck with disavow regardless of the volume of negative SEO.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607324].message }}

MikeFriedman

11 years ago

Well, the good news if you try to go the Disavow route, is you will probably find a lot of the links are on the same domains. Makes it a little easier to sort through, and you can just disavow any links coming from specific domains rather than listing them all one by one.

Sucks to see that happen to real businesses. What's even worse is when someone hires an SEO and those are the kind of links they build thinking they are helping the client.

Hope that person can recover.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

SaaS SEO Consultant

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607326].message }}

yukon

Banned 11 years ago

They've had 10 years to diversify traffic sources, even If that means building multiple smaller sites targeting the same keywords & funneling traffic back to sales pages on a main site/domain.

What have they been doing for 10 years?

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607358].message }}

Newven 11 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

even If that means building multiple smaller sites targeting the same keywords & funneling traffic back to sales pages on a main site/domain.

Isn't that sort of against google's guidelines ?
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607506].message }}
- yukon Banned 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Newven
  
  Isn't that sort of against google's guidelines ?
  
  It's no big deal & it's no different than any big corp. with a bunch of subsidiaries pushing traffic back & forth across a network of sites. I'm talking about legit sites used to funnel traffic & rank pages.
  
  I have one smaller domain where all the content is video/tutorials that I created for my niche, I wanted to keep my main site focused on one thing (downloads only). On the video site I link back to my main site (funneling traffic), the traffic is same niche traffic & both domains target same/similar keywords in Google SERPs. I have other domains in the same niche that serve the same purpose, they're all focused on different sub-niches of a single larger niche.
  
  All my main keywords have multiple domains/pages ranked per each keyword. That's been going on for years & has nothing to do with any latest Google update. I build long term sites in evergreen niches.
  
  Example, look at the footer on this page: hxxp://www.howstuffworks.com/
  
  In the example below you can pretty much bet those different animal sites are targeting the same/similar keywords & traffic while piggybacking off each domain for SEO. That's just one example, most large sites have multiple domains/subsidiaries.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607586].message }}

Kevin Maguire

11 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

They've had 10 years to diversify traffic sources, even If that means building multiple smaller sites targeting the same keywords & funneling traffic back to sales pages on a main site/domain.

What have they been doing for 10 years?

Dont always presume the other guy has your intelligence.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607510].message }}

Bit Designs

11 years ago

As much as this sucks, I have to agree with yukon.

You can't really blame Google here. What are they supposed to do? Just let all black-hat SEO go unpunished?

It sucks for them, but after being a successful business for 10 years they should be investing in many traffic sources. At the very least a good AdWords campaign.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

High Quality 100% White Hat SEO

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607362].message }}

Newven 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Bit Designs

You can't really blame Google here. What are they supposed to do? Just let all black-hat SEO go unpunished?

Yes you can blame google. What they are supposed to do is simply devalue the spammy links so that they have no weight.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607476].message }}
- Giftys 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Newven
  
  Yes you can blame google. What they are supposed to do is simply devalue the spammy links so that they have no weight.
  
  That's right. You don't take a machine gun to a crowd with a few spammers in it. Too much collateral damage. Google has hurt a lot of businesses.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607479].message }}
  
  yukon Banned 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Giftys
  
  That's right. You don't take a machine gun to a crowd with a few spammers in it. Too much collateral damage. Google has hurt a lot of businesses.
  
  Not again. :rolleyes:
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607503].message }}

yukon

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Bit Designs

As much as this sucks, I have to agree with yukon.

You can't really blame Google here. What are they supposed to do? Just let all black-hat SEO go unpunished?

It sucks for them, but after being a successful business for 10 years they should be investing in many traffic sources. At the very least a good AdWords campaign.

I'm guessing 10 years wasn't enough time to think of plan-B.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607499].message }}

An Al 11 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

I'm guessing 10 years wasn't enough time to think of plan-B.

If the business has been around for 10 years but only ranking for a couple of months, not sure why this would be hurting them so bad.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8608096].message }}

Kevin Maguire

11 years ago

I said it only the other day in a similar thread.

It costs only $70 for a vps with seo software pre-installed to whack a site out. And that would be an amateur spam monkey with a dirty list.

Imagine what an OG like me would do on my 32G dedi and a copy of GScraper.
3800 Verified LPM....Site...Go..Bye...Bye

And thats whats so damn disgusting and retarded about Googles move on this. Momentum for this type of shit is growing, and growing fast. Soon Negative SEO services will be as popular as normal SEO services. As do the "Link Cleanup" services now enjoy large growth.

