The return of competitors hurting your backlink profile?

[realmaverick]

Those who have been around over the past 5-10 years, will likely remember when it was possible for a competitor to harm your rankings, by bombing your website, with masses of links. Just as you could rank a website by stuffing it with keywords.

To counter this, Google employed a kind of "links can do no harm" philosophy. So questionable links were simply discounted.

Over the years, it's become accepted that competitors cannot harm your rankings with links. This had always been my experience too. For years my website has been victim of various malicious campaigns. Links to our website and several other competitors appeared on hacked Wordpress websites along with viagra/pharmaceutical type websites.

But despite the efforts, our rankings remained unaffected, which is the way it should be. A competitor should not be able to harm you. A competitor should not be able to undo your hard work.

Unfortunately, in recent months, post Panda, more and more webmasters have received messages from Google, alerting them of unnatural linking practices, followed by drops in SERPS and traffic.

Google have made a complete u-turn and now rather than discrediting links it deems unnatural, it instead penalises the websites receiving them.

Since Panda, all of the talk and focus has been on on-site factors, such as ad placement, thin content etc and most websites have failed to bounce back. I'm wondering whether that's because, it's got nothing to do with their website, but their link profile?

A couple of months ago, I did a test on a page, of a website I wasn't too concerned about. I chose a page, that had a first page rank for over a year, for it's target term.

I purchased 150 links, using 3 variations of anchor text, to see if it would harm the rankings. Within a week, the rankings were gone. They remained AWOL for 6 weeks. I eventually managed to get the links removed, and the rankings recently returned.

This was a little too easy, for my liking. Actually it's disturbing and a huge step backwards.

Google needs to seriously reconsider the choice to penalise websites, with questionable links pointing to them.

But I am not reading much discussion about the subject and hoping we can generate some interest and awareness of the problem here. Google needs to address this problem.

I believe my main website, has been victim, WebmasterWorld supporters can read more about it in the Google SEO forum. I haven't received a message to inform me of an unnatural link profile, but looking at my inbound links, there are some questionable links there. And after 6 years or so of success, on January 21st, my traffic has dropped significantly.

What are your thoughts on this?

[jkwilson78]

Is it possible the negative impact of what is being called "spammy" links depends on the quality of the link profile of a site before those spammy links are pointed at the site?

In other words, if a site has had nothing but spammy links pointing to it from day one there is less chance that new spammy links would hurt it.

Where as a site with a "clean" link profile suddenly starts acquiring spammy links, there is a greater chance those links could hurt the site?

It's just hard to believe a few hundred spammy links to a site with a legit link profile and an obvious authority in its respective niche could be taken out so easily.

I've built thousands of spammy links to sites (my own sites) that have nothing but more spammy links and they maintain or increase in rankings no problem.

[agent_x]

He purchased the links. He didn't simply place them on other, unrelated sites under his control. There's nothing connecting those purchased links to the person doing the purchasing, so no way for Google to know if the links were the result of a site owner with poor judgement, a third party with poor judgement, or a third party engaging in some attempted sabotage.

There may be though. If Google spots a site suddenly and unnaturally gaining 150 backlinks, it would look to see where they came from. Link sellers don't just sell one link from each site in a network, they sell dozens. So after a while Google will be able to identify those sites that are involved in unnatural link campaigns and designate them as link sellers. Then if you acquire links from any of those sites in that network, it would assume you bought them.

[kellyman]

Well be it true or not, Over on BH forums people are willing to now point their devalued web sites from their farms to your competitors, for a small price
In the hoping you can take them down with you, they will do anything for money and lets face it thats what most these sites were created to do, money from links oh thats gone now money from killing your competitor

If it is true what's going to be left, just because a site has a few bad links does it make the whole site bad, in some cases yes it will be full of junk in others no.

The web is in a bit of a bad way if you ask me,

[Future]

Someone hit nail on head !
Already reported this few weeks ago ..

This problem does exists.

[fathom]

Over on BH forums people are willing to now point their devalued web sites from their farms to your competitors, for a small price

How bloody ridiculous.

