seoskunk - 10:19 pm on Jun 16, 2013 (gmt 0)
I believe 'Negative SEO/toxic links/disavowing' should have been something you vehemently guarded against. (The concept of any link or relationship as being 'negative' rather than 'ignored') No external entity should have been able to affect our websites negatively. Why did you choose to allow this to happen, when it has now clearly resulted in yet-another-way to game the playing field?
I think I can answer this, by simply ignoring links google actually encourage link spam. Since the greater percentage of links you have the greater chance they "count". Google's algorithm is based on natural links provided to good quality websites. Without negative factor on links this simply would become a competition or race for the most links and play completely in the hands of BLack Hat Seo. So a negative pagerank I believe was introduced that caused a dampenning factor on inbound links. Link velocity was also measured with sites gaining too many links too quickly raising a red flag.
Unfortunately BH started gaming the system and mixing authority sites in there link building networks. Negative seo was the result of penalisation of outwardly bound links. So the whole thing is a mess. If you ignore outwardly bound links it encourage's link spam, if you penalise outwardly bound links you encourage negative seo. I think personally google should be looking at link velocity and natural occurrance of links in market sectors (maybe they already are their smart cookies).