Negative SEO - How to Tank a Site in Google 101

[JD_Toims]

I decided to start a new thread for this one, which is an answer to a question posted in this thread [webmasterworld.com...] because I think it's good for people to know both sides of SEO for Google, and unfortunately, they've opened up the door for the negative version, so if anyone wants to know how to tank the competition, here you go:

From tests I have done, it is possible to impact serps with low quality links, just not to the degree some people seem to be implying it does.

Clay_More -- MSG# 4677852 -- Page 2, Post 13 @ 30 Post/Page
Here: [webmasterworld.com...]
That's because to seriously impact the SERPs with negative SEO you have to build links as if you were trying to "fly under the radar" and "increase rankings" rather than making it obvious.

You stated previously if you could figure out the pattern, or something to that effect -- The pattern is "appear to be trying to not get caught building links" while appearing to be trying to "increase rankings" -- It's really simple to do and I wouldn't ever use a Neg-SEO service to do it.

The first month, contract a couple $5 guest blog posts [make sure the posts are in broken English of course], then go back to what you were doing.

Second month, try a few more [4-8] $5 [broken English] guest blog posts and add some forum link drops to the mix. Go back to what you normally do -- Nothing will happen.

Third month, add even more [broken-English] guest blog links [2x or 3x per week], increase the forum link drops and sign up for long-term ["undetectable"] directory additions.

If the site hasn't tanked yet, month 4 hit 'em with 20,000 inbound links all at once -- Keep doing it and eventually the site you're aiming at will tank and they won't be able to figure out how to recover -- It takes almost none of your time and costs very little to tank a site due to the "penalty mentality" Google has decided to run with.

---

Note: I don't normally post about "how to do negative stuff", but Google needs to fix this sh*t, so I hope people understand how it's done and feel free to use it until Google fixes their broken system and mentality -- Penalties don't bring links back to citations; penalties simply change who creates the links and who's site they point to. Period!

[JD_Toims]

Glad this one got thru, and even if the timing of my statements are off a bit, Neg-SEO is: all someone needs to do is fit the pattern of trying to increase rankings in a way that *should be* undetected by Google. Rest assured, they will detect it, so when they do, the site you're aiming at will tank due to Google's "penalty mentality" being built in to the algo.

TL;DR

Build links to the competition as if you were them trying to "game the SERPs and rank your site better." If you do you'll know/match the right pattern of link building to tank the competition -- It's actually really simple and cost-effective to do.

[Clay_More]

Well said, although I'd probably attempt it a bit differently.

My underlying point has always been seek higher quality links. It doesn't take many high quality links to offset potential damage from low quality links. How to "seek" links turns into a different kind of thread.

Thanks for posting.

[JD_Toims]

It doesn't take many high quality links to offset potential damage from low quality links.

Unless the pattern of low quality links "fits" trying to game Google's algo -- Then it doesn't take many low-quality links to tank a site.

How to "seek" links turns into a different kind of thread.

Definitely, IMO.

Thanks for posting.

Welcome and NP -- I call things how I see 'em, and sometimes we all get "caught up in the situation" or iow "can't see the forest because of all the trees", which is what I think the engineers at G are doing -- I hope they figure things out, because in a pattern-based system with penalties it's too easy to create a pattern that causes a penalty for someone else -- I wish they would throw the "penalty links" out [ignore them] and just focus/rank sites based on the good links they detect, meaning the links their algo interprets as good are counted as positives, but the rest aren't counted at all -- Sometimes, to me, it seem like they've lost the point.

[ColourOfSpring]

It's quite simple really - if you can penalise your own site, you can penalise any site.

To disagree with that is like saying "Links built by other people to my site can't hurt my site, only links I build to my site can hurt my site".

As JD_Toims already points out well, it's easy to combine a few things, then wait for the results.

Some other things to consider that don't even involve negative impacts on rankings immediately :-

- the 30,000 comment / forum profile blast you give a site may not impact it negatively, but if it gets into trouble in the future, those links may need disavowing. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT, WEBMASTER

- again, even if a 30,000 Scrapebox blast doesn't impact negatively on a domain, such links could be like a ticking bomb - with a future Penguin update suddenly deeming such links as a problem (Google seem to be getting only more punitive with links)

- the worry for webmasters. Seeing such links popup in GWT is going to worry webmasters and I've already seen accounts in these forums about such links causing stress and concern to webmasters

- ransom links. I've already been a victim of these - pop-up directories with "delete this link for $20". I didn't add the link anyway. One such link was an example link given out by Google to me as a link I need to remove. A perfect example of negative SEO - this link was built in 2014. The domain that was penalised by Google was done so in 2012. That domain receives so many spammy links, it's like permanently digging a hole to keep up with it all.

