| 4:36 am on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)|
How I would respond (or not) depends on what kind of a "backward step" you're talking about on Google and whether there's an income hit involved. Without accusing anyone in particular, I might submit a reconsideration request and document the appearance of all those links that you had nothing to do with.
I'd list the "evidence" on a URL somewhere and just link to that URL from within the request itself, just to keep the size of that communication human-friendly.
| 12:22 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Tedster , good advice. Someone once told me Google were aware who did this stuff so I will not bother them with it. With so much going on with updates I don't honestly know if it has had a negative effect on Google. If I hadn't looked in webmastertools I wouldn't even know about it. I guess this is just SEO 2.0 and its something you have to put up with. Hopefully karma will sort this one out :)
| 1:27 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Hopefully Google and the other SE's will just ignore these links rather than penalizing the site for them.
The "last found" dates for these links in GWT could tell you how long Google has known about them. If you wait a month or so, and nothing bad happens, then I think you will probably be okay.
| 2:09 am on May 1, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I was thinking, I know 100% who attempted to sabotage the site and they have been given a large investment by a manufacturer to take the category online. I know this manufacturer very well and frankly there products are mostly very poor quality and often very underhand tactics are used to sell them. We try to give customer the best deal and best product. The site that has benefited from all this mentions the manufacturer name in url. Should I contact the company and ask them to redirect to my site to compensate. They have hundreds of other domains so I am sure its not a great loss. Or should I just tell the truth about the manufacturer online on my site and let the internet vote with there feet?
| 2:13 am on May 1, 2010 (gmt 0)|
It's likely more productive to focus on your own positives rather than trying to highlight someone else's negatives.
It also creates fewer reasons for someone's legal department to get ugly.
| 2:15 am on May 1, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I have extensive knowledge of how this manufacturer encouraged and rewarded ripping off schools, hospitals, charities through there sales outlets. I also have knowledge of the weakness in there machine range and the artificial creation of products.
| 2:19 am on May 1, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Buckworks I will do as you say. Its very hard for me to walk away from a fight. But I will take your advice and concentrate on the positive things we can offer and ignore what has happened.
Thanks mate :)
| 3:21 am on May 1, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I didn't exactly say to walk away from the fight! :)
But fight by outclassing them, and doing vital things better than they do.
Take inspiration from some of Winston Churchill's words during the war:
|... we shall outwit, out-manoeuvre, outfight and outlast the worst that the enemy's malice and ingenuity can contrive. -- February 9, 1941 |
| 3:42 am on May 1, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Thanks buckworks I like this Churchill quote too from when he was pissed at a party
|Women: Sir, you are drunk; very, very drunk. Churchill: Madame, you are ugly; very, very ugly. |
but I shall be sober in the morning.