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?

[enigma1]

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

I am sure you don't read my posts otherwise you would spot the difference.

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

That's a drop in the ocean of what's out there.

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.

That's irrelevant and this is not an anonymous forum otherwise I wouldn't have to login to post, the discussion is about competitors trying to hurt your site one way or another at anytime. And there are always new ways that surpass your current knowledge so I don't count what I know today is enough to avoid it.

If the google algo has a bug and penalizes a site if it sees too many newly created links is up to google to fix. If your site has a bug that's exploited by others to devalue your business is up to you to fix. That's where knowledge is important identifying and rectifying the problem instead of believing this is another goose chase. If your competitor knows your site has a weakness he may exploit it whether you like it or not.

[fathom]

That's irrelevant and this is not an anonymous forum otherwise...

Who am I?

What's my company?

How much revenue does it make?

What's my background?

Where did I gain experience in SEO?

What's my domain(s)?

You know nothing about me... and you claim that's irrelevant because I logged in as fathom... I'm sure then you can answer those basic questions.

Hard lesson learned over the years, everybody lies. Rephrasing - embellishes, exaggerates, over-estimates, down plays, adds spin or hype, and god forbid misinforms regardless of whether it is unintentional or not.

You can recognize all these just because someone logged in?

Or are you saying none of the above occurs?

Or are you saying that information accuracy does not matter as this board is just a gossip column and as a gossip column fiction is as good as nonfiction?

[enigma1]

Why you think if you had posted any info will make a difference? FYI these are the items I see as more important:
May 5, 2002, 3049 and counting.

So no I don't think you come here with the intention to lie. I think you post your experiences as others do. Of course each one of us has his own interests, so you will see biased posts.

Anyways, when someone says my site was hit because of Google, initially at least, I'll take his word and cross-reference what he says with what I know. There isn't a rule, every problem with backlinks is a spin. If I cannot confirm it and have some experience on the topic I will say so. And what I posted earlier was what I was able to confirm by first hand experience. Side effects in the site's code can be used in many ways including artificially creating problems via backlinks or other methods. Now the part I disagree on if you put some valid links to valid pages on your competitor's site it will create problems just because the link origins are from a bad neighborhood. I think you need more than that to make it happen.

Now whether you believe it or not and if you think it was a personal unverified test is another matter.

[fathom]

Now the part I disagree on if you put some valid links to valid pages on your competitor's site it will create problems just because the link origins are from a bad neighborhood. I think you need more than that to make it happen.

We agree.

[realmaverick]

Now the part I disagree on if you put some valid links to valid pages on your competitor's site it will create problems just because the link origins are from a bad neighborhood. I think you need more than that to make it happen.

"Some"? could mean any number.

It's going to vary, depending on the number of genuine inbound links, for any given page. etc etc etc

What I know, is that it wasn't difficult to take out a page, that was ranking in the top 10 for over a year, for a pretty competitive keyword.

It was done with nothing more than aggressively targeting a keyword.

How hard it would be to take out an entire website, I don't know.

It's really not that hard to do your own tests, and obviously the bigger your budget, the more you can test.

[fathom]

"Some"? could mean any number.

It's going to vary, depending on the number of genuine inbound links, for any given page. etc etc etc

So how does one demonstrate a genuine links as oppose to a non-genuine link?

What I know, is that it wasn't difficult to take out a page, that was ranking in the top 10 for over a year, for a pretty competitive keyword.

So was all your links before you added your own "non-genuine links" genuine?

It was done with nothing more than aggressively targeting a keyword.

You targeted specifically sure I'll buy that... isn't that what you would do if you were promoting your domain?

The other spammy links you found were not targeted in the same fashion so why are these related?

How hard it would be to take out an entire website, I don't know.

I'm extremely confident you couldn't do what you did on any domain you have absolutely no control over.

It's really not that hard to do your own tests, and obviously the bigger your budget, the more you can test.

Doing a valid test would be a good place to start. Your own main site that you claim was victimized by some competitor as you demonstrated on your test site has PANDA problems (you even acknowledge PANDA as the cause to your own patrons) it seems silly to continuing drumming on the competitor theory.