Since a devalued link has no value what can it possibly do?

[Edge]

What are your thoughts on this?

Show me your research, experimental data, or whatever...

[fathom]

A big reason why this idea of negative SEO has gained so much traction in recent times is the absolute FLOOD of messages about unnatural backlinks sent out through Webmaster Tools. That's where Google's big error is, IMO - in those indiscriminate, automated messages.

I seldom see a link profile that doesn't have that kind of spammy junk, and in at least some cases I know that the website itself did not have anything to do with placing those spam links. In other cases, after a little poking and prodding, I do find that in fact they DID have responsibility, but never thought much about it because there were no immediate repercussions, so they forgot all about it. (Oh yes, one of our workers did run xrumer a few times, but nothing recently.)

"The problem I have with messages about unnatural backlinks" & "I seldom see a link profile that doesn't have that kind of spammy junk" is how do you know the latter is what the former was discussing?

Spammy junk links tend to not have any value to start with which suggests these are not really "unnatural" because as you pointed out most link profiles have volumes of these links that do nothing and seem like crap but because of those facts... they cannot be seen as manipulative thus not unnatural... so I would conclude most webmasters/SEOs get glued to the wrong links since Google NEVER indicates precise domain names it is really very easy to misinterpret.

My feeling right now is that Google sent out that barrage of messages without much forethought, and indeed, may have sent them to any webmaster whose profile shows bad links beyond a certain level - without much thought given to how legitimate the criticism is in each case.

My gut says if you never develop your expertise around manipulative practices you can't possibly understand what Google means by unnatural as you have never developed unnatural links.

Does negative SEO exist? In some markets, yes... it's like a gang war! And that's nothing new at all. The funny thing about those markets is that the businesses involved also use all kinds of black hat ranking tactics anyway.

Negative SEO IMHO is based on ignorance. I've seen websites get banned and the webmaster ask for help and the first thing found MUST be the problem. So they fix that... and nothing good happens... so...

The webmaster ask for more help and the next thing that someone finds MUST be the problem. So they fix that... and again nothing good happens again... and so on.

Each time this happens the history of activity gets more obscure and the real original answer gets harder & harder to address. Soon it isn't 1 problem but 5 problems that cover up the original problem.

If these recent messages from Google are an attempt to clean up the "sewer" that Eric Schmidt complained about, they are a dud and a public relations nightmare.

Honestly, I agree that Google's problems are self-induced... but what do you expect?

Google attempts to advise everyone regardless of knowledge or skills level how to improve their exposure in Google "fairly"... but if you don't understand the answer implicitly how can you possibly implement a superior campaign and the problem is even more complex as... if you only do "what's fair" you generally maintain the status quo and the top results tend to be equally doing "what's fair".

So then what?

well...

A couple of months ago, I did a test on a page, of a website I wasn't too concerned about. I chose a page, that had a first page rank for over a year, for it's target term.

I purchased 150 links, using 3 variations of anchor text, to see if it would harm the rankings. Within a week, the rankings were gone. They remained AWOL for 6 weeks. I eventually managed to get the links removed, and the rankings recently returned.

This was a little too easy, for my liking. Actually it's disturbing and a huge step backwards.

Google needs to seriously reconsider the choice to penalise websites, with questionable links pointing to them.

But I am not reading much discussion about the subject and hoping we can generate some interest and awareness of the problem here. Google needs to address this problem.

I believe my main website, has been victim, WebmasterWorld supporters can read more about it in the Google SEO forum. I haven't received a message to inform me of an unnatural link profile, but looking at my inbound links, there are some questionable links there. And after 6 years or so of success, on January 21st, my traffic has dropped significantly.

What are your thoughts on this?

Candidly, this IS NOT about competitors but webmaster inexperience.

Getting down to brass tax:

• A couple of months ago, I did a test on a page, of a website I wasn't too concerned about.
  
• I purchased 150 links, using 3 variations of anchor text
  
• I believe my main website, has been victim
  
• And after 6 years or so of success, on January 21st, my traffic has dropped significantly.
  