New Fiverr Gig

"I will whack your competitors site for $5"

I remember Cutts being asked a question about this. He was like...Dont worry everybody. We are Google and we will see this attack and protect you.

Sad...Sad...Sad..and retarded on Googles part.

Edit... Video was easier to find then I thought. Its one year old now. You would think they have the kinks out of their Neg SEO detection by now.

Negative SEO - YouTube

[ 2 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607461].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607662].message }}

Kevin Maguire

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

And let the whine fest begin again. :rolleyes:

Who's whining?

YEP HANDS UP WOOOOP WOOOOP its the police!!!!

Guilty as charged your honor

I do a lot more then promote or use these tools. I've played a part in developing some too. It's all been part of an evolving business we call our jobs (SEO). You use them too (lightly), but you use them no doubt.

I'm damn sure you've made your living off of scrapers? Maybe your not "blasting" with them, but you sure helped fund the developers of them with subscriptions and licenses.

So yeah, absolutely true. We as a community, dug the grave so to speak.

We dared Google to make Neg SEO a reality. Why?
Because everyone knew the speed at which these tools could run at would make a far better negative SEO tool if they ever "Dared". No planning,no scraping,filtering,cleaning needed. All those dirty little blacklist sites you used to filter like mad, now become your friend. So easy.

I've got my PBN. Have had for years, and its f--king huge. I use about 20% of it for OBL, and the rest just sits pretty in the wings if its ever needed. I have site backups for my backups, backups. You have the same, and work hard in reducing the footprints to stay under the radar. But all those site assets are not worth a damn. When Google made Neg SEO a reality, and are turning the SERPs into shooting galleries for any Injen with a Xrumer license.

Thats where its obviously leading Mike, and you know it. You fancy having to flip out those links across your network every few months to a new domain because your site got whacked? I don't.

My "Whine" as you put it, Is more about how Google performed an EPIC FAIL on protecting sites from Neg SEO. When they ensured webmasters they had them protected.

So is it Google fault? Well they did lie about the whole we will protect you, our algo is superduper and knows all question put to Matt Cutts almost a year ago. These penguin algo updates where suppose to reduce spam and make it harder for blackhatters to rank. But now its the complete opposite to that. Instead of 1 site getting whacked to reach the Top of a SERP. You will have every site in the way of that site reaching the top getting whacked with 10 times more spam then the original site would, if there where no Neg SEO option.

Then
1 site = 1 spam = reach top = get whacked eventually
Now
1 site = 10 competitors to spam = reach top = get whacked eventually

Great job on the spam reduction Google uuuuh

Sorry great big EPIC FAIL Google

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607736].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607789].message }}

Giftys

11 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607812].message }}

Mike Anthony 11 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607834].message }}
- Giftys 11 years ago
  
  [DELETED]
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607858].message }}
  
  Mike Anthony 11 years ago
  
  [DELETED]
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607881].message }}
  
  Giftys 11 years ago
  
  [DELETED]
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607898].message }}
  
  Mike Anthony 11 years ago
  
  [DELETED]
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607943].message }}
  
  Giftys 11 years ago
  
  [DELETED]
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8608834].message }}
RedShifted 11 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607924].message }}

Kevin Maguire

11 years ago

@Mike A

SEO Tools evolution :

Really Mike Seriously? Assisted automation has been an integral part of almost all modern manufacturing and commerce, what makes SEO any different? And I'm not talking about "Link Spam". At least half the tools I'd use regularly for doing "SEO" have nothing to do with creating links. Most are multi-functional and have user based settings that can be adjusted for all types of tasks outside of building links. Lets use our beloved Scrapebox, as people are familiar with its "Multiple" functions.

URL scraping/harvesting
List filtering
PR checking
Whois
Moz
etc...etc.

Whether you use them for actually building links or not, you use them to give yourself a distinct and almost non competitive advantage over everyone. The only sad part is that most users "only" use the link spam function

Scrapers:

You took me up wrong on the scraper thing, I didnt mean BS content scraping. Like above I'd ask. So you found, bought and built your PBN's without the use of any automated software to assist you in finding those properties? You just get weekly angel emails with dropping/expiring domain lists right.

And when your looking for links you don't use any tools to find pages/domains with authority and relevance. You just pick a page and hope for the best right?
You don't use the account creation modules to quickly whip through a few Web2 registrations no?

Why is it not widespread? :

The only thing in the algo right now protecting people is time. The time it will take before the wave of Neg SEO companies rises.