Your conscious targeting of paid links is exact what site owners do (no competitor there) and Google's PANDA isn't a competitor either. Your competitor theory has nothing to do with link style it is all about impersonation... and because Google cannot see people you think that you can pretend to be a competitor pretending to be you and that's a valid test.

Anyone can bait a test. It's called Scotoma.

[realmaverick]

So how does one demonstrate a genuine links as oppose to a non-genuine link?

That's not the point. All you're doing, is getting the page penalised from over optimisation of anchor text, dead simple.

I'm extremely confident you couldn't do what you did on any domain you have absolutely no control over.

If you really are that confident, your over confidence is unfounded.

You targeted specifically sure I'll buy that... isn't that what you would do if you were promoting your domain?

Not entirely sure what you just said. But if I interpreted it correctly, why would you link build aggressively, unless you were either a retard or purposely trying to get a penalty?

Ultimately, beyond all else. Is it so #*$!ing hard to believe that somebody can be penalised for buying links, links that are over optimised, built rapidly etc?

Earlier, you were suggesting it's possible.

Now you position appears to have changed, or are you suggesting that only somebody of your calibre is capable of doing it? Or have you just completely taken a u-turn?

I'm not entirely sure what your argument is. Are you?

In a couple of sentences, in lamans terms, fancy telling us your stance on whether or not, you can harm a competitor with links?

[fathom]

Not entirely sure what you just said. But if I interpreted it correctly, why would you link build aggressively, unless you were either a retard or purposely trying to get a penalty?

First, what aggressive practices are you referring to?

Second, surely you don't conclude that every single person doing link development themselves are competent. Ignorance doesn't make you retarded all you need to do is visit a forum ask how can I get better results for my domain and get a vague answer "get links".

You're actually starting to agree with me... one's knowledge & skill level can be dismal.

Ultimately, beyond all else. Is it so #*$!ing hard to believe that somebody can be penalised for buying links, links that are over optimised, built rapidly etc?

It's 100% conclusive that you can do this to yourself... and if I did this to you Google would simply kill off my links.

Is that so hard to believe? Don't believe try it. You're into testing theory so test it.

Earlier, you were suggesting it's possible.

Possible isn't factual.

Anything is possible... not everything is factual... validate it before you conclude even probable.

Now you position appears to have changed, or are you suggesting that only somebody of your calibre is capable of doing it? Or have you just completely taken a u-turn?

I don't even believe what Google's says because what they don't say is often more important.

I'm not entirely sure what your argument is. Are you?

Absolutely - competitors don't normally harm others they are to busy helping themselves.

I may be proven wrong... but if you can't or won't ever prove you can harm a 3rd party yourself (without insider access) ... well that, in and of itself, is proof that you don't trust your own theory.

Please waste some time and money on your competitor... they will thank you.

Others suggest "I'm ethical, so I won't attempt it"... obviously they have a bias prior to testing... science isn't about ethics it's about discovery.

In a couple of sentences, in lamans terms, fancy telling us your stance on whether or not, you can harm a competitor with links?

NO!

[realmaverick]

Second, surely you don't conclude that every single person doing link development themselves are competent. Ignorance doesn't make you retarded all you need to do is visit a forum ask how can I get better results for my domain and get a vague answer "get links".

True. I agree that doesn't make them retards.

It's 100% conclusive that you can do this to yourself... and if I did this to you Google would simply kill off my links.

What?! So you're suggesting that Google knows whether I am the one who purchased the links, or a competitor? That's utter nonsense.

I don't even believe what Google's says because what they don't say is often more important.

We agree there too.

Absolutely - competitors don't normally harm others they are to busy helping themselves.

Depends who you're dealing with.

I may be proven wrong... but if you can't or won't ever prove you can harm a 3rd party yourself (without insider access) ... well that, in and of itself, is proof that you don't trust your own theory.

To prove my theory, it would a) time, b) money. I'm confident you have the resources, and as it's in the name of "science", and not against your ethics, then just do it yourself.