So you have a main site with a bunch of satellite sites and you purchased links for 1 of the satellites and the paid links cause a cascade effect because Google does not like network schemes.

So if you didn't have the satellite sites linking to the main site where would your traffic be?

I'm betting the "there are some questionable links there" are not the links you need to be concern with.

I'm merely guessing but I'm only using your own words and without any 3rd party or historical data.

[CainIV]

Does negative SEO exist? In some markets, yes... it's like a gang war! And that's nothing new at all.

Problem Tedster is that Google is coming late to the game to finally understand this is a real issue for businesses. Many on this very same board that acknowledge the truth of negative SEO were on the former bandwagon of betting its unlikely...

The sea of new unnatural link requests does nothing to help anyone since it is quite obvious there are varying degrees of action. In some cases websites tank before even having the ability to respond at all.

Business owners are in the game and pay to play. At the same time Google needs to step back and realize that playing this awkward flimsy game is a waste of time and resources and only reflects poorly on their ability to develop a strong product.

Perhaps what WebmasterWorld has been saying for years - for Google to create an area where site owners can protest and disown links that Google claims they own - might eventually come true.

This way business owners would actually be "put to the test" in terms of evaluation of their own backward and would not be punished before "due process".

I believe that this is the direction Google will inevitably have to go.

[FranticFish]

Google to create an area where site owners can protest and disown links that Google claims they own

I sooooo wish they'd get with this.

1) No more negative SEO.
2) Let's say you take over a site from someone who has tanked it with crud. Clean slate!

But this would help Google too. What a fantastic data set of expert-verified LINKS THEY SHOULD NOT COUNT! Could lead to real quality improvements for the algo and even kill off much of the seedy underbelly of the internet.

[Andy Langton]

Google to create an area where site owners can protest and disown links that Google claims they own

This is something of a balance between discounting all "bad" links (which, as mentioned above, I think is an impossible thing for Google to do) and where we are now.

But IMO it still doesn't really work. The main purpose of all of these link based penalties is to fight spammers, right? These are also some of the people most likely to know their backlink profile, and to know which networks or techniques start to hurt them.

So, it still encourages an "arms race" for link spammers - as long as they know where they went wrong, they will be able to "disconnect" bad links and keep the good stuff.

[graeme_p]

But they never have, nor ever will penalise their own pages. Never, never, never have they applied their own rules to their own pages.

Except for Google Chrome pages getting penalised for link buying, and I seem to remember at least one other example.

[Andy Langton]

Yeah, there was Google Chrome and Google Japan too, a couple of years ago.

But, let's face it, Google aren't going out as a routine activity and buying links from networks, so why would they get hit by this sort of stuff?

[Shaddows]

Historical Note
Dodgy links used to get you penalised. Fact.

The did this bacause penalisation was a DETERRENT. Like prison. If you get caught shoplifting, "discounting" the stolen items by taking them off you is not deemed sufficient punishment.

This was fine, because legitimate businesses did not, as a rule, use aggressive/BH SEO.

Just as important- the were bad at finding it. So they spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD). They scared people away from acquiring dodgy links, as a means of controlling the proliferation of dodgy links. And it worked.

Then two things happened.
1) Link profile manipulation became too widespread to continue with the penalties. Though they kept the message up (along with well-trailed, intermittant crack-downs)
2) BH takedowns became common- and documented

So backlinks became dampened or discounted, rather than penalised. However, the overall profile was STILL subject to evaluation. If you had no legitimate backlink profile, you were still vunerable. Note that G had good statistical data on what a site like yours "should" have - and how far you deviate from that.

So Orthodoxy emerged- build a legitimate backlink profile, and you are pretty safe.

Of course, Orthodoxy and Truth are not synonymous

[Andy Langton]

Personally, I'm not sure why there is so much doubt - I've seen multiple cases where the wrong backlinks can get a site dropped for its own name, and outranked by the likes of youtube and social profiles. These aren't symptoms of links being discounted - they're the symptoms of an actively negative effect.

