can negative seo still harm competitors effectively?

[Steptoe]

I'm seeing weaponised DMCA reports being used much more effectively for negative SEO than any link-based approach. They can be temporary, but reusable, and work because Google is legally required to act upon them. Hell you can even get supposedly 'hidden' origin IP addresses from Cloudflare with a DMCA report if you're lucky.

 

[dofay]

I have been seeing mixed opinions about negative SEO lately. some say google is much better now at ignoring spammy or toxic backlinks ,while others believe it can still cause ranking drops if done at scale.

what's your experience does negative SEO still pose a real thread today

Indeed, Google mostly ignores many spamy links now, and, thus, negative SEO is not as powerful as one thinks it to be. Moreover, it creates prblm only in case of baed or poorly structured backlink profile that is scaled up. In last , high-quality website with a clean history is the best way out.

 

[thomat157]

It may still have some impact in certain cases but it's nowhere near as effective as it once was building a strong natural backlink profile is still the best long term protection

 

[bunnyorbit]

I have been seeing mixed opinions about negative SEO lately. some say google is much better now at ignoring spammy or toxic backlinks ,while others believe it can still cause ranking drops if done at scale.

what's your experience does negative SEO still pose a real thread today

I do think negative SEO gets blamed more than it happens. If rankings drop I usually check conttent quality, site changes or algorithm updates first beffore assuming someone is attacking the site.

 

[ClickPilotPro]

I have been seeing mixed opinions about negative SEO lately. some say google is much better now at ignoring spammy or toxic backlinks ,while others believe it can still cause ranking drops if done at scale.

what's your experience does negative SEO still pose a real thread today

I think in most cases today, negative SEO is much weaker than it used to be. google is better at ignoring obvious spam backlinks

 

[Starblazer]

Negative SEO still works. However, it's not always about spammy backlinks. You can check how fraudulent DMCA takedowns are hurting websites.

 

[bartosimpsonio]

I have been seeing mixed opinions about negative SEO lately. some say google is much better now at ignoring spammy or toxic backlinks ,while others believe it can still cause ranking drops if done at scale.

what's your experience does negative SEO still pose a real thread today

For new sites it's almost too trivial

For established sites, way harder

 

[Street Fighter]

Mostly no spammy backlink attacks don't work well anymore, but weak sites can still be affected

 

[sonnnn]

in my experience improving your own site's quality has a much bigger impact than worrying about negative SEO most cases i've seen blamed on spam links turned out to have other SEO issues involved

 

[1SEOWarrior]

Yes negative SEO is so much harmful but it is a bad practice. No one should try it.

 

[Sophia Lorraine]

I think people often limit negative SEO to spam backlinks, but that's only one piece of the puzzle. In my experience, the bigger risks are things like hacked pages, fake DMCA complaints, malicious redirects, fake business listings, or attempts to damage a site's reputation. Google is much better at ignoring random toxic links today, but site owners should still monitor Search Console, security, and brand mentions regularly. Prevention is usually easier than recovery.

 

[Dealthe]

Most of the time, Google is a lot better at turning away spammy backlinks than it did back then, so the usual negative SEO routine does less damage. Still, if there is a big scale assault plus other troubles mixed in (like hijacked pages, spam injections, or fake DMCA notices ) it can become messy. In general, for most sites, it is not really a worry, unless you actually notice obvious signals that something is happening.

 

[Aang Aang]

In my opinion, google is much better at ignoring spammy backlinks now. Negative SEO can still cause problems in some cases, but it is generally much less effective than it used to be.

 

[kekor]

I have been seeing mixed opinions about negative SEO lately. some say google is much better now at ignoring spammy or toxic backlinks ,while others believe it can still cause ranking drops if done at scale.

what's your experience does negative SEO still pose a real thread today

I believe the real threat at present is not the spam linnks but the threats which target the credibilitty of the brand or the site in question. the fact that google has becomee more adept in ignoring several kinds of junk links means that it makes sense to keep the profile clean.

 

[Mohammad Kamran]

I think Google has gotten a lot better at ignoring spammy backlinks compared to a few years ago. But I still wouldn't completely ignore negative SEO, especially when there is a sudden and unnatural increase in bad links. Keeping an eye on your backlink profile is still a good practice. Would be interesting to hear from anyone who has actually seen rankings drop because of a negative SEO attack recently.

 

[ForeverScrnd]

On a scale of 1000s of sites, I'd say negative SEO is basically dead.

The Google algos have evolved a lot over the last couple of years - they're just far better at ignoring toxic links than they used to be. What would've tanked a site in 2018 does nothing now. The filter eats it before it ever touches rankings.

The one caveat I'd add: it's not the spam links that scare me anymore, it's the reputation attacks. Fake reviews, false accusations spread across sites - that stuff gets picked up by LLMs and shapes how your brand shows up in AI answers. That's the vector people should actually be watching, not disavow files.

But classic link-spam negative SEO? I'd call it no longer alive.

 

[BlackShield]

Seo have become much better at ignoring many types of spammy external signals,nbetter ocus on improving your own site's quality, authority.

 

[doodlepilot]

I have been seeing mixed opinions about negative SEO lately. some say google is much better now at ignoring spammy or toxic backlinks ,while others believe it can still cause ranking drops if done at scale.

what's your experience does negative SEO still pose a real thread today

In my opinion, negative SEO is far more difficult to execute than what many think, particullarly if the only thing done is spamming their backlink profile. most sites that struggle have issues such as bad technical SEO practices, poor content, or even an not natural link profile. A solid site will bounce back a lot faster, so why not focus on making the site better?

 

[Universal SEO Ranking]

google has improved a lot at ignoring spammy backlinks. in most cases, negative seo isn t as effective as it once was, and strong websites are usually not affected by random toxic links

 

[simon39842]

eping an eye on your backlink profile is still a good practice. Would be interesting to hear from anyone who has actually seen rankings drop because of a negative SEO attack recently.

Recently, GSC reported tons of links to my main money page on my site. All the url slugs indicated they came from porn sites. Every link was an exact match money keyword that my page was targeting. I only lately noticed these but they've been happening for at least 6 months. That coincides with a 90% drop in impressions for that keyword. Coincidence? I think not. Correlation does not mean causation. I am surprised by almost everyone saying stuff like "Google is much better at filtering out spammy links now than previously". That is what Google wants you to believe. The reality I think is different.