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?

[fathom]

I mean absolutely no backlinks AT ALL - currently #6 out of 14m results for its keyword. It has been sitting dormant for over 3 years (I don't have the opportunity to make money from it

non-$$$ phrases isn't a valid claim especially for this thread... your competitors are equally disinterested in making money so I don't see any reasons for them to want to harm a "no backlink website"... with even free spammy backlinks that only cost time.

There are many other niche websites which rank like that - with only a few links, probably the majority of the internet. For example - a guy who crafts something in his garage. He doesn't need millions of backlinks to rank high for his crafted goods, but his competitor doesn't need but a few dollars to send him away. The new algo would punish him instantly, no review needed. Is he a "bad webmaster" because he did not get thousands of natural links?!?

Now we don't just have hypothetical competitors we are diving into hypothetical website owners to represent real world events.

IMHO this is just BS for the sake if BSing.

[atlrus]

non-$$$ phrases isn't a valid claim especially for this thread... your competitors are equally disinterested in making money so I don't see any reasons for them to want to harm a "no backlink website"... with even free spammy backlinks that only cost time.

Lol, assumptions again. When did I say that it ranks for a non-money phrase?!? It actually ranks for "buy widgets online", hahaha. I said the opportunity to make the money was gone, because you actually have to sell the widgets to make the money.

[atlrus]

IMHO this is just BS for the sake if BSing.

Yes, this is exactly what you have been doing throughout the entire thread, one of the very few times here I really wish there was an "ignore user" option.

[fathom]

Lol, assumptions again. When did I say that it ranks for a non-money phrase?!? It actually ranks for "buy widgets online", hahaha. I said the opportunity to make the money was gone, because you actually have to sell the widgets to make the money.

Actually why would anyone spend a dime (or time) adding links to your website when they could merely add a minimum number to their own?

[fathom]

Yes, this is exactly what you have been doing throughout the entire thread, one of the very few times here I really wish there was an "ignore user" option.

Ya I didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday ... so your posts do need to making a little sense... not a lot - just a bit.

[atlrus]

Actually why would anyone spend a dime (or time) adding links to your website when they could merely add a minimum number to their own?

It doesn't matter whether they will or they won't. The problem is that they could.

[atlrus]

Ya I didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday ... so your posts do need to making a little sense... not a lot - just a bit.

My posts actually provide evidence that backlinks hurt your ranking. Your posts on the other side have brought absolutely nothing to the table. You have not talked about any tests you have done or any actual evidence you have gathered. That's why I find your posts completely useless to any kind of discussion other than theoretical.

[rlange]

fathom wrote:
How do they determine "NOT PROVIDED" on search queries?

How many Google products do you use?

How often are you logged in?

How many of your websites are included in your accounts?

Surely the company that controls all this and so much more... it isn't too much of a stretch for them to develop footprints using your online activities.

I think you're implying that if I did a Google search for [link sellers] or [linking schemes], or had an email conversation using my Gmail account discussing linking schemes, all while having my website in Google Webmaster Tools or Google Analytics, and then Google notices a sudden increase in links pointing to my website, that they could reasonably determine that I am responsible for those links.

It's a logical scenario, but it's also based on no evidence that I am aware of, nor have you provided any in support. It's 100% speculation. Even worse, it comes off as a "Big Brother is watching you" style conspiracy theory. I don't think it currently qualifies as a valid explanation.

Edit: Also, I hadn't looked into the issue in any detail, but as far as I'm aware, it's never been confirmed (at least publicly) exactly who was responsible for J.C. Penney's spammy backlinks. That they didn't continue after the firing of their SEO company is a pretty good indication, but that's after-the-fact. If Google penalized them based on an accusation, that's a bit frightening.

--
Ryan

[Robert Charlton]

Still waiting for your website. You have the guts to stand behind your words - then put up or shut up. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, now it's your turn.

Mods note: In order to stay within the guidelines of this forum [webmasterworld.com...] ...let's keep the specifics of which sites accept the atlrus challenge out of this thread.

That means no "I stickied you" or "sticky me if you have the guts" comments... no references to the site in one's profile, no keywords, domain names, etc. Let's also assume that readers of the thread will by this time be aware of the challenge and atlrus needn't refer to specific means of communication.

