Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Fathom is taking a different line- that who initiates the links influences the action taken against those links.
[edited by: fathom at 1:59 pm (utc) on Apr 12, 2012]
Do I believe that Google is that granular on individual links... no, not a chance... but if you have say 500 guest posts and all have the same link anchor pointing to the same page... that could be easily seen as "unnatural".
So anything done in moderation and varied is considered natural then? Outside of having links on spam sites?
...
Google works hard to ensure that it fully discounts links intended to manipulate search engine results, such as excessive link exchanges and purchased links that pass PageRank. If you see a site that is buying or selling links that pass PageRank, let us know. We'll use your information to improve our algorithmic detection of such links.
I just find that 10s of thousand of people not attempting it ... means it never happened
That bit of logic is fallacious - flatly wrong.
So as long as it's done in moderation it's good to go? Yes or no? That's why they use the wording excessive?
[edited by: fathom at 3:05 pm (utc) on Apr 12, 2012]
The excessive part is a grey area and seems like that is why it would be easy to manipulate competitors now with how strict G has gotten. Send 100's of spammy links from bad neighborhoods with the same money anchor text at a competitors site at it will get pounded pretty hard. It would look like the owner was doing it to increase his ranking, but it reality it was his competitor. How would they truly tell the difference on that?
If competitor manipulation is so easy to do it begs the question why you don't have any experience at it.
SnowMan68 wrote:
@ fathom
I agree with you and have always felt that way. Just trying to understand what your "true" stance was.
So as far as the 700k emails are concerned...you believe this is 100 percent automated? Nothing manual, or very little manual penalties.
Because I'm ethical and focus on making my site better. Unfortunately that is not true for 100% of the population. We all know this though...
Maybe this is what you're looking for. The reason I would not "attempt" to bring a competitor down with negative SEO is because I am an ethical person. Is that better?
With so much knowledge on your part though it feels like you must be typing from within the Googleplex...
Negative SEO is about ranking bad publicity to harm your reputation.
[edited by: Leosghost at 4:40 pm (utc) on Apr 12, 2012]
It is quite easy to get your average site penalized, meaning they are not a mega company.
Business or E commerce sites that would never get natural link are easy targets now.
Load up your target with over 1k or more blog posts, watch it rise in the rankings for a month or two. Google sends out there GWT message, wait another couple weeks to a month then the site tanks.
About a two to three month overall process, and would cost a max of $200. If you think this bogus your in denial or have not done your homework.
"We encourage you to make changes to your site so that it meets our quality guidelines. Once you've made these changes, please submit your site for reconsideration in Google's search results. "
This would imply that the penalty has already been assessed.
Well it seems like negative SEO works.
Well it seems like negative SEO works. I tried it on an old domain of mine that never had been SEOed because it had a natural SEO rankings (PR7). I made the site years 8 years ago and gave away free stuff (thus why there was lots of links to it).
I bought $500 worth of ezine articles, xrumered blasted it with profile/ blog posts and can confirm that the site now appears on page 7, where it use to be on page #1 for at least the past 4 years.
Furthermore, I tried this on two other domains I had and both of those sites are now way back in the index where they previously held page #1 and page #2.
The new update basically means NEGATIVE SEO is going to flourish now.
np2003 wrote:
I think I know how Google trusts a link... I tried this idea about 7 months ago on a keyword that had over a million searches per month. I can report back now that for the past 2 months, 8 of these sites have been on page 1/2 for that keyword term... It's actually a very simple but time consuming strategy and best of all was pretty cheap to setup. Remember, Google is looking for "natural" link patterns. Sending an email out or getting a link on a PR9 site just smells like link buying and that will get you no where. I know coz I tried that (paid $2k mo) for twox PR9 sites and got nothing after 6 months.
