Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
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
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!
It just encourages different kinds of gaming.
Say your competitor which you have a somewhat mutual respect relationship, hires a new SEO firm from who knows where. If the SEO firm uses a combination of SEO and then negative SEO against you, the competitor, what do you do? You can't hardly call up your competitor and bitch and accuse them of the activity. Do you sit back and do nothing? Do you start your own attack?
Many small businesses have been victims of arbitrary decisions made by Google that have largely removed the ethical argument completely
The ethical argument is a strange one
There is a different moral threshold involved.
Not really because either way you slice it you're trying to get an unfair advantage over your competition and out rank them.
When Simon Mackay's company was viciously attacked online it was like it had never existed.
The general manager of Sydney's Web Marketing Experts was hit by a competitor who had purposefully attacked his website ranking to prevent anyone searching for the business online from finding the website.
“We operate in a really aggressive space and we've got some major competitors, so I almost half expected it. There is no doubt that it has cost us several thousand dollars in lost revenue, but it could have cost us a lot more,” Mackay says.
Negative search engine optimisation (SEO) attacks like this are increasingly common among Australian small businesses.
Google is to blame when slimy business owners try to destroy their competitors? And those same slimy business owners would be paragons of lovingkindness if it weren't for Google?
That would be sick if it weren't so ludicrous.
More importantly, the whole disavow thing is a crock because as I've explained in detail before, Google already knows where most of those paid links are, they're just forcing you to confess about those links and hoping you'll out some new link sellers they overlooked in the process.
Can't understand how Google thinks about this. Sooner or later someone is going to turn this into a real business, negative seo industry size. With a good but small team, I would say 200-300 sites per month would be possible to penalize (I've gotten like 10 unnatural links messages, and revoked like 5 of them so I know how to build these links). For $100 per site, which is really cheap, and 250 orders per month we get a nice $25000 per month (costs, maybe half of it. So a profit of $12500 / month).
Are we to believe that in 2014 - 2 full years after Penguin was introduced - webmasters are building crappy links to their own sites, knowing the damage it will cause
Sooner or later someone is going to turn this into a real business, negative seo industry size
That could work, but there's also cheaper alternatives available - my guess is around $20 to $30 should really kill an SME
Take a look at fiverr etc. People there are selling the same services but claiming that they are "penguin proof". Naive small business owners buy them - some big businesses do too: I was approached by a link buyer claiming to represent a major stock exchange a few years ago.
I have been wondering about that too, but I think that fear of legal consequences will be holding people back.
Penguin was introduced in April 2012. Are we to believe that in 2014 - 2 full years after Penguin was introduced - webmasters are building crappy links to their own sites, knowing the damage it will cause?
If they are on page one of Google and have their email address ANYWHERE on their site it will be haven harvested and they will now be in receipt of daily emails about links, penguins and "ethical seo". You cant help but have this stuff slapped in our face!
You're joking, right? Because the vast vast vast majority of site owners wouldn't know a Penguin if it jumped up and bit them in the ass
Because that's just the ones you hear from. There's a lot more that you don't.
The only way your not getting this SEO SPAM is if you have a site with no forms, no email address on display, no phone number and private whois info!
'your site has errors google doesn't like' (anyone who knows my posts knows how anal I am about coding and speed errors) yet they never provide proof of these error....
I really hope that Matt Cutts and others on the spam team are reading/learning about this. I understand that the initial attack on links was with good intentions, but there is so much collateral damage and obviously a booming industry for negative SEO.
I consider them very lucky
Now I think they know that with the popularity of neg-seo they can no longer be as sure that they are punishing the right people.
Sure, but the number of SMEs burnt by links pointing to their site (be they links they placed themselves or by 3rd parties) is only growing and growing.]
then Google could surely have a claim of negligence made against them for facilitating such a "crime" through their own failing to distinguish between links built by a site owner