fathom - 1:36 am on Apr 14, 2012 (gmt 0)
You must work for Google or something because you sure do seem to think everybody is doing something wrong.
No but I am really, really good at link spamming.
While I have killed over a million dollars in domains (providing links) I have never caused anyone to be harmed by the links that were provided.
I don't have 1 or 2 examples but thousands.
So while it is possible that Google's system is flawed I'm banking that the vast major of claimers don't know how to link spam very well.
I never said that. Those problems could be the way the site is designed and it yet may not have enough juice to counter a negative attack.
There are a thousand things that could occur... many can actually be proven but instead many wish to treat SEO as an illusion... the competitor premise starts with an illusive malicious entity that for all intensive purposes does not exist... and no one needs to show evidence of this entity (earlier in the thread it was suggested the competitor is irrelevant). That in itself lacks credibility.
You cannot prove a null... if you actually uncovered the competitor... there actually may be something to matter.
My comment was in general, and not really about the OP of this thread so take if for what it's worth.
I'll agree that your comments lack specifics (they weren't about the OP nor anything specific just "maybe its...") maybe that is the problem here... myths don't need specifics to foster a following. All they need is "me too!"