Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
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!
Agreed, it will change - but plenty of SMEs will be fooled again by the next smooth talker. They will also then buy equally useless clean up and link removal services from the same sort of people.
If we can have that why not, for example, extend libel to cover malicious information (i.e. making someone look as though they are engaged in black hat link building when they are not) fed to Google's computers?
brand new spam links (thousands) starting coming in and my rankings started to drop again. I had to modify my disavow list to add those new spam links, and I've tried to update it monthly to keep up with the negative SEO.
What if I FREELY link to a site because I like it, and that site gets penalised in the future? How can it be determined that my link contributed to their penalty? How would intent be proven?
[edited by: graeme_p at 9:11 pm (utc) on Jun 10, 2014]
That shouldn't be necessary. Google's algorithm should throw out all of those spammy links automatically. Otherwise thousands of innocent webmsters who never heard of Penguin or the disavow tool could have their websites penalized unjustly.
joined:Oct 15, 2011
a link built by site owner, then with a "Buy Now" (lol!) PayPal button demanding $20 for it to be removed.
That is pretty blatant. Its another good example where the intent of the person linking is very clear.
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?
I doubt that every webmaster that bought links for their own site in the past would engage in Negative SEO and buy links to tank the competitor.
There is a different moral threshold involved.
I know that most of the members here are mainly interested in profit-making opportunities and potential competitive advantages, but there is another area of the web in which competition can be just as vicious, if not more so. This is the part of the web in which political, social, and cultural wars are being fought out.
[edited by: rbarker at 11:05 pm (utc) on Jun 11, 2014]
That shouldn't be necessary. Google's algorithm should throw out all of those spammy links automatically. Otherwise thousands of innocent webmsters who never heard of Penguin or the disavow tool could have their websites penalized unjustly. And they would have no idea why, or in some cases might not even realize that their site had been penalized.
joined:June 1, 2014
If Google considers your site to be high quality content (based on user behavior, etc.) they aren't going to penalize it, just to spite you for having low-quality links.
The site I am working on, that was a victim of a negative SEO attack, was on page one in a very competitive industry for years. Indicating google thought the site was high quality. It was only after a bunch of spam links were pointed at the site that it went to page 5 for almost everything. It was not after an algo update such as panda or penguin.
If Google considers youur site to be high quality content (based on user behavior, etc.) they aren't going to penalize it, just to spite you for having low-quality links
This whole negative SEO scare is predicated on Google not being able to tell the difference between a likely attacker and a likely target. If Google considers your site to be high quality content (based on user behavior, etc.) they aren't going to penalize it, just to spite you for having low-quality links. Their search results quality would go down, the one thing they must avoid.
Now the question is how to fight negative SEO or backlink spam. Google just moved this task over to webmasters offering them a placebo disavow tool. With disavow tool they admit their infirmity to fight negative SEO.
most people who wanted disavow wanted something along the lines of a tickbox next to links you didn't wasnt to associate yoruself with and that was that - quick and easy. Instead we get this "upload a text file and hope it works" which most of the time it doesn't.
joined:Oct 15, 2011
In fairness to Google, a "disavow tool" is something that many site owners and SEOs were demanding for a long time.
Millions of webmasters sifting through links to their sites, in hopes of disavowing the bad ones so they may rank better, has been one of the most inefficient and time wasting "regulations" ever placed on businesses.
The disavow tool, in my opinion, underscores the need to regulate a dominant search engine.