All of the above are "best case scenario" - where the links do NOT impact negatively at the point of them being built. As you can see, it's just a hassle for webmasters at best - and at worst, a nightmare where you have a penality.

Finally, ethics. Of course Google have to downplay negative SEO. It would be a disaster for them if they came out and said it was relatively easy to do to domains with weaker link profiles (new domains, small businesses). They can never admit it. And so if we are to believe Google's message, what's wrong with building links (and supposedly wasting our time and money) to the competition? You can't say it's unethical, and at the very same time, say it has little to no impact. Actions are only unethical if they have an impact. And so with the official stance that negative SEO is really hard to do, then there should be no ethical dilemma to try out the cheaper and more accessible methods to build links to sites you don't own yourself.

[engine]

My original thread was a rhetorical question.

Negative SEO is not new, but it has become more significant the moment certain aspects became penalised.

I'm less concerned about the unscrupulous demanding $$ or they will attack a site. I'm more concerned it'll be going on and the first you'll know is when the site tanks, or the alerts start appearing in GWT, which lead to a penalty.

As was said, this is a big hassle.

If Google is alerting webmasters of suspicious links you'd think it could also see a pattern developing, and automatically block the sites with the links. Again, the patterns are something which could be picked up and flagged for further investigation. It should be possible for an algorithm, combined with manual alerts, to combat an attack. Easy to say, but is it easy to implement without impacting legitimate business.

[GreyBeard123]

[My underlying point has always been seek higher quality links. It doesn't take many high quality links to offset potential damage from low quality links. How to "seek" links turns into a different kind of thread.]

Yeah...
30k is peanuts...
What about a 1000k blast with at least 60% df that consis out of low and high quality links...

[turbocharged]

The most effective negative seo attacks I have seen used keyword rich link text that matched what the page was ranking for (including variations). It seems Google's algo demotes the page for those specific keywords, which leaves utterly useless keywords ranking just fine. But there appears to be some threshold where Google's algo kills off the ranks for the entire page/site when so many keyword rich links are obtained. But if the spam links do not match the theme of the page, Google's algo appears to be more forgiving - possibly an indication that they detect something fishy is going on outside of the website owner's control.

When it's time for reconsideration requests, the unrelated link text makes it easier for website owners to point out the negative seo attack. In the case of keyword rich negative seo attacks, Google treats victims as if they created the links.

The bottom line is that Google's link policies are devastating to small businesses. The burden of just monitoring ones link profile is unproductive as hell considering how many individual small business owners are wasting their time doing what Google should be doing - not counting garbage links. Furthermore, many negative seo victims are victimized again when they try to present their side of the story to Google through a reconsideration request. I've seen other people call for a government regulated third party appeal process, and I fully support this. It's clear that Google can't or does not want to waste any effort on listening to someone whos livelihood has been shattered by a competitor.

[ColourOfSpring]

My underlying point has always been seek higher quality links.

This is certainly a grey area. "Seek", "place", "build" - all essentially synonyms. I've also seen perfectly on-the-face-of-it legit links turn out to be bad links through a Google update or even a penalty that the publishing site receives for OTHER transgressions - e.g. when a site is deemed by Google to be linking out unnaturally, even the actually-natural links end up as fingers of blame pointing to sites. A good example of this is austere, august national newspaper sites in the UK that were caught link selling.

[CaptainSalad2]

If you post a dofollow link to your own site online it affects the way Google ranks your site to whatever degree.

If that is true we are all guilty of gaming Google are we not? Sure we can argue shades of grey but lets look at it black and white for a moment, we fall under black!

Unless you never ever dropped a link anywhere of course. Who here can claim to not have a single dofollow link online today which THEY put there?

[mrengine]

I've seen other people call for a government regulated third party appeal process, and I fully support this.

And what evidence could you possibly supply that would unquestionably prove your innocence?

[EditorialGuy]

I've seen other people call for a government regulated third party appeal process, and I fully support this.

Sure, why not? If you're found innocent, Google has to remove the penalty. If you're found guilty, you get 90 days in jail.

[ColourOfSpring]

CS2, absolutely true. I know so-called white-hats like to dress up such efforts as "seeking authority citations" and whatnot, but they are essentially link building, but presenting it as acceptable activity (merely through how they actually describe it!). Google's hardline stance is what their guidelines say - create a fantastic destination that people will link to naturally, and don't attempt to manipulate such citations.

