Supress those Negatives!

[jstover77]

OK, I'm not going to go full tutorial on this post, but there are a few things I'll teach you about the suppression of negatives.

1) Massive amounts of shit links will eventually sink a URL. Doesn't matter what pub it is. Even .gov sites are vulnerable. The key is to constantly hit them with massive amounts of links, which generally don't index. Think profile links, Web 2.0, blog comments
2) Use anchors in sketchy niches (porn, forex, prescription drugs)

It takes time, usually 6-12 months.

What happens is, the algo sees a large uptick links (positive link velocity), then over a period of time, those links never index, decay, deindex (negative link velocity),

This is still a major flaw in the algorithm.

**Google actively patching in real-time.

 

[The John Doe]

Sounds like 2012 kind of advice. I can assure you some methods works, but this one out of the box do not work at all.

People need to understand Google modified the algorithm and now give links a value of 0 to 1 (while it was -1 to + 1 before) - no matter how many shitty links you have,they have a 0 value, not a negative impacts.

Now there are many things you can do with links in term of negative SEO, but this one is definitely not working anymore.


EDIT: I'd be glad to review a website hit with such a negative link scheme - as everyhting is public, shouldnt be hard to find one?

 

[jstover77]

Sounds like 2012 kind of advice. I can assure you some methods works, but this one out of the box do not work at all.

People need to understand Google modified the algorithm and now give links a value of 0 to 1 (while it was -1 to + 1 before) - no matter how many shitty links you have,they have a 0 value, not a negative impacts.

Now there are many things you can do with links in term of negative SEO, but this one is definitely not working anymore.


EDIT: I'd be glad to review a website hit with such a negative link scheme - as everyhting is public, shouldnt be hard to find one?

Sorry bud, but you're wrong and I have hundreds of examples of this method working. These aren't methods I'm using with Joe Shit and the Rag Man. These are publicly traded companies, CEOs, celebrities, etc...talking 6 figure year accounts.

 

[BensenMum]

OK, I'm not going to go full tutorial on this post, but there are a few things I'll teach you about the suppression of negatives.

1) Massive amounts of shit links will eventually sink a URL. Doesn't matter what pub it is. Even .gov sites are vulnerable. The key is to constantly hit them with massive amounts of links, which generally don't index. Think profile links, Web 2.0, blog comments
2) Use anchors in sketchy niches (porn, forex, prescription drugs)

It takes time, usually 6-12 months.

What happens is, the algo sees a large uptick links (positive link velocity), then over a period of time, those links never index, decay, deindex (negative link velocity),

This is still a major flaw in the algorithm.

**Google actively patching in real-time.

Totally agree. Link velocity is so important. You get a short term gain and a long term headache from adding a ton of links (no matter what quality). I think of it as a "trust" level. On sites where I've carefully built up good links over time I almost never see bad dips.

One thing I note is what I call the "rock in the pond" effect. When you add a great new blog and a couple good quality links you get the initial bump, then a slow fall off for specific target keywords, then slightly up again and finally it settles in to its natural position. Like waves in a pond.

It's as if Google has a specific setting for your website (like a governor on an engine) and you've just added some octane. Once Google sees the engine running faster it does a quick check and adjusts the governor again (knocking you back down) but this time you get slightly higher RPMs and the keyword settles in at a slightly higher spot. It happens over and over on all my mature websites.

If you add links too quickly you get knocked down - sometimes pretty severely - and then you have some serious work to do to bring it back up.

 

[DJPaulyD]

Sorry bud, but you're wrong and I have hundreds of examples of this method working. These aren't methods I'm using with Joe Shit and the Rag Man. These are publicly traded companies, CEOs, celebrities, etc...talking 6 figure year accounts.

View attachment 236374

View attachment 236375

View attachment 236376

You the alpha male bro! hell ya! thanks for the advice

 

[Jev_bh]

Totally agree. Link velocity is so important. You get a short term gain and a long term headache from adding a ton of links (no matter what quality). I think of it as a "trust" level. On sites where I've carefully built up good links over time I almost never see bad dips.

One thing I note is what I call the "rock in the pond" effect. When you add a great new blog and a couple good quality links you get the initial bump, then a slow fall off for specific target keywords, then slightly up again and finally it settles in to its natural position. Like waves in a pond.

It's as if Google has a specific setting for your website (like a governor on an engine) and you've just added some octane. Once Google sees the engine running faster it does a quick check and adjusts the governor again (knocking you back down) but this time you get slightly higher RPMs and the keyword settles in at a slightly higher spot. It happens over and over on all my mature websites.

If you add links too quickly you get knocked down - sometimes pretty severely - and then you have some serious work to do to bring it back up.

Interesting… How many links should be added say per week to keep the link velocity at optimum level?

