textex -- I meant it to be a theory or hypothesis. That's why i used the word "could". It's an attempt to explain the reports of people who removed backlinks but haven't seen any indications of a recovery.
I understand. I think google is not just going to release sites once the link profile is cleaned up. I think they want to see the site to continue to establish authority in its niche. That's just wishful thinking.
I have a site linking / was linking to me that is sitewide, using just about every anchor text that could pertain to my site. I have a feeling that the links are being added then removed, added then removed. Though I can't see any now and none are cached as far as I can tell. I suspect someone negatively SEOing my domain. Either that or google WMT is showing me very old data that it was not showing a month ago.
Speaking of "neg SEO", I'm doing rep management for a client. One of his customers bad-mouthed his business and it was on a pretty powerful PR5 website.
I blasted it for 3 months straight and it went from position #1 to the top of page 4.
"Blasted" meaning doing what's generally considered "negative SEO" in this day and age, with one or two "twists".
Penguin has been a god-send for negative SEO, for both people like me who use it for good purposes (by helping clients clean up negative press/etc that Google artificially ranks high due to certain keywords being on the site, such as: fraud, scam, lawsuit, etc), and those who use it for bad purposes.
@ baseballguy. Am I right in guessing that adding then removing then adding and removing links would probably do the trick? As I said, it's not like it was just one anchor either it was all of them. Must have raised a massive flag with google.
I think it's only logical. Logical. An algorithm is simply logic, made up of mathematical calculations, percentages, etc ... And Google is an algorithm. Advanced but still an algorithm. Not a single algorithm in the world is able to determine who has placed a link on a website. Until now, they were just lying.