[Dymero]

Who here can claim to not have a single dofollow link online today which THEY put there?

Not many people, I expect. Back before I did SEO, I was active in a number of forums and blogs, and would place links to the sites I worked on in my signature or if I had something legitimate to add to the discussion that I had written about. These days the links would likely be counted as "unnatural" because they were do-follow.

At the time, I didn't even know how pagerank worked!

[superclown2]

The problem is that if Google ignored excessive links there are those who will throw piles of them at their own sites on the basis of "it might help but it won't hurt". Sorting the genuine sites from the junk could get a whole lot more difficult.

[turbocharged]

And what evidence could you possibly supply that would unquestionably prove your innocence?

Proof is a two way street, or at least it should be when we are talking about a legitimately innocent person's livelihood. A regulated appeal process would not just force Google to be a little more responsible in how they dish out penalties, by providing more than some vague reason, but the actual penalties could be made uniform. By uniform, I mean big brands and small businesses assigned the same punishment instead of sending small businesses into the abyss for years while big brands get off with a two or three week sentence for a penalty.

Google's penalties not only impede legitimate commerce, but they also have significantly undervalued the role of small businesses. Regulatory action is needed to correct not only Google's bias towards big brands, but to put a halt to Google using their dominance in search to further their expansion into new markets.

Because of Google's marketshare in search, video, etc., businesses don't have the option to just ignore Google. And if Google wants to make businesses dependent on them, as they have, then it is time to regulate them in the same way utility companies are regulated.

[JD_Toims]

The problem is that if Google ignored excessive links there are those who will throw piles of them at their own sites on the basis of "it might help but it won't hurt". Sorting the genuine sites from the junk could get a whole lot more difficult.

I see your point, but I'm fairly sure it wouldn't make things any more difficult for them than they've made things for themselves now.

Before the link-penalty era came along people built links to their site. Now they build links to 5, 10, however many competitors they have and want to tank, so rather than one person building links to one site, one person builds links to multiple sites on the theory "It's not going to help them, and if I do it long enough it's going to tank them and I'll move up..."

---

It has made Christmas shopping for my competitors easier though -- I've already decided on presents for the sites above me... This year they all get links, lots and lots of links! ;) lol

[lucy24]

I just fast-forwarded through this thread looking for links, because I missed a chapter. Is there, somewhere, a definitive g### post-- or blogspot article or similar-- that explains how, when and why they decided it was more useful to actively punish bad behavior rather than simply ignore it?

[JD_Toims]

I'm not sure exactly when, but, besides Penguin and Panda, the opening post in this thread: Google: Link Drops In Forums Is Spam and Will Get The Dropped Site Penalised [webmasterworld.com], the opening post in this thread: Outbound Link Penalty Guest Blogging [webmasterworld.com] and of course the Expedia, Overstock, BMW, JC Penny, BBC, TeleFlora, Rap Genius and a number of other "high profile" penalties are very definitive sources Google is "set on penalizing", imo.

Even the fact people need to use a disavow file or file a reconsideration request due to a manual action is further evidence Google has decided to *not* ignore things and penalize sites instead -- If they ignored the garbage, manual penalties, disavow files, reconsideration requests, etc. would not be necessary.

Added: If you google Bing for "google penalizes" [no quotes] you'll find plenty of sources -- MC has even bragged about handing out penalties via Twitter on multiple occasions.

[EditorialGuy]

Even the fact people need to use a disavow file or file a reconsideration request due to a manual action is further evidence Google has decided to *not* ignore things and penalize sites instead -- If they ignored the garbage, manual penalties, disavow files, reconsideration requests, etc. would not be necessary.

I think a lot of it goes hand in hand with the "transparency" that people are always demanding. If Google tells people that they have a penalty because of unnatural linking, for example, people think it's only fair that they should be able to disavow the links they've bought and now regret.

Maybe a better solution would be for Google to simply remain silent. No messages in Google Webmaster Tools, no Webmaster Support videos by Matt Cutts or Webmaster Support Forum posts by John Mueller, no warnings about specific things that Google doesn't like beyond what's in the Webmaster Guidelines. The implicit message would be "Ignore us and focus on pleasing the user, which is what you'd be doing if we weren't here."

[brotherhood of LAN]

>that explains how, when and why they decided it was more useful to actively punish bad behavior rather than simply ignore it?