Google Says: 5000 recon requests per week. I'd be confident in saying that amongst all those self defeating domains there are plenty of Neg SEO attacks. Your presuming that the whole world is SEO aware, and know exactly what is happening to their sites when they tank. And to add, this 5000 recon requests only represent sites that are actually plugged into WMT. You say yourself, that most of the web is not even plugged in. So whats the real figure of site tankings? How many sites don't go for a recon request? These numbers must be mentally high.

Why are you not running 1000 vps servers and getting rich?:

Well cross the Gypsies hand with silver at least.

I've got a cruise liner thats low on fuel.

Time will tell on this one. A year its been sure, but most of us presume that when Google roll this out and said "Hey guys its safe, we will protect you from Neg SEO, are algos the smartest" they took their word for it. Then people start seeing their sites tank. Then they said WTF? hmm this algo didnt protect me. Then they start testing out Neg SEO and see it works. Then they tell their buddies and word begins to spread. Just like anything really it takes time to build momentum. Out of those 5000 weekly requests we don't see 5000 weekly "my sites been tanked" threads either. So I guess the whole world is not WF aware either.

Being that this is the nasty end of business, even the most ruthless of us has some sort of fair play in them. So this technique may take time to establish itself. But thats not to say it wont.

I Know first hand Neg SEO is beginning to trend, how?:

One of my best friends does consulting for the largest seo vps provider with pre-installed tools. Straight from the horses mouth I was told that sales are through the roof. Filling servers faster then they can set them up. You would think with Penguin people would be running away from these tools. I wonder what has them running to them?

@Gifty
With all due respect. Mike has my express permission to say whatever dafuq he wants to me. I'm not a forum type person at all, and it took me years to get involved in WF. But its people like Mike who keep me here, with knowledge that I can have an adult toned conversation (or argument) with someone who won't go crying into their cornflakes after.

If you spent enough time in this section you would understand the frustration it can cause sometimes. When you see thread after thread of the same types of naive website owners or would be SEO Experts churning out garbage guidance to people who are seeking help. You might realize then, how the tough love and straight talking Mike and others spend their days giving out sound advice time and time again.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8608671].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

You took me up wrong on the scraper thing, I didnt mean BS content scraping. Like above I'd ask. So you found, bought and built your PBN's without the use of any automated software to assist you in finding those properties? You just get weekly angel emails with dropping/expiring domain lists right.

And when your looking for links you don't use any tools to find pages/domains with authority and relevance. You just pick a page and hope for the best right?
You don't use the account creation modules to quickly whip through a few Web2 registrations no? .

Come on Bro....we both know that none of that is "Scraping content". No matter how you spin it I have not built my business on scraping and I had the right to firmly defend myself against such a false characterization. Databases and APIis available from Google are not the same as scraping content off a web page. You are a smart guy (and one of the wittiest here). You know this. They are data sets that are knowingly and purposefully provided to the public for their use. Same goes for domain expiring lists.

You are also taking the automation thing out of context. I own zennoposter, Winautomation and soon will dive into Ubot. I love automation but not spamming. Spamming is a matter of scale. I get Pms every day or every other day from people who I never gave permission to all the time. Some become clients so I am not complaining some just are reaching out - but if you set a tool to send hundreds of unpersonalized PMs then theres a spamming problem.

Anway getting back to the subject - what was Google supposed to do? I have not heard a valid answer to this? SEO dollz to her credit came close by saying just discount the links but since Google's algo is not capable of discounting every link spam to me there has to be a deterrent. To use my previous analogy - since there are not enough cops to pull over every speeder and tell them to slow down the fear of a ticket polices the majority.

If you just discount 99% of links (ones that you can flag) then spammer marketers will just spam a hundred times more to make up for it. What seems to be the case its that if you have a good link profile the link profile serves as credential that you are more legit.

I am still waiting for a good (thats plenty enough time that you indicated as a reason for marketers and black hatters ) explanation or anyone's why if this is so easy, the tools are so well suited for negative SEO and the problem affects every site with any link profile why the serps are not a total mess and the general public not complaining? Most of the most popular and lucrative searches ARE showing good enough results that there is no mass exodus to Bing. Negative SEO has been with us for over a year and despite the claims of total mayhem it hasn't happened and seemingly by tests I have seen some sites do not react negatively to negseo attempts.