If anyone does accept the challenge and rises or falls as a result, it would be great to get a report here, though... assuming that you can agree in private on whose blood is on the floor and what caused the rise or fall. ;)

[realmaverick]

Don't play with fire.

Competitors can harm your rankings with links. I am 100% certain.

The number of links and amount of money it will take, will depend on many different factors i.e number of links already pointing to the domain.

Though I guess if you're that certain your rankings can't be hurt. Hand your URL over to the guy offering to prove the point. I wouldn't, but if you're so certain and keen to prove you're right, go for it :)

[fathom]

I think you're implying that if I did a Google search for [link sellers] or [linking schemes], or had an email conversation using my Gmail account discussing linking schemes, all while having my website in Google Webmaster Tools or Google Analytics, and then Google notices a sudden increase in links pointing to my website, that they could reasonably determine that I am responsible for those links.

Let's be clear... many here spin the evil competitor saga to refute "google can't tell"... you aren't a person you are an IP and everything that happens on that IP stinks of "owner".

It's a logical scenario, but it's also based on no evidence that I am aware of, nor have you provided any in support. It's 100% speculation. Even worse, it comes off as a "Big Brother is watching you" style conspiracy theory. I don't think it currently qualifies as a valid explanation.

So a malicious imaginary competitor is an acceptable speculation based on no evidence that one exists while Google (which we all know sent the message) and 100% involved is unacceptable speculation based on the same thing.

I get how the former is the stronger argument.

Edit: Also, I hadn't looked into the issue in any detail, but as far as I'm aware, it's never been confirmed (at least publicly) exactly who was responsible for J.C. Penney's spammy backlinks. That they didn't continue after the firing of their SEO company is a pretty good indication, but that's after-the-fact. If Google penalized them based on an accusation, that's a bit frightening.

Wow now there is a news flash.

Your SEO firm generated a 1/4 of a billion dollars in sales and your board of director as 100% oblivious to how this was achieved?

What happens behind private doors is rarely meant for public consumption... but no firm blindly makes those dollars without any executive review.

[fathom]

Competitors can harm your rankings with links. I am 100% certain.

...given the fact that you aren't 100% certain you'll recover from this it would seem your new calling is where you have 100% certainty.

The number of links and amount of money it will take, will depend on many different factors i.e number of links already pointing to the domain.

In your certainty... how many links and how much did it cost to take you out?

In your certainty how many links already pointed to your domain.

You have vast experience here... can you share these datasets?

Surely real values support 100% certainty and are better to work with than vague references that are meaningless.

Though I guess if you're that certain your rankings can't be hurt. Hand your URL over to the guy offering to prove the point. I wouldn't, but if you're so certain and keen to prove you're right, go for it

Who was this? The only reference I saw was someone wanting you to harm them not someone that could do it.

I'll even pay to play... kill my weak domain and I pay for all the efforts. At least then I can appreciate what did or did not occur with specifics.

[hottrout]

Whats that I see on the floor ...... ahh yes, its a gauntlet.

[dolcevita]

It looks as Google with their note in webmaster tools gave idea and open wide door to new/old tactic and technique from competitors who gonna to crush you.

It is very easy to buy crappy link and there are already people who talk did it on other forum and they explain exactly how they do it.

Here is what one of them said 3 weeks a go:

"I Penalized My Competitor with ALN"
Only took 3 weeks and $200. This was a site that had been in the top 3 in the 'home decor' sector - ran 2 different ALN blasts with tons of relevant varied keywords to their site, (as 'viagra' and '#*$!' links never work for hurting your competitors - been there, tried that).

This is amazing.

They dropped down to page 7 of Google about 12 hours ago! I know it's too soon to come to conclusions, but if this penalty holds, negative seo is just as good as positive seo! lol!

FYI They did greatly increase in ranking for the first 10 days or so - then they didn't move up or down...until yesterday afternoon =) "



So what now. What did Google? Google simple penalized victims. Great...

There will be now big market for people who gonna to buy simple crappy links for 300 - 400 $ and and destroy life of their competitors.

[enigma1]

I think you should take into consideration webscript exploits many of these sites are using from these stories you read.