I think superclown's post covers it:

The problem is that if Google ignored excessive links there are those who will throw piles of them at their own sites on the basis of "it might help but it won't hurt". Sorting the genuine sites from the junk could get a whole lot more difficult.

Without inflicting penalties of some sort, you could do a lot of testing with a few hundred domains and a few grand in cash. And perhaps also the fact that a general definition of "sub quality search result"'s ranking factors probably has more permutations than a game of chess.

[JD_Toims]

I think a lot of it goes hand in hand with the "transparency" that people are always demanding.

Penalties and transparency don't go hand-in-hand. They're not mutually inclusive -- Google could easily be as transparent by saying, "Link all you want, we're just going to ignore the links we think are low quality or paid for, so you're wasting your time and money by doing it to try and manipulate your rankings rather than focusing on your content/visitors."

---

Without inflicting penalties of some sort, you could do a lot of testing with a few hundred domains and a few grand in cash.

Okay, so maybe you could figure out "the secret sauce" with a few hundred domains and a few grand in cash and manipulate the rankings of your site(s), but right now today I'm still out less cash and have less to figure out to manipulate the rankings by tanking any competitor I choose -- All I have to do is read the list of links Google will penalize for and make sure they get enough of those links.

Blog-rolls, forum sigs, forum link drops, guest blog posts, do-follow press releases, advertorials, etc. I don't even have to think about what kind of links I can get for a site to tank it -- I'm typing off the top of my head. How *exactly* to tank a competitor's site has been spelled out by Google over the last couple/few years.

---

The "lesser of the evils", imo, is to let people expend time and resources trying to figure out the formula rather than making it simple, cost-effective and easy to just tank the competition instead.

Ranking a site better and tanking the competition are both manipulations of the results, but they've made it so simple to tank the competition [with the exception of "expected results"] no one really has to think much or expend much capital to do it, so ranking manipulation has been made much easier by their "penalty mentality" than it would be by just ignoring links the algo determines to be sub-par.

[ColourOfSpring]

It has made Christmas shopping for my competitors easier though -- I've already decided on presents for the sites above me... This year they all get links, lots and lots of links! ;) lol

I see nothing ethically wrong with this - after all, according to the "experts", you're just wasting your time and money ;)

A regulated appeal process would not just force Google to be a little more responsible in how they dish out penalties, by providing more than some vague reason, but the actual penalties could be made uniform

This could work very well. Of course, the appellant would pay a fee for the appeal, but it gives the appellant a chance to get a proper, manual review of his / her site. The appeal should "exonerate" sites that pass a manual review (paid for by the appellant) and it's a "win" for both respondent (Google) and the appellant. The review service should be accountable for its decisions and have some kind of regulatory control.

Of course, we are dreaming - Google do what they do for their own benefit. Even though they could even make a good profit on an appeals process, it's nothing as big as the profit they currently make on forcing companies to use Adwords.

[EditorialGuy]

Of course, we are dreaming - Google do what they do for their own benefit. Even though they could even make a good profit on an appeals process, it's nothing as big as the profit they currently make on forcing companies to use Adwords.

If Google just wanted to force companies to use AdWords (a tactic that would work only for commercial queries in any case), it wouldn't need to spend so much money on its search quality and antispam efforts.

Penalties and transparency don't go hand-in-hand. They're not mutually inclusive -- Google could easily be as transparent by saying, "Link all you want, we're just going to ignore the links we think are low quality or paid for, so you're wasting your time and money by doing it to try and manipulate your rankings rather than focusing on your content/visitors."

But would people believe it? I'm skeptical.

Also, I think it's a mistake to think Google regards penalties as punishment. If Google wanted to punish sites that violated its guidelines, it could simply keep quiet (why help the enemy?). Instead, Google uses a carrot-and-stick approach, apparently in the hope that, after suffering for a while, sinners will repent. In other words, Google uses penalties to encourage reflection and rehabilitation.

A more effective approach (if Google simply wanted to punish sinners) would be to say nothing at all--no warnings in WMT, for example. Better yet, Google could have the penalties switch on and off at random, just to mess with the sinners' minds. Spammers find it harder to figure out which tactics had worked or backfired.

But no, Google is under the illusion that it can encourage good behavior, discourage bad behavior, and rehabilitate people who try to corrupt its core product. Is that realistic, or is it wishful thinking?