Google will need to adjust that but theres no way they are going back to letting spam rule their results. Plenty of businesses suffered under that setup too but you would never hear marketers here complaining about that.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609091].message }}

SEODollz

11 years ago

I know from an IM professional perspective I think like yukon too but a lot of mom and pop type local businesses are riding midway page one because wait for it... they deserve to be there, they might not be there on purpose and they might be too busy running their business to think about how they should be diversifying traffic to their website. but they have been doing good business for a lot of years, they have a modest webpage and they aren't trying to fight their way to top spot. There are small businesses like this on many local first pages, look for them not in the top three perhaps but lower and steady for years.

Then this happens and they go from one day getting their normal number of leads off "the internet" and next day... nothing. Should they be more saavy? Of course but does it make it right that they were victimized by shady SEOs? No way. I see these businesses as "civilians" when I pass them up on the SERPs, I must of course pass them but I'm not going to unnecessarily destroy their rankings altogether and/or get them de-indexed because they are brick and mortar companies with bills to pay. Why is this even an option?? /rant Google doesn't care loooool

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607500].message }}

yukon

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by SEODollz

I know from an IM professional perspective I think like yukon too but a lot of mom and pop type local businesses are riding midway page one because wait for it... they deserve to be there, they might not be there on purpose and they might be too busy running their business to think about how they should be diversifying traffic to their website. but they have been doing good business for a lot of years, they have a modest webpage and they aren't trying to fight their way to top spot. There are small businesses like this on many local first pages, look for them not in the top three perhaps but lower and steady for years.

Then this happens and they go from one day getting their normal number of leads off "the internet" and next day... nothing. Should they be more saavy? Of course but does it make it right that they were victimized by shady SEOs? No way. I see these businesses as "civilians" when I pass them up on the SERPs, I must of course pass them but I'm not going to unnecessarily destroy their rankings altogether and/or get them de-indexed because they are brick and mortar companies with bills to pay. Why is this even an option?? /rant Google doesn't care loooool

Trust me, what I'm talking about isn't just an IMer thing.

I personally know of a family owned greenhouse/nursery business in the US that is brutal about dominating the SERPs with multiple domains. Some small business owners take the bull by the horns, others run screaming.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607623].message }}

SEODollz

11 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Trust me, what I'm talking about isn't just an IMer thing.

I personally know of a family owned greenhouse/nursery business in the US that is brutal about dominating the SERPs with multiple domains. Some small business owners take the bull by the horns, others run screaming.

Oh I totally get it but if Google's purpose and mission (aside from being profitable) is to give the best possible answer to a question then I think this is not even in Google's best interest. Which is the better answer to a Local query? The established real business with a great track record and 10 year history OR the newcomer short cut taker who is obviously morally deficient and bullying his way to the top?

If I was a greedy SEO I would applaud this new era, where every business is going to have to aggressively fight for a spot. Instead it's a little sad I think.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607666].message }}

yukon

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by SEODollz

Oh I totally get it but if Google's purpose and mission (aside from being profitable) is to give the best possible answer to a question then I think this is not even in Google's best interest. Which is the better answer to a Local query? The established real business with a great rack record and 10 year history OR the newcomer short cut taker who is obviously morally deficient and bullying his way to the top?

If I was a greedy SEO I would applaud this new era, where every business is going to have to aggressively fight for a spot. Instead it's a little sad I think.

IMO, there's no possible way to please everyone in the SERPs, everyone has different ideas of what's good or what's bad. I haven't met a site owner yet that didn't think their site was the best thing since sliced bread.

I would like to know what niche this person is targeting, the site you mention in OP, are we talking seedy niches like payday or what? I know you said family business, but some niches just have the seedy competition built in.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607698].message }}

Kevin Maguire

11 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

I haven't met a site owner yet that didn't think their site was the best thing since sliced bread.

You should have asked me man. My shits is so damn ugly it could be a modern art masterpiece. I've had to pay people to come in and clean up my mess before manual reviewers arrive.

My web design has been described as and I quote "similar to the result of a 2yo left at your wall with a crayon". And I cant deny it. Shits UGLY.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607751].message }}

yukon

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

You should have asked me man. My shits is so damn ugly it could be a modern art masterpiece. I've had to pay people to come in and clean up my mess before manual reviewers arrive.

My web design has been described as and I quote "similar to the result of a 2yo left at your wall with a crayon". And I cant deny it. Shits UGLY.

A site can still be useful regardless how ugly the site looks. I've read threads here on Warrior Forum where folks said Craigslist was ugly, I see it as simple & to the point, easy to use, very focused. I don't need cool website graphics to find a used lawnmower.

