Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
That may be something of a generalisation - I'm not seeing that in the money terms that we're working in for our clients.
Competitors ARE able to spend money to create a "larger pattern" of inbound links to a competitor site especially in the case where the competing site is in those very lucrative top 3 positions. I am assuming this is what we are referring to in 'violations'
Demotions generally only occur when a larger pattern of violations is found.
Just for public relations purpose, itīs more useful for Google to catch some of the big fishes (Penney, Overstock, ...) violating their guidelines than one that is ranking on position 150.
I disagree ... If you look at the quote:
but we've heard here from someone with a great deal of knowledge about the situation who also said it was not about the links, and they are not a Google rep. and have nothing to gain by lying, so I tend to believe them.
Take what you will from the situation. Listening to communication from the source is like predicting weather.
Ok gang, once more... it was NOT all about the EDUs. I can confirm this, but I cannot give details as it was given to me <off the record>. And I can also confirm that the other item they were caught doing is most CERTAINLY in voilation of the Google guidelines.
I was also confused somewhat as there was no 'smoking gun' with the EDU stuff. I've gotten clarification and most certainly ANY website would have been nuked if caught doing what they were.
I wish I could tell you more, but I respect my sources.
That's message #:4271466 - about #67 in that thread
They seemed to know of something Overstock was doing that was way over-the-top
Wouldn't they accomplish more against 'persuasive link building' by saying the Overstock penalty was from the links than by saying it was from something else?
IMO it would have been way more 'to their advantage' to say the Overstock penalty was from links if they want to discourage that type of practice or link ... Defies logic and reason IMO ... To me it sounds like they told the truth about both situations, but as stated above, believe as you please...
It was (and I hope still is) about link building, acquisition and how the poster believes Google does not apply as much checking against relevancy and build as others think they do.
They rarely like to show examples, because people can then reverse engineer those examples.