Planet13 - 6:47 am on Jan 21, 2012 (gmt 0)
I thought the worst that could be done was the blasting have no positive and also no negative effect. Can anyone shed some light on this?
I don't think that anyone knows for sure. Some people say they are just dismissed.
When I look at the backlinks of my competitors, there are obvious blasted links, yet they still rank well.
But we do know for a fact that people ARE penalized / banned from google for bad links. I've seen those sites with my own eyes. They are nowhere in the SERPs.
The only thing I can guess is that in some cases, google prefers to dismiss "obvious" bad links if they are easily spotted by the algorithm, but that they are willing to penalize sites if the links require a manual inspection to spot.
If this is true (and it's only a wild guess), then it really doesn't make sense. It's like one can build obviously spammy links and if they work, they work. And if they don't work, then there's no loss.
Now, if these blasting campaigns had such a huge negative impact then wouldn't everyone be blasting their compeitions sites to get their rankings lowered?
Others with more experience than I have said that in the past it was easier to "google bowl" a competitor, but hat it has been harder over the last two years. So maybe that is why it is harder for spammy links to actually cause a penalty?