Pick a website (i.e none of mine), choose a page that's ranking for it's target keyword and fire a load of highly targeted links at it, pretty quickly. And you'll soon see for yourself. It's best to choose a page that doesn't have many links, otherwise it will take more to kill it off. The links to the domain itself don't matter as much, but for sake of saving time and money, choose a page with only a handful of inbound links, or perhaps one that's ranking from onsite factors plus internal link juice alone.

There's no end to how far you could take the experiment.

NO!

Didn't think so. :)

[fathom]

It's 100% conclusive that you can do this to yourself... and if I did this to you Google would simply kill off my links.

What?! So you're suggesting that Google knows whether I am the one who purchased the links, or a competitor? That's utter nonsense.

No more utter nonsense than a make-believe competitor that is factually you pretending to be them.

At least Google is real.

Absolutely - competitors don't normally harm others they are to busy helping themselves.

Depends who you're dealing with.

...so far the only party we know for sure is you.

In a couple of sentences, in lamans terms, fancy telling us your stance on whether or not, you can harm a competitor with links?

NO!

Didn't think so.

Rephrasing... NO you cannot harm your competitors by promoting them.

Google will simply devalue the links that you developed... and no more problem.

[realmaverick]

Interesting. Your assumptions are fine, and I'd have agreed with you in the past.

However, things change, this has changed. Test, you'll see. In the time you've debated it, you could have tested it and come back to tell me I was right, which I am :)

[fathom]

Interesting. Your assumptions are fine, and I'd have agreed with you in the past.

However, things change, this has changed. Test, you'll see. In the time you've debated it, you could have tested it and come back to tell me I was right, which I am happy!

I've harmed myself 1000+ domains... I guess we could say I'm really good at it.

At the same time I haven't been able to kill any customers.

Using your logic if Google cannot tell you from a competitor they certainly can't tell a customer from a competitor.

What does that mean?

[realmaverick]

Two scenarios, please explain how Google knows the difference.

Scenario 1
Webmaster Bill, owns domain1.com and targeting "blue widgets". His page has obtained a couple of natural links and already ranking on the first page. So he decides to purchase 150 links, with the anchor text "blue widgets". Quickly his ranks disappear and the page is nowhere to be found.

Scenario 2
Webmaster Bill figures, if he's harmed his own rankings with 150 targeted links, he should be able to do the same to his competitor, Webmaster Bob. Bobs page also has a couple of links and was ranked just below where his page previously was. So he fires 150 highly targeted links at the competitors "blue widgets" page.

PLEASE humour me, and explain how in gods name, does Google know Webmaster. That's all I want to know, how the hell does Google know?

It doesn't, it 100% definitely doesn't. If it does, then I'm going to fly around the world on my magical dragon.

Ultimately, what you believe, is that I left a footprint, and that's why I managed to harm rankings of a page under my control. But again, you're wrong.

[kellyman]

@ Fathom

you really are not getting it.

People sites have been demoted because links pointing to their sites, yes we agree that 99.9% of these sites acted and initiated the links themselves .

But in theory if these links were, initially pointed at their competitors then maybe they would have seen drops in their rankings.

From experience they cannot be just any links like a Xrummer or such they have to be part of these devalued blog networks, or part of something else Google does not like

We've reviewed your site and we still see links to your site that violate our quality guidelines

I know i was hit and i know what caused it, if any of these people are complaining then they need to understand what link building was done on their site and by whom, if they submitted to Linkvine, BMR and such then they would be hit,

[fathom]

I know i was hit and i know what caused it,

I sure hope the answer wasn't a competitor?

[fathom]

Two scenarios, please explain how Google knows the difference.

Scenario 1
Webmaster Bill, owns domain1.com and targeting "blue widgets". His page has obtained a couple of natural links and already ranking on the first page. So he decides to purchase 150 links, with the anchor text "blue widgets". Quickly his ranks disappear and the page is nowhere to be found.

Scenario 2
Webmaster Bill figures, if he's harmed his own rankings with 150 targeted links, he should be able to do the same to his competitor, Webmaster Bob. Bobs page also has a couple of links and was ranked just below where his page previously was. So he fires 150 highly targeted links at the competitors "blue widgets" page.

PLEASE humour me, and explain how in gods name, does Google know Webmaster. That's all I want to know, how the hell does Google know?