[rlange]

fathom wrote:
So to conclusively prove this true at some point you need to buy links for a competitor otherwise you only proved that buying links can harm you and the competitor philosophy isn't a factor.

It's irrelevant whether or not the target is a competitor.

Granted, of course, the single data point only proves that this particular effort at negative SEO worked on this particular page. Like anything in SEO, what works for one page/site is not guaranteed to work for another.

Never testing the exact premise of your theory (on a real competitor) is proof your theory can not stand up to scrutiny.

Well, no. It's only proof of itself—that further tests haven't been carried out. Nothing more, nothing less. It may be evidence that there is no strong confidence in the theory on the part of the person proposing it, but that would be nothing more than speculation on our parts.

Also, his not performing further tests does not preclude anyone else from performing the same tests. Independent verification and all that...

agent_x wrote:
There may be though. If Google spots a site suddenly and unnaturally gaining 150 backlinks, it would look to see where they came from. Link sellers don't just sell one link from each site in a network, they sell dozens. So after a while Google will be able to identify those sites that are involved in unnatural link campaigns and designate them as link sellers. Then if you acquire links from any of those sites in that network, it would assume you bought them.

That's exactly the problem, though, isn't it? The assumption part, I mean. Perhaps I'm not quite following your logic here, but I don't see how Google can make a reasonable assumption about the identity of the buyer based on the activity or network of the seller.

With this problem of buyer identification, the only logical action that Google can take is to completely ignore links from identified link-selling networks.

fathom wrote:
So you have a main site with a bunch of satellite sites and you purchased links for 1 of the satellites and the paid links cause a cascade effect because Google does not like network schemes.

So if you didn't have the satellite sites linking to the main site where would your traffic be?

Why make the assumption that the site that was experimented on was linking to his main site? Why not just ask him if that's the case before constructing your criticism?

Even if it's true, I find that quite a bit more frightening. A competitor could target one of your weaker satellite sites and have the negative effect bleed over onto any number of your other, presumably stronger sites. Yikes.

--
Ryan

[atlrus]

I did the same experiment a couple of weeks ago, albeit on a smaller scale. It appears that links can harm you.

Case 1: I had a website which was bouncing between #5 and #8. Purchased 20 links from the same service to see if I could "settle" it. It was settled alright, at #8. After a couple of months I let the purchased links expire - my website shot to #2 within 2-3 days.

Case 2: Using the same service I purchased 10 links to a website ranking on the second page for its main keyword. The website has not been touched in at least 2 years. After I purchased the 10 links that website instantly dropped from page #2 to page #6, within 2-3 days. I'll be letting those links expire to see if there would be a positive move.

Bad links can certainly harm you now and I have no idea what Google was thinking...

[CainIV]

So, it still encourages an "arms race" for link spammers - as long as they know where they went wrong, they will be able to "disconnect" bad links and keep the good stuff.

If Google can determine blog networks, low quality links now, in a year they will only better detect it.

Definitely they need to continue to get better at poor link quality eval. I personally believe from experience that they are.

Whether spammers know these do not work is neither here nor there - they will be forced to deal with those links in their WMT and be accountable either way to claim responsibility for poor links or not.

Links that are not claimed or owned are automatically given 0 value.

Sites who are given multiple opportunities and don't change their ways are subject to harder and harder time.

[fathom]

It's irrelevant whether or not the target is a competitor.

hmmm... if the claims is "competitors can harm you" then surely one is needed.

No one here claimed "I harmed myself with paid links"... in fact, the OP did this to himself and Google even writes about this:

[support.google.com...]

However, some SEOs and webmasters engage in the practice of buying and selling links that pass PageRank, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites. Buying or selling links that pass PageRank is in violation of Google's Webmaster Guidelines and can negatively impact a site's ranking in search results.

AND

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.

This isn't new.

The part that

[rlange]

fathom wrote:
hmmm... if the claims is "competitors can harm you" then surely one is needed.

You've bizarrely fixated on the word "competitor" when the topic is really about the potential of certain types of backlinks being harmful to a site. If true, this implies that anyone—yourself, a competitor, some random jackass, or a piranha from South America—may be capable of throwing down these links and harming anyone else's site.

