Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
netmeg: I get the impression that if Google does this, it's not because they WANT to, but because people have been asking them to.
tedster: Exactly - this forum has seen many such requests with no dissenting voices. That is, no dissent until Google did exactly what webmasters were requesting.
What seriously needs to happen is a sequence of HIGH PROFILE examples of Negative SEO to hit the blogosphere - one after another.
I'm a firm believer that sitewide links pointing at your site can hurt you
We looked at your request to have some inbound links to your site ignored.
Did you really want to send your site from page three to page 999?
If yes, click here [X], If no, too late... :)
the gang at Google!
when it's done to acquire direct traffic through clicks on those links (or even branding exposure) then those link purchases are advertising. However, that's not the case with a lot of link buying
To win those "hard" links, what you're asking for Danny is EVERY site to somehow become remarkable purely in regards to their content, for the sole means to rank. This is a laughable and unnecessary requirement for most sites. You don't understand this, and this is where you are going wrong. For SEL, content is the end itself (the product), for most other businesses, content is nothing more than a means to an end. You have to sit down and meditate on that difference until you fully "get it" - and then recalibrate the way you see SEO in regards to small business.
[edited by: tedster at 4:07 am (utc) on Jun 12, 2012]
[edit reason] fair use limitation on quote [/edit]
Matt is most likely talking here about links that were completely unsolicited, not about links that you just wish you hadn't bought. It's hard to say what the forgiveness factor would be on those. The relevant quote from the article...
If Google did this certain webmasters would fire unlimited spammy links at their sites on the basis of heads they may win, tails they can't lose.
That's not so. Some of my best link partners, people who endorse us and we endorse them, have been at there niche for years but aren't really good webmasters in the creative sense; they produce great content and serve their purpose but their sites are poorly designed, have no tracking and don't use the tools that are out there for SEO but they rank page 1 HIGH because they DO have great, authoritative content. A lot of them are retired folks providing services to the public at little to no cost just to stay busy and feel useful, if someone were to launch a negative SEO campaign against them it would be successful because they just wouldn't know why or how it happened.np2003 said:Scurramunga replied: I think anyone whom you may consider a formidable opponent will be savvy enough to know what it is.
This will be problematic for webmasters who have no clue WMT exists. They could be hit with negative SEO attack and have no clue how to disavow unwanted links?