Beauty is on the inside - YouTube

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609108].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

A site can still be useful regardless how ugly the site looks.

yep and for the most part web crawlers don't give a rip about the CSS file. There are 80s designs out there with animated gifs ranking

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609134].message }}

Kevin Maguire

11 years ago

@Mike

I would say a blacklist option in WMT should do it. One that webmasters could collectively share and combine from previous penalties and submit straight into WMT. That would allow webmaster to preemptively disavow links that come from any domain they choose before they are ever created. The exact same way spammers create blacklists of sites they don't want to hit.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609584].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

@Mike

I would say a blacklist option in WMT should do it. One that webmasters could collectively share and combine from previous penalties and submit straight into WMT. That would allow webmaster to preemptively disavow links that come from any domain they choose before they are ever created.

That wouldn't do a thing Kev even if it were workable. Thousands of new domain are registered each day plus you are going to black list wordpress.com because some one spammed their account? The list of potential spam pages even on otherwise reliable domains goes into the bilions if not trillions. Spam comes from all over the web and the very tools you mentioned before scrape new ones each day.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609872].message }}

Kevin Maguire

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

That wouldn't do a thing Kev even if it were workable. Thousands of new domain are registered each day plus you are going to black list wordpress.com because some one spammed their account? The list of potential spam pages even on otherwise reliable domains goes into the bilions if not trillions. Spam comes from all over the web and the very tools you mentioned before scrape new ones each day.

True 250 mil domains is a lot. And new ones get picked up each day. But at least this would make Neg SEO less of an easy option for any Dodgy SEO who can google search "{get} Xrumer Linklist" and pop in any of the 5 million list of junk box domains available to spammers without needing to learn how to footprint properly.

Thats a start, and I'm pretty sure no one wants a link from any of those sites. Creating and spamming 20000 .wordpress subs is not as straight forward as that. You say it wont solve the entire issue which is true. But its a good starting point for webmasters to be able to make the decision of who they accept links from for themselves.

Anyway you asked for a constructive idea on a solution, and a 10 second think about it gave me that.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609937].message }}

SEODollz

11 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

IMO, there's no possible way to please everyone in the SERPs, everyone has different ideas of what's good or what's bad. I haven't met a site owner yet that didn't think their site was the best thing since sliced bread.

I would like to know what niche this person is targeting, the site you mention in OP, are we talking seedy niches like payday or what? I know you said family business, but some niches just have the seedy competition built in.

House cleaning. So pretty blue collar, working class. I checked my records, I pull all competitor links (top ten) on every SERP I work so six months ago this company's link profile was very typical of what you would expect from the "no SEO" population, couple of natural links, no anchor text optimization. Was ranking mostly on authority, an old site with an active family-oriented blog. Good Facebook presence but not crazy you know?

I don't believe this woman hired anyone, she was livid, she thought I had done it poor thing. She didn't even know about the links, didn't know why she had been hit. I was the one that got to give her the bad news and then convince her I hadn't done it. My client gave her my number, they are old friends (thanks! lol)

For the record I would definitely recommend Mike Anthony, he has excellent ethics and we are old buddies. I referred the lady to a guy I know in her city because I thought she would benefit from some face time.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607766].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by SEODollz

I work so six months ago this company's link profile was very typical of what you would expect from the "no SEO" population, couple of natural links, no anchor text optimization. Was ranking mostly on authority, an old site with an active family-oriented blog. .

Yeah I think those are the sites that are really vunerable. no strong link profile and then bam thousands of links on top of that in a few months Google's position is probably that the site would have had a solid link profile if it was to stay in place.

My question: why not just make spam links neutral? They won't help you but they won't hurt you. Problem solved. ////they cold just keep devaluing links from blog comments and web 2.0 sites and that would go pretty far

Because they are not there yet. They can't neutralize all paid links, link spam, hacked sites etc. There has to be a deterrent or people will continue to do it. Like my ticket analogy. The fear of punishment controls a huge part of the population. Now when you have complete control and the algo can neutralize 100% then fine but you know marketers. If even 5% of the links are not neutralized they'll just ramp it up 20 times to make it work.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607825].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by SEODollz

If I was a greedy SEO I would applaud this new era, where every business is going to have to aggressively fight for a spot. Instead it's a little sad I think.

Well heres the thing though Dollz. Three things actually

How is this really a new era? Small businesses had to fight in many serps when there was no negative SEO. They had to fight Positive link spamming SEO to which they often lost because they wouldn't spam forums, web 2.0 profiles.blog comments, wikis and assorted sites while black hatters and IMers would.