 

[BensenMum]

Interesting… How many links should be added say per week to keep the link velocity at optimum level?

How many naturally occurring (decent quality) backlinks does your site get each month? Let's say it's 100. If you added an extra 5 links, that wouldn't raise a red flag. If you suddenly start getting hundreds of new links per month, that would be a red flag for Google.

 

[Jev_bh]

Would you buy say 50/60 of them links a month? And the rest be natural occurring?

 

[The John Doe]

Sorry bud, but you're wrong and I have hundreds of examples of this method working. These aren't methods I'm using with Joe Shit and the Rag Man. These are publicly traded companies, CEOs, celebrities, etc...talking 6 figure year accounts.

Feel free to share one publicly so we can analyse the link coming and the position dropping.

 

[jstover77]

Feel free to share one publicly so we can analyse the link coming and the position dropping.

Why in the world would I ever do that? I literally just gave you the blueprint.

 

[The John Doe]

Why in the world would I ever do that? I literally just gave you the blueprint.

Tell, no proof. You could just have given me 1 article (from you or from a general example online), 1 site, or anything that could be analysed and proved your point, but you decided not to, for no real reason beside "I gave a method, trust me it works, just do your research".

I'll stand by my position. The blueprint you gave as stated do not work (anymore); It requires way more steps to kill a site with backlinks.

 

[jstover77]

Tell, no proof. You could just have given me 1 article (from you or from a general example online), 1 site, or anything that could be analysed and proved your point, but you decided not to, for no real reason beside "I gave a method, trust me it works, just do your research".

I'll stand by my position. The blueprint you gave as stated do not work (anymore); It requires way more steps to kill a site with backlinks.

I posted screenshots from multiple campaigns, which have over 100 URLs that were cleared out of the top 100. Some of these websites are top 1,000 websites in the world. I literally gave you the blueprint on how to do it, without some of the finer details, but dude, I'm not going to hold your hand and I'm certainly not going to expose URLs I've negative SEOed..lol (fwat??)

Did your Mom drop you on your head as a baby?

 

[The John Doe]

I posted screenshots from multiple campaigns, which have over 100 URLs that were cleared out of the top 100. Some of these websites are top 1,000 websites in the world. I literally gave you the blueprint on how to do it, without some of the finer details, but dude, I'm not going to hold your hand and I'm certainly not going to expose URLs I've negative SEOed..lol (fwat??)

Did your Mom drop you on your head as a baby?

Just saying, I did ORM for a living, and I needed to deal with clients that "read stuff online that its easy to take down a URL, why is this so expensive?".

So, I dont need you to hold my hand, just wanted you to show NOT YOUR WORK, but one URL (from any sites, not your clients) that has been tanked due to links on a long period of time.

Feel free to send me one PM, and Il definitely vouch for you and present my apologies in public.

 

[C63]

So what you saying is blast negative seo for competitor links? Did I get this correctly?

 

[jstover77]

So what you saying is blast negative seo for competitor links? Did I get this correctly?

No this is for reputation suppression work. People who neg SEO their competitors are shit bags.

 

[C63]

No this is for reputation suppression work. People who neg SEO their competitors are shit bags.

But after reading your thread I got that idea. I don't know I got it wrong or not. You said above blasting links to large competitor sites backlinks and their ranks will sink. right?

 

[jstover77]

But after reading your thread I got that idea. I don't know I got it wrong or not. You said above blasting links to large competitor sites backlinks and their ranks will sink. right?

This is the ORM section of the forum, so I figured it would be implied when I said "the suppression of negatives", that I meant suppressing negative SERPs for the purpose of reputation management. I am by no means advocating this method for negative SEO on competitors.

 

[jamesb0nd007]

OK, I'm not going to go full tutorial on this post, but there are a few things I'll teach you about the suppression of negatives.

1) Massive amounts of shit links will eventually sink a URL. Doesn't matter what pub it is. Even .gov sites are vulnerable. The key is to constantly hit them with massive amounts of links, which generally don't index. Think profile links, Web 2.0, blog comments
2) Use anchors in sketchy niches (porn, forex, prescription drugs)

It takes time, usually 6-12 months.

What happens is, the algo sees a large uptick links (positive link velocity), then over a period of time, those links never index, decay, deindex (negative link velocity),

This is still a major flaw in the algorithm.

**Google actively patching in real-time.

Thanks for sharing this!

Do you think it'll work on ComplaintsBoard? Someone made a complaint about a company I'm managing and we're trying to get rid of it

 

[jstover77]

Thanks for sharing this!

Do you think it'll work on ComplaintsBoard? Someone made a complaint about a company I'm managing and we're trying to get rid of it

Absolutely, Complaintsboard is pretty easy to get rid of. Them and ROR don't get nearly the same respect from Google as they used to.

 

[gmailuser1980]

does this work for trustpilot