At a guess, I'd say "competitor" was chosen simply because they are most likely to be motivated enough to engage in such tactics against you.

No one here claimed "I harmed myself with paid links"... in fact, the OP did this to himself [...]

As I've said, Google can't identify the buyer, which is why "competitor" is irrelevant; it could be anyone.

--
Ryan

[Shaddows]

As I've said, Google can't identify the buyer, which is why "competitor" is irrelevant; it could be anyone.

More than that, it's the very ambiguity in question.

A bunch of dodgy links were bought. Google assumes it was the target site doing the buying. Google penalises target site.

The assumption is the problem. As you say, it could be anyone.

[fathom]

fathom wrote:
hmmm... if the claims is "competitors can harm you" then surely one is needed.

Ryan wrote:
You've bizarrely fixated on the word "competitor" when the topic is really about the potential of certain types of backlinks being harmful to a site. If true, this implies that anyone ”yourself, a competitor, some random jackass, or a piranha from South America” may be capable of throwing down these links and harming anyone else's site.

I fixate on posting errors... when you ask the wrong question you almost always get the wrong advice.

Ryan wrote:
At a guess, I'd say "competitor" was chosen simply because they are most likely to be motivated enough to engage in such tactics against you.

fathom wrote:
No one here claimed "I harmed myself with paid links"... in fact, the OP did this to himself [...]

As I've said, Google can't identify the buyer, which is why "competitor" is irrelevant; it could be anyone.

--
Ryan

1.Google will do no evil... they will not drop your results PERIOD - they will merely discount the links so there is no harm... UNLESS you are the one selling the links.

2. When something goes wrong with your results the first thing people do is investigate and the first thing they find "MUST" be the problem, like:

realmaverick wrote:
For years my website has been victim of various malicious campaigns. Links to our website and several other competitors appeared on hacked Wordpress websites along with viagra/pharmaceutical type websites.

Is this really what happened? How did he get this insider information to start with? The key thought... "I guess this is what occurred because I didn't do it and what possible good reason is there to explain this"?

Well here is a different subposition:

1. Some ex-website owner forgot to renew their domain
2. Some viagra/pharmaceutical type guy grabbed it
3. They don't spend time on developing content they just repurpose the content that was there or scape the web
4. Either way the content has links to you "accidentally" because fast setup has little quality control so now you have links from viagra/pharmaceutical type websites. In fact, most websites have these

First: there was no sinister plot to harm you by anyone

Second: the links likely have little if any value so they cannot harm you no matter who did what or why

Third: Just because you find something doesn't mean that is the cause of your loses

Lastly, as I started this post "when you ask the wrong question you almost always get the wrong advice"... qualified help cannot help if the person that needs the help does not understand what they need help with.

Be that as it may, in a year someone will read this thread and learn... it is very, very difficult for a competitor to harm you "as the OP claimed"... which are the reasons why I hammer this flawed thought home.

Reviewing the public thread & this one shows that PANDA killed his traffic not paid links and certainly not the uncovered viagra/pharmaceutical type links.

[fathom]

The assumption is the problem. As you say, it could be anyone.

Yes assumptions really do evil.

The LIKELY correct answer... "no one did anything... they (links) just happen to be a non-issue to the real problem".

[aristotle]

Maybe some of these people unknowingly bought links from a company that's secretly owned by Google and used to conduct "sting" operations to entrap and identify link buyers. In such a case Google could determine whether the link's were bought by the website owner or by a competitor

[CainIV]

1.Google will do no evil... they will not drop your results PERIOD - they will merely discount the links so there is no harm... UNLESS you are the one selling the links.

Hopefully this isn't your serious opinion, but if this is the case, I would have to wholeheartedly absolutely disagree, with many solid examples of proof to back those suppositions up.

[fathom]

fathom wrote:
1.Google will do no evil... they will not drop your results PERIOD - they will merely discount the links so there is no harm... UNLESS you are the one selling the links.