Second wheres the evidence that this is really wide spread? Sure we get anecdotal stories like this but if its such a wide spread phenomenon why aren't the serps reflecting a sea change as hundreds and even thousands of people with VPS and the necessary software would be shuffling things up in ton loads of serps. I dont have the heart to do it but I have read of others attempting negative seo and the results are mixed. Some sites seem to be well insulated.

Finally what is the alternative? Let spam run wild? Some say that the links should be discounted not penalized but that won't work in an imperfect world (although in many situations that IS what happens). No algo is perfect or eliminates all spam. As long as some sites would benefit from link blasts marketers would continue to kill it. IF the cops just pulled you over and told you you were speeding with no threat of a ticket almost everyone would be flooring it on every road.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607735].message }}

SEODollz

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Well heres the thing though Dollz. Three things actually

How is this really a new era? Small businesses had to fight in many serps when there was no negative SEO. They had to fight Positive link spamming SEO to which they often lost because they wouldn't spam forums, web 2.0 profiles.blog comments, wikis and assorted sites while black hatters and IMers would.

Second wheres the evidence that this is really wide spread? Sure we get anecdotal stories like this but if its such a wide spread phenomenon why aren't the serps reflecting a sea change as hundreds and even thousands of people with VPS and the necessary software would be shuffling things up in ton loads of serps. I dont have the heart to do it but I have read of others attempting negative seo and the results are mixed. Some sites seem to be well insulated.

Finally what is the alternative? Let spam run wild? Some say that the links should be discounted not penalized but that won't work in an imperfect world (although in many situations that IS what happens). No algo is perfect or eliminates all spam. As long as some sites would benefit from link blasts marketers would continue to kill it. IF the cops just pulled you over and told you you were speeding with no threat of a ticket almost everyone would be flooring it on every road.

I think this is part of Penguin 2.0 and I think we will be seeing more of this in the near future. My question: why not just make spam links neutral? They won't help you but they won't hurt you. Problem solved. They could just keep devaluing links from blog comments and web 2.0 sites and that would go pretty far.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607771].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by SEODollz

"Disavow" I said. "Rebuild?" I suggested. "Diversify your traffic!" I begged. Not good, Google, not good. "Help me please" she says. I can't, conflict of interest. I referred her to a friend but it's pretty much a bust.

I'd be wiling to take a look and see what I can do DollZ. Feel free to PM me or have her contact me.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607514].message }}

Giftys

11 years ago

There are hundreds of these stories. Google has done A LOT of damage. I posted about it here ... and here. Got some expected opposition - some with diplomacy and some without. And of course some agreement as well. The fact remains,Google is not the good old Google it used to be. They've sold out to greed and could care less about the small businesses that once believed in them and invested tens of thousands of dollars in them over the years.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607516].message }}

MikeFriedman

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Giftys

There are hundreds of these stories. Google has done A LOT of damage. I posted about it here ... and here. Got some expected opposition - some with diplomacy and some without. And of course some agreement as well. The fact remains,Google is not the good old Google it used to be. They've sold out to greed and could care less about the small businesses that once believed in them and invested tens of thousands of dollars in them over the years.

What small business invested in Google? What exactly are you talking about?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

SaaS SEO Consultant

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607524].message }}

Giftys

11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

What small business invested in Google? What exactly are you talking about?

Adwords, time (= money) on seo, etc. For years you couldn't even get someone on the phone to help you with Adwords. Name one other company that would offer a service and not support it.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607535].message }}

MikeFriedman

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Giftys

Adwords, time (= money) on seo, etc. For years you couldn't even get someone on the phone to help you with Adwords. Name one other company that would offer a service and not support it.

Spending money on AdWords is not "investing in Google."

That is buying a service, which they did receive. If I a hammer at Home Depot, I'm not investing in Home Depot. I'm just buying something they are selling.

As for the time on SEO... Google never sold SEO. They did not provide SEO services.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

SaaS SEO Consultant

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607555].message }}

Giftys

11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Spending money on AdWords is not "investing in Google."

That is buying a service, which they did receive. If I a hammer at Home Depot, I'm not investing in Home Depot. I'm just buying something they are selling.

As for the time on SEO... Google never sold SEO. They did not provide SEO services.

When you spend any amount of time or money with a brand, you're investing in that brand. Pretty simple.

Are you sure you're not Mike Anthony with a second account? :p

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607561].message }}

MikeFriedman

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Giftys

When you spend any amount of time or money with a brand, you're investing in that brand. Pretty simple.

So what you are saying is anyone that is buying AdWords ads should be able to rank their websites organically too. Google should show them special favor in the organic listings.

If I buy something from a company, I expect them to fulfill my order and provide the necessary service. I don't expect favored treatment in their other lines of business.