I know for sure there are ways to make spiders see irrelevant or spamy content and penalize someone but that implies there are issues with the site's code or configuration and can cause duplicate content, invoke error pages for valid links or generate new links and much more, all artificially created pretty quick with the aid of a botnet. But that's not up to Google to fix so I would make sure my site is clean of errors before getting into the conclusion it's the spider's fault.

[netmeg]

(All I can think of is all the good and actually useful things that could have been done with the time and energy that has thus far been expended in this post)

[np2003]

Negative SEO works, I tried it on two of my domains that were ranked on page #1 for years, for a keyword with 400-500k/month searches. Got it to hit page 6-7 after the negative SEO. All it cost me was a few hundred bucks using xrumer.

[fathom]

Negative SEO works, I tried it on two of my domains that were ranked on page #1 for years, for a keyword with 400-500k/month searches. Got it to hit page 6-7 after the negative SEO. All it cost me was a few hundred bucks using xrumer.

Your attempt was to harm yourself? What a great idea!

You have 100% conversion rate... your ship has certainly arrived. You can charge competitors $10K... and convert a million a month.

So how is business?

One question?

Before you attempted negative SEO on yourself what were you doing for natural links?

If you go out drinking and then get behind the wheel and have an accident... claiming you are an above average driver because you didn't kill anyone... this is not really a valid test of your driving prowess.

Ignorance isn't a testament for knowledge, skill, experience, or wisdom.

[edited by: fathom at 9:22 pm (utc) on Apr 13, 2012]

[fathom]

dolcevita 3rd party claims once removed aren't valid.

It may indeed have occurred... but it can just as easy be ego food - how can you (without an ounce of insight) tell the difference?

You're spinning a fraud IMHO.

[fathom]

enigma1 write:
I know for sure there are ways to make spiders see irrelevant or spamy content and penalize someone but that implies there are issues with the site's code or configuration and can cause duplicate content, invoke error pages for valid links or generate new links and much more, all artificially created pretty quick with the aid of a botnet. But that's not up to Google to fix so I would make sure my site is clean of errors before getting into the conclusion it's the spider's fault.

Website owners generally don't try to get themselves banned or penalized... that happens materially but unintentionally.

Replicating that is not easy. To rephrase... replicating unintentional by intentional means... is a factor you must conclude is included in the mix.

Otherwise, Google isn't smart enough to see through a $200 buck scam. Do you really buy that?

Doing this on your own website where you have unfettered knowledge and experience with and insider data and of course by your own admission you are not a competitor you are the owner - your premise therefore falls short of the mark and is based purely on conjecture. That is, if you can do it to yourself you should be able to achieve that result elsewhere...

IMHO though if you were doing an experiment you would have much more than a posted claim that you did this you would have stats and graphs and... well honestly... when you buy $200 bucks of something for a domain the reasonable explanation for that is your were intentionally promoting the domain not doing an intentional experiment... if the latter is true post the data and the timeline... don't have that? Ya OK - you suck at experiments then.

Clearly if this was an experiment... you haven't finished yet... the premise was "a competitor". The next step is actually doing it.

The reason Google discount links is because it cannot determine who did what in every case.

The fact that you can lose results & traffic for non-link issues means there are more than 1 way for you to lose.

"I know for sure"... a bold statement based on what?

If you are not inside Google on the Webspam team... you know nothing for sure... thus you should say...

"I'm guessing there are ways to make..." as that would be a truthful statement.

I realize that doesn't sound too promising (nor professionally appealing) but it would be the truth nonetheless... thus it is better to not make claims you cannot really support.

I won't rule out that this could happen... but so far in 170 posts no one has provided conclusive evidence to support. What has been provided are half cocked claims by people not involved or website owners doing something to themselves which refute the competitor claim 100%.

Even the OP can't get the story straight. He did a paid link experiment on 1 domain and that supports lost traffic on a completely irrelevant domain that is also considered to be PANDAized... so if loss of traffic is because of PANDA how can the competitor mess with your content?

Here's how... "wishful thinking!"

[edited by: fathom at 10:33 pm (utc) on Apr 13, 2012]

[outland88]

Can we all say OCD.

[mrguy]

Otherwise, Google isn't smart enough to see through a $200 buck scam. Do you really buy that?

Actually, yes only I believe Google is “to smart”.