The same way you know the competitor did it.

But clearly they have millions of computers on their side.

It doesn't, it 100% definitely doesn't. If it does, then I'm going to fly around the world on my magical dragon.

...and taking your mythical competitors with you.

Ultimately, what you believe, is that I left a footprint, and that's why I managed to harm rankings of a page under my control. But again, you're wrong.

Why is that?

I explained in the supporter forum but will do so here as well.

In your specific case, your timings don't match the timeline of Google's ability to crawl links on other websites, credit links from other websites, detect manipulation, discount the links at other websites, and then have that propagate the web.

Your developments sound more like a website nailed for something else or based on some previous time to your test.

If Google kills my links from sites today (I'm providing links)... I have a guaranteed ranking life on those links for at least a month and websites will continue to get benefits from those links. It takes time, a lot more that your test supports.

Google (John Mu) also eludes to this quite clearly as the event may not have been recent. You can do something 2 months ago and then 2 months later feel the loses.

[kellyman]

I sure hope the answer wasn't a competitor?

Of Course not, I don't for 1 instance think i am that important, however it was the course of the actions i took over 12 months ago which has now caught up with me. probably like most the others here, hired some one to do work on my site, they submitted articles and such to these really poor link package's and bam..

but the topic of this thread is a competitor could in theory hurt your site. simple and straight forward

You can defend all you wish, and your totally right I doubt most then would have done this... But i bet now many will try to since Links from blog networks are deemed to be taboo and could result in the message warning and a potential drop

[fathom]

competitor could in theory hurt your site

Unproven theories are commonly called myths.

Just because 100s, 1000s or millions believe Elvis is alive... doesn't make it true.

[londrum]

Unproven theories are commonly called myths.

what a load of nonsense. seeing as google will never confirm that this causes a penalty, and we cant get hold of the actual algo to show you, whatever we say here can therefore be dismissed as a myth (according to you), because we dont have concrete evidence. what a wonderful debating position to be in. you can just dismiss whatever anyone says, regardless of its merit.

thats like me saying invisible pixies live at the bottom of my garden. you cant offer any proof otherwise, therefore it must be true.

[fathom]

what a load of nonsense. seeing as google will never confirm that this causes a penalty, and we cant get hold of the actual algo to show you, whatever we say here can therefore be dismissed as a myth (according to you), because we dont have concrete evidence. what a wonderful debating position to be in. you can just dismiss whatever anyone says, regardless of its merit.

thats like me saying invisible pixies live at the bottom of my garden. you cant offer any proof otherwise, therefore it must be true.

Why do you need to see an algorithm?

Just harm 3 or 4 competitors.

Surely if an imaginary competitor can harm you (which is your assumption I see as problematic) you can easily do this yourself to them since it is so easy to do.

The problem here is everybody loves to theorize but none wish to do what you claim you can do to others.

That is a load of utter nonsense.

Maybe this is so specialized that only a few in the world can achieve results.

Maybe it takes a warped mind to attempt this.

Whatever that additional commodity is... it is clear that it isn`t just about links otherwise I would have been eating humble pie with all your data you collected.

[Andy Langton]

Moderator's note:

On a forum such as this, posting specific details about individual websites is not even permitted, so we will not be able to review specific "evidence" that someone has successfully harmed a competitor. And even if individuals reported that they have done so, there will never be a way to "prove" that this is the case.

Let's keep this thread going if there are any new experiences or viewpoints on the idea that Google has changed the way it handles bad links - to the extent that a competitor might be able to harm a site's rankings. And we can leave readers to determine for themselves which parts of the thread they believe match their own opinions.

[seoskunk]

fathom Speaking as someone who has been harmed by a competitor the question is not "if" but "what" can be done about it. I still think a option in webmaster tools where you accept or decline a backlink is the only way webmasters can operate in the current market.

Google seem completely out of touch on this aspect. Not only can competitors harm a site but a whole industry has grown to meet that need. This I put forward is a despicable industry that can be put out of business overnight by following my suggestion in WMT.