And if that were true, large corporations are spending far more money on AdWords than small businesses. They are the ones that have "invested" in Google. Therefore, they are the ones then that deserve the favored treatment.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

SaaS SEO Consultant

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607570].message }}

Giftys

11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

So what you are saying is anyone that is buying AdWords ads should be able to rank their websites organically too. Google should show them special favor in the organic listings.

If I buy something from a company, I expect them to fulfill my order and provide the necessary service. I don't expect favored treatment in their other lines of business.

And if that were true, large corporations are spending far more money on AdWords than small businesses. They are the ones that have "invested" in Google. Therefore, they are the ones then that deserve the favored treatment.

Mike, you're reading quite a lot into it and making a lot of assumptions. What I'm saying is pretty simple. When you spend time and money with a company, you're investing in that company. When that company then starts making careless decisions (intentional or not) and taking out thousands of innocent small businesses caught in the crossfire, not only is faith lost in that company but trust as well.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607583].message }}

MikeFriedman

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Giftys

Mike, you're reading quite a lot into it and making a lot of assumptions. What I'm saying is pretty simple. When you spend time and money with a company, you're investing in that company.

Ok. So you are saying that AdWords advertisers deserve special treatment from Google because of the investment they have made. That is the argument you are making.

I, on the other hand, do not think that advertisers should get special treatment in the SERPs. That's what makes the SERPs worthwhile. If Google ever went to just selling the SERP positions, people would largely stop using them as a search engine.

Thanks

Signature

SaaS SEO Consultant

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607589].message }}

PBScott

11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

And if that were true, large corporations are spending far more money on AdWords than small businesses. They are the ones that have "invested" in Google. Therefore, they are the ones then that deserve the favored treatment.

It would be a nightmare if Google thought this way, in dollars and cents spent rather than ROI, if a small company makes the same amount of money from a single referral, and then reinvests a larger percentage from that conversion, than the larger company, it would be in the interests of Google to promote the one that gives them the highest ROI per referral, not the one that pays the largest amount of cash per year.

I would think the smaller companies would reinvest more, since they have less crazy overhead and bureaucracy, so it is in the business interest of Google also so long as they are serving the customer a relevant and useful page.

The OP post scares me, some of the big players in my business have often proven to be unscrupulous, posing as lawyers and other such things, I hope they don't try and target us with this.

Thanks

Signature

If you don't look at this => Really Funny Shirts <= you missed something in life

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8616075].message }}

Giftys

11 years ago

Dollz, be sure to check WF member's history in here before referring them. See how they treat people first. That way, it won't make you look bad if it turns out to be a referral that you come to regret. Just a word of caution.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607538].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Giftys

Dollz, be sure to check WF member's history in here before referring them. See how they treat people first. That way, it won't make you look bad if it turns out to be a referral that you come to regret. Just a word of caution.

LOL this kid is a trip. SEODollz doesn't need your word of caution. She knows me plenty more than you. You are a relative newb to this section with a major in whining about Google after the last Algo slapped your horrible link profile

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607676].message }}

MallofStyle

11 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607602].message }}

Kevin Maguire

11 years ago

Damn, I knew if I went to YT I would end up not working and watching a boatload of videos instead.

Anyway. I was watching this one and something Cutts said just blew over my head then came back and punched me.

They get over 5000 reconsideration requests a week. Then he goes on to say basically that Google are understaffed to deal with all the sites they whack who file reconsideration requests.
Makes you wonder how much effort they are really putting into deciding "live or die" when reviewing link profiles. When they dont even have enough resources to deal with reconsideration promptly.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607613].message }}

Giftys

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

Damn, I knew if I went to YT I would end up not working and watching a boatload of videos instead.

Anyway. I was watching this one and something Cutts said just blew over my head then came back and punched me.

They get over 5000 reconsideration requests a week. Then he goes on to say basically that Google are understaffed to deal with all the sites they whack who file reconsideration requests.
Makes you wonder how much effort they are really putting into deciding "live or die" when reviewing link profiles. When they dont even have enough resources to deal with reconsideration promptly.

That speaks to not only the true spammers but those that were collateral damage. If I were them, I wouldn't brag about that statistic. It's a sad statement to how they've handled the whole thing and the damage they've done... companies that no longer have their business, etc. Some of them were friends of mine.

Can you post the video? I'd like to see it.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607619].message }}

yukon

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

Damn, I knew if I went to YT I would end up not working and watching a boatload of videos instead.

Anyway. I was watching this one and something Cutts said just blew over my head then came back and punched me.