Over the years, I’ve had the pleasure of working with some very smart engineers in various fields. Many times, their own smartness blinded to them to what was actually taking place when they implemented their plans and it actually took workers like us who don’t have PHDs to point out to them the flaws in their perfect thinking. They would then have that moment of clarity and go, oh.. your right.

I see this happening with Google. They think of things in their own perfect little world and we have seen time and time again that things don’t work out as they plan.

Do I think a $200 trick would take down a solid authority site, of course not. But it could certainly take out a site that might have some issues and is not yet established itself as a trusted source.

Whether or not the OP did this to himself, I don’t know. But, it is possible to conduct a negative campaign if the conditions are right and Google would not pick up on it.

[fathom]

Can we all say OCD.

If aimed at me... Debunking myth is an obsession of mine. Thanks!

[outland88]

But to drone on and on thats a whole different ballgame.

[fathom]

Do I think a $200 trick would take down a solid authority site, of course not. But it could certainly take out a site that might have some issues and is not yet established itself as a trusted source.

So if you are already doing shady stuff that should remain trusted because you got away with it?

If you have garbage all over your lawn don't blame the neighbors for adding a few candle wrappers.

In this logic my question is... if you already know you have shady stuff in your domain... why would you blame an imaginary competitor?

<added>In fact, if you already have shady stuff, why would you test more shady stuff?</added>

[edited by: fathom at 11:01 pm (utc) on Apr 13, 2012]

[fathom]

But to drone on and on thats a whole different ballgame.

Exactly! ...and you're still reading it... OCD?

[mrguy]

So if you are already doing shady stuff that should remain trusted because you got away with it?

You must work for Google or something because you sure do seem to think everybody is doing something wrong.

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.

My comment was in general, and not really about the OP of this thread so take if for what it's worth.

[fathom]

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!"

[enigma1]

if you were doing an experiment you would have much more than a posted claim that you did this you would have stats and graphs and... well honestly... when you buy $200 bucks of something for a domain

Are you referring to my post or you generalize as I see a mixture of various posts together.

"I know for sure"... a bold statement based on what?

Or you are not reading what I post and just quote one thing and answer another?

Yes I know for sure that a code side-effect can be exploited in many different ways. If in doubt you can read other threads of people wondering how they endup with all sort of errors in GWT or just browse questions in the apache server forum. Just one mistake can make the spider see the planet through the site. That can be intentional or unintentional that wasn't my point and I've no idea how it relates to the google webspam team?

Or perhaps you meant code problems may exist but noone knows about them and so you want to see a step by step instruction manual how to do it in order to be convinced? From the angle I consider this may happen is not guessing.

Instead, you should be asking how webmasters react to these problems. Some blame the spiders, some themselves and others are in a limbo. IMO instead of worrying first if others do shady stuff, fix your own problems.

[fathom]

I know for sure there are ways to make spiders see irrelevant or spamy content and penalize someone but that implies there are issues with the site's code or configuration and can cause duplicate content, invoke error pages for valid links or generate new links and much more, all artificially created pretty quick with the aid of a botnet. But that's not up to Google to fix so I would make sure my site is clean of errors before getting into the conclusion it's the spider's fault.

The latter of the two... and maybe I misunderstood your meaning.

No you don't know for sure that someone can penalize someone else.

Yes you can do tons of things to penalize yourself.

Yes I know for sure that a code side-effect can be exploited in many different ways. If in doubt you can read other threads of people wondering how they endup with all sort of errors in GWT or just browse questions in the apache server forum. Just one mistake can make the spider see the planet through the site. That can be intentional or unintentional that wasn't my point and I've no idea how it relates to the google webspam team?

Or perhaps you meant code problems may exist but noone knows about them and so you want to see a step by step instruction manual how to do it in order to be convinced? From the angle I consider this may happen is not guessing.

Instead, you should be asking how webmasters react to these problems. Some blame the spiders, some themselves and others are in a limbo. IMO instead of worrying first if others do shady stuff, fix your own problems.

In the same paragraph you state... "Yes I know for sure" and "I've no idea".

Note: its poor form to use anonymous claims to bolster any position. You cannot determine anyone's level of knowledge, skill, experience, or wisdom nor the history or timeline of events.

I've seen people accidentally add disallow: / to robots.txt and blame Google for penalizing them.

Bottomline: believe half of what you see and a quarter of what you hear... then test it yourself more than once because false positives (and negatives) are common.