[Awarn]

They do say nothing at all in most cases. Your lucky if you get a manual penalty notice. At least you have a clue where to look. Google promotes Negative SEO by the fact that they run Penguin so infrequently. Face if you get hit like the example it could take well over a year after the first start of it just to have a shot at recovery, If it starts to be built and is fully enforced (6 months of the blogs and then links) then Penguin hits you. Gradually you see the decline. Even if you start right away and do it perfect you are hurt 6 months. More likely it will affect you more than a year. That is assuming that the NSEO stops.

The campaign described would cost maybe $100. If you would increase your traffic by even 25% it would be the best SEO out there today. Adwords would be a joke compared to those returns Do you think the person doing it would stop with those returns? Yet Google thinks they are fighting spam? Every person with a legit website should be furious with Google.

[ColourOfSpring]

If Google just wanted to force companies to use AdWords (a tactic that would work only for commercial queries in any case), it wouldn't need to spend so much money on its search quality and antispam efforts.

Nobody has said Google don't have to deal with spam. In fact, my point was that so many false positives / collateral damage occurs with their spam efforts, it can lead one to conclude that this is indeed deliberate and that their surge in Adwords revenues since Penguin 1.0 isn't coincidental.

Google is under the illusion that it can encourage good behavior, discourage bad behavior, and rehabilitate people who try to corrupt its core product. Is that realistic, or is it wishful thinking?

This is laughable. I can spend $5 showing how badly behaved you are, and how much you want to corrupt Google's core product, and show how much rehab you need to go through. Then when you're just about rehabilitated, toss another $5 at your site. What's $5? Not even a single Adword click on many commercial keywords these days!

[turbocharged]

That is assuming that the NSEO stops.

Some negative SEO sellers on fiverr offer "drip feed" services to accommodate criminals who want to get a stealthy and longer term punch for their big $5 investment.

Now I'm curious how many of the 200,000+ links these negative seo fiverr providers will actually show up in webmaster tools and how quickly? Victims of negative seo, regardless of what Google does with their search positions, most likely enter panic mode to disavow anything they can find. And do they check daily, weekly, etc. to find/disavow new spam links from the negative seo attack?

Thinking of the above, I laugh at the fools that say negative seo does not work. If the goal of negative seo is to hurt another site and its owner(s), just the man hours lost "cleaning up" with the disavow tool is damage enough. In fact, one could argue that those man hours could be better spent creating the same "compelling content" that Google ranks below thin corporate/branded pages (and of course beneath Adwords, YouTube, Google Shopping, Amazon, etc.).

Should we expect more from Google's monopoly in search or is it just a pipe dream to hope to see small businesses in the search results at some point in the future? Or are most already penalized and the few that are not ripe for being the next victim of negative seo?

[brotherhood of LAN]

Mod's note: Try and avoid generalised opinion about Google as a business, this forum is about algorithms, search engine results and how to be in (or out of) them.

My humble suggestion, I think we can safely say that it's possible to hurt your own site's rankings, and someone else's, then conversation can evolve further along from that. It seems like this topic has been bubbling for several years.

The question for me is, why do they do it? No doubt an appreciable portion of people would say it's to drive people to Adwords. Fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion but IMO that's not the reason. I believe it's a deterrent to gaming the algo, partly as a deterrent and partly due to necessity.

Google could simply ignore the bottom X% of the link graph but it seems they need it for longer tail searches and/or where there are weaker signals. Cutting out the noisier backlink profiles may be the reason.

Just my opinion, but IMO the needle on the record is a bit stuck.

[ColourOfSpring]

turbocharged, if I was going to do negative SEO, I'd probably choose 4 or 5 separate service providers on fiverr.com who simply advertise as "regular" SEO - perhaps 1 scrapebox provider, 1 splog network provider, 1 directory submission provider, the rest a mix of whatever. Over time, you could perfect a system that you just feed a domain into. So you choose a target domain, and just run it through a checklist of services. $20-$30 later, it's thoroughly pummelled with all kinds of nasty links, all published quite randomly over the space of 2 to 3 months. Again, if people balk at the cost, consider that you can pay $20-$30 for just a couple of clicks in commercial niches. Even just disrupting a niche by targeting 10 or so of the the highest ranked and identified-as-small-to-medium business domains in your chosen niche can really cause quite a stir - and just for $200-$300.

In fact, I have absolutely zero doubt in my mind that what I've described above goes on right now. There will be individuals doing just as I've described above.

[buckworks]

it's a deterrent to gaming the algo

Trouble is, it's -not- a deterrent to gaming the algo.

It just encourages different kinds of gaming.