They get over 5000 reconsideration requests a week. Then he goes on to say basically that Google are understaffed to deal with all the sites they whack who file reconsideration requests.
Makes you wonder how much effort they are really putting into deciding "live or die" when reviewing link profiles. When they dont even have enough resources to deal with reconsideration promptly.

I'm sure 99.99% of those request are dead weight, spammers trying to get their pages back on top of the SERPs.

Nobody on this forum would play around with a bunch of spammy nonsense day after day, year after year & blow millions of dollars to save a few legit request/domains.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607627].message }}

Giftys

11 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

I'm sure 99.99% of those request are dead weight, spammers trying to get their pages back on top of the SERPs.

There is no way you can prove that. That would be like me saying I'm 99.99% sure that you have no life and/or need attention because you have 12,000 posts in this forum . There's no way I can prove that right?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607632].message }}

yukon

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Giftys

There is no way you can prove that. That would be like me saying I'm 99.99% sure that you have no life and/or need attention because you have 12,000 posts in this forum . There's no way I can prove that right?

I can prove you do a lot of whining about Google.

BTW, that's 12,062 for those playing along at home

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607658].message }}

dadamson

11 years ago

That is a horrible circumstance but yes you are correct, negative SEO is alive!.

The main victims and people who think they are developing good links for themselves which are actually low quality spam links.

Newer sites tend to get hit by negative SEO than more established sites. But I believe measures are in place for Google to determine what links are built by competitors and what ones are built by their own webmasters. - Probably something to do with frequency, IPs, etc. Food for thought anyway.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

-- Free SEO Audits --

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607780].message }}

RedShifted

11 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8608083].message }}

PROmotions LLC

11 years ago

Negative SEO is in-fact alive and well. I don't think this will stay however because the quality and quantity of the links used to do "Negative SEO" are quickly becoming the same type of links that used to work. I guess what I am trying to say is, back in the day, 10,000 blog comment backlinks would boost your site no problem, now, that would be considered Negative SEO. The bad links of today become the Negative SEO links of tomorrow.

Thanks

Signature

Signature!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8608199].message }}

jinx1221

11 years ago

A few years ago, small businesses (who know nothing about seo) could contact an seo company, they would do a few blasts and rank them overnight. Then came the time when penalties started applying, so seo companies had to do everything whitehat as not to piss of their clients, and as to not have their clients sites disappear or get the dreaded 'unnatural link' notice.

Now? It's back to before, only just the reverse.. they can do whitehat to please their customers, show them their squeaky clean rank boosting efforts (and charge them for their extra effort and high quality service), but at the same time, do the smackdown on every competitor they have, basically to get them results.. the 'results' they are telling their clients were the result of their whitehat services. Why not? Whose going to get a penalty? Whose going to get a notice? Not them, not their clients.. no one will ever know! And who will suffer most? The sites that don't seo at all. The ones that, ahem, Google wants!

In another way, seo's that used to spam their way to the top will now just NSeo their way to the top. Unethical spammers will just become unethical NSeo'ers, and a hell of a lot faster and easier, too. After all, results is results. Results is money. Money is rent, gas, and food.

I cant say this will last long.. they're gonna have to turn the dial back eventually.. Google must have known this would happen for years, otherwise they'd have done it sooner.. just wonder what series of events and board meetings led up to General Cutts to push the big red button?

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

The Ultimate Private Network Management,
Visualization and Automation Tool

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609939].message }}

Cash37

11 years ago

So a client came to you privately, crying as their business goes down in flames, and you post it on a public forum?

Noted.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

My Money Making WSOs: Dollar and a Lead | BuySellAds Banking | How to Make it in CPA Marketing | Fiverr Exposed

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8611082].message }}

yukon Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Cash37

So a client came to you privately, crying as their business goes down in flames, and you post it on a public forum?

Noted.

OP said it wasn't their own client. OPs client apparently knows the competition & gave out the contact info.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8611093].message }}
- patadeperro 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by yukon
  
  OP said it wasn't their own client. OPs client apparently knows the competition & gave out the contact info.
  
  BEsides that, he is not revealing any type of private information, he(she) is sharing his experience with negative SEO, nothing wrong here IMO
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Start Banking Hard With The Adult Evergreen Method!
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8612177].message }}

Negative SEO is Alive and Well

Trending Topics

Best AI for spell checking & grammar (2024)?

Google Ads, landing pages, and Clickbank links

A Very Strange Internet Problem

Carry out better target audience research

Melb, Interat, Flower Show 2024