CainIV wrote:
Hopefully this isn't your serious opinion, but if this is the case, I would have to wholeheartedly absolutely disagree, with many solid examples of proof to back those suppositions up.

When you take the point out of context it isn't accurate anymore. Point number #1 was referenced to "the competitor doing something"... and as Google cannot always tell who developed the links they (in these instances) only discount the links to the receiver. In most instances this is what occurs.

However, when Google learns that the website owner is complicit in the transaction - that changes things... and as we all know the owner isn't a competitor to himself.

Thus "in context" I am being serious.

Actually I do have lots of publicly displayed examples on Google's forum where I also have the vantagepoint of insider knowledge of the events.

[CainIV]

Google cannot always tell who developed the links they (in these instances) only discount the links to the receiver. In most instances this is what occurs.

How would know that this occurs? Are you privy to insider information about how Google specifically handles exceptions of links that look paid *and* might follow a profile which could match both a link buying marketer or competitive sabotage? (or accidental, or other?)

Because you have publicly displayed examples of Google ignoring links that might be interpreted as not involving the site owner itself with a paid links scenario does not mean in any way that Google will not drop website results due to poor quality links that are outside of the businesses' potential control.

Google can and does take action on links which fit a pattern to look paid, unnatural and manipulated and are sometimes outside of business control.

Regardless of whether a competitor or did it or not.

Because those statements are valid and based on real experiences some marketers here have, it follows that a competitor could also cause the same particular scenario.

[ehgee]

Google can and does take action on links which fit a pattern to look paid, unnatural and manipulated and are sometimes outside of business control.

Regardless of whether a competitor or did it or not.

Because those statements are valid and based on real experiences some marketers here have, it follows that a competitor could also cause the same particular scenario.

Inclined to agree wholeheartedly!

Here's an actual example:
- A section-homepage of website outsourced to "seo expert" to rank for keyword...

- That section-homepage earlier ranking at position 18-23 in serps for that keyword.

- seo expert follows classical tactics; submitting link to hundreds of directories with keyword; article submissions with keyword anchor link etc... all tactics focused on external 1-way link building.

- nothing much done "on-site" intentionally due to limited faith in expert + supreme faith in the fact that external factors cannot harm site; at worst they would carry no weight.

- huge panda hits feb & april 2011 with that "seo'd" section worst affected of all

- subsequent panda recoveries (somewhat); most sections recover, except seo'd section-homepage

- seo'd section-homepage continues to be tremendously volatile with all subsequent google iterations (panda or not) - fluctuating anywhere between 30 to 100 positions.(in nowhereland, so it don't really matter anyway)

- to repeat, seo revolved around external links only

To me that is sufficient validation that competition CAN harm a site... would love to be proved wrong though... awfully creepy!

[fathom]

To me that is sufficient validation that competition CAN harm a site... would love to be proved wrong though... awfully creepy!

How does your competitor get:

A section-homepage of website outsourced to "seo expert" to rank for keyword

This sure sounds like a website owner manipulation to me.

[fathom]

How would know that this occurs? Are you privy to insider information about how Google specifically handles exceptions of links that look paid *and* might follow a profile which could match both a link buying marketer or competitive sabotage? (or accidental, or other?)

Because those statements are valid and based on real experiences some marketers here have, it follows that a competitor could also cause the same particular scenario.

So my real experiences are inaccurate because in your experience I'm not privy to all information about all situations but others with a different position are accurate for the same reasoning?

The problem I have with your philosophy is "could"... when you theorize that something could happen (e.g. man could walk on the moon) and you then jump immediately to "it did happen" without every proving that... that is where statements are invalid.

IMHO I find a common pattern between "I don't know what caused this..." and "the need to blame someone for your whoas".

Be that as it may your "could happen validation" can also be "couldn't happen validation" by default.

[londrum]

i remember seeing a post on webmasterworld recently from a guy who was contacted by google themselves -- telling him he needed to clear up spammy backlinks on domains he didnt own, before he'd get his ranking back. so the proof has come direct from the horses mouth.