Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
Is it now easier to run negative SEO campaigns,
how would you deal with the problem?
The worst part to me is that normal everyday people (non-webmasters) can actually trigger neg. seo impact with links that they think are valuable. They actually like the product and want to share news about your site, but they don't know that this can trigger an issue with the big G when they do so in forums etc.
In a situation where a site is the first result for a given query, why would a competitor engage in negative SEO when they could expend the same energy/money in positive SEO for their own properties?
If we follow the logic that higher grade links have far more value to a site than profile or blog comment links, it should also make sense that a few high grade links will far outweigh low quality links generated by outside parties/competitors.
A site owner can control/seek higher quality links.
If I could define a pattern where I could tank competitors, it would probably make sense to do it
If you argue that "it's not worth the hassle" to build such links to competitor sites, then you simply don't understand how easy it is. There are systems and services already in place and have been since not long after Penguin 1.0 in April 2012. These negative SEO systems and services are only getting more entrenched and commonplace as time goes by.
Maybe I'm missing something, but what's to stop Google operatives from buying and identifying "negative SEO" links, unless the negative-SEO vendors are selling only to certified bad guys?
A quick search on fiverr and I can find thousands of these services. Regular, cheap and nasty link building for five bucks. I can find hundreds of thousands of link building services around the web. There isn't a difference between regular, cheap link building services and negative SEO - they're the same thing!
Part of the natural progression of a website is the early phase where links are obtained from friends, family and related sites, but not freely earned. Search engines know this, it has been mentioned and is certainly no reason for penalty. Freely given mentions comes later in the site's lifecycle.
Any links intended to manipulate PageRank or a site's ranking in Google search results may be considered part of a link scheme and a violation of Google’s Webmaster Guidelines.
You can rank non-competitive phrases for a few weeks, but it won't last. The nature of those types of links mean they have very little value for ranking purposes, and the value diminishes rapidly. If most of the links a site had were blog comments and forum posts, then cheap purchased links might be problematic.There are probably other scenarios also.
It's now more important than ever to have a GWT account to look out for these issues developing, and to deal with them that much faster if we're to avoid problems.
Is it now easier to run negative SEO campaigns, and how would you deal with the problem?
Search engines are well aware of natural site link growth, even if those links aren't truly "natural".
I'm guessing you have no desire to spend the 5 bucks to learn the truth? Or do you not want to know the reality? I'm not pushing any agenda, you can see results for yourself using any keywords/phrases you choose.
I'm guessing you have no desire to spend the 5 bucks to learn the truth?
Places like Amazon, which has tons of affiliate spam links pointing to their pages, are held to a different standard than small businesses that operate in such a way that they could care less about keyword stuffing, making links, etc.
Unfortunately it is now easier/cheaper/faster to knock your competitor(s) out with bad links--verses working long hours to build quality links and content.
The problem is that if I tank one competitor, wouldn't another site take their place?
That could be an endless stream of actions where it would make more sense to promote the owned site instead.
My opinion, I'd love to hear your thoughts.