[fathom]

fathom Speaking as someone who has been harmed by a competitor the question is not "if" but "what" can be done about it. I still think a option in webmaster tools where you accept or decline a backlink is the only way webmasters can operate in the current market.

Well obviously you have identify the competitor so hire the guys posting here and fix their little fannies.

Decline a backlink... great idea. How do you tell which links are good and which are bad independently of knowing the complete package?

Surely a single link won't harm anything.

Google seem completely out of touch on this aspect.

Here is what I know to be true... if your developmental linking practices are absolutely based on natural links ONLY I am absolutely positive that you cannot harm yourself let alone others.

If you have linking practices that violate Google's TOS it is silly to blame an unknown party.

Me saying here... "you screwed yourself" without any evidence in support is no different than you saying the same thing about someone else.

I cannot bolster a claim either way and neither can you without a factual perpetrator (imaginary ones can't take any actions)

Let's go through a test:

1. You only have a single domain?

2. You don't trade links?

3. You don't buy links?

4. You don't participate in link schemes?

5. You don't article spin for links?

6. You don't invest in link wheels?

How do you get links? Add great content and the world "just links"?

This IS NOT you... this is an EXAMPLE:

If you have invested in trading links for 5 years... got great results for 5 years and that is 5 years of manipulation that you have gotten away with... I'll link to you if you link to me is 100% manipulative. The fact that Google may have edited its algo to detect and discount these practices of late and notify you does not need a competitor to do anything shady recently. You have been shady for 5 years.

Not only can competitors harm a site but a whole industry has grown to meet that need. This I put forward is a despicable industry that can be put out of business overnight by following my suggestion in WMT.

What industry? I cannot fine a single service provider that specializes in these feats of sabotage.

Lots of gossip.

[seoskunk]

Unfortunately your wrong a sustained negative campaign can unseat even the most "white hat" site

Decline a backlink... great idea. How do you tell which links are good and which are bad independently of knowing the complete package?

Well a link from NASA=good link. from VIAGRA=bad. It would be for webmasters to be in control of and not some BH industry.

What industry? I cannot fine a single service provider that specializes in these feats of sabotage.

Lots of gossip.

Ermm Are you really this naive?

[fathom]

Unfortunately your wrong a sustained negative campaign can unseat even the most "white hat" site

Unlikely...

Decline a backlink... great idea. How do you tell which links are good and which are bad independently of knowing the complete package?

Well a link from NASA=good link. from VIAGRA=bad. It would be for webmasters to be in control of and not some BH industry.

So NASA would just link to you if you are a VIAGRA domain? What about Mobile Phones?

If you happen to be a VIAGRA domain the latter this would be a good link wouldn't it?

Actually... you don't screen every single link you get now or you would have identified the competitor(s) negative SEO campaign before it did anything.

What industry? I cannot fine a single service provider that specializes in these feats of sabotage.

Lots of gossip.

Ermm Are you really this naive?

What a great rebuttal.

Yes I could be very naive or just not interested in spreading false statements.

Just because 10,000 talking heads write "negative SEO" does not mean there is an industry to be found (as you claim).

BTW if you have 1,000 links coming from NASA domains... I guarantee you would have unnatural links to your domains... unless you have something to do with space.

[seoskunk]

What a great rebuttal.

Thanks

unless you have something to do with space

Pal its you who are "out there right now"

[fathom]

fathom Speaking as someone who has been harmed by a competitor

Was the competitor theory part of this domains' problems?

Considering Disallow:googlebot for Pandalized site [webmasterworld.com]

Panda and The Incredibly Shrinking Internet? [webmasterworld.com]

[seoskunk]

Was the competitor theory part of this domains' problems?

Nah it was a while back, that domain was guilty as hell of manipulating backlinks (about 3000 of them).

[fathom]

Nah it was a while back, that domain was guilty as hell of manipulating backlinks (about 3000 of them).

Not sure how you infer this...

The punished domain was guilty as hell (and no competitor was involved)

or

The domain(s) that caused your issues (was owned by someone else) was guilty as hell of killing you off

[seoskunk]

first one.....

I think fathom we are going to have to agree to differ. I certainly hope neither of us have a competitor attempt this again.