Negative SEO - is this really going to happen??

[greentitanium]

this is the problem i was wondering about. some working and some not
that is why i was wondering if we test and see.
PERHAPS there is larger point system.
If a site is in the GOOD grace of G and has a +300 and gets a -50 then it doesnt hurt them.
?????

 

[MagicMike]

I'm not completely sure what to think on this. I had a site that dropped a few pages "post-penguin". I hit it with about 75K SB links to see what would happen... after 2 days it dropped to page 9, a few days after that it wasn't in the top 1K... but shortly after it reappeared on page 3 and is now happily sitting back on the first page. The whole process took about 10 days to unfold.

I'm thinking that negative SEO would have to be done repeatedly to move a site with any real history to "convince" Google its part of a strategy, otherwise all-hell will break loose pretty quickly!

 

[greentitanium]

i think the only way you can find out is to do deep link research or have the moron brag about it in the open.
you can also check out your competition and relate links. A LOT OF WORK

 

[greentitanium]

that is the point of why i wanted to talk about this.
1) its sick and sad
2) it is breaking lose right now!

didnt you get the email from BHW today?? if u havent you will in the next 24 hours. read it and realize what im talking about.
people are getting deindexed from bad backlinks, so they say.
you have to create a mess quickly because if they start deindexing sites, you will never get it back.
so if there is a big loud war, maybe they will stop
because they will be taking out good legit sites and having people in an uproar

I'm not completely sure what to think on this. I had a site that dropped a few pages "post-penguin". I hit it with about 75K SB links to see what would happen... after 2 days it dropped to page 9, a few days after that it wasn't in the top 1K... but shortly after it reappeared on page 3 and is now happily sitting back on the first page. The whole process took about 10 days to unfold.

I'm thinking that negative SEO would have to be done repeatedly to move a site with any real history to "convince" Google its part of a strategy, otherwise all-hell will break loose pretty quickly!

 

[ryannull]

The downside to this is, people use an engine for the quality of its search results (organic results) not its ads.
Google's taking the stance that their customers CANNOT leave them (monopoly thought process)... we'll see if they're right or not. If negative SEO becomes a huge problem (which it probably will be within 6 months) google will have to step in or risk their entire customer base. If they're willing to risk it, they may survive, they may not.

I hear Apple is dumping a ton of google services from Safari because of pending antitrust suits
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2159297/apple-subpoenaed-ftc-iphone-ipad-google-search-deals

I agree. Google thinks they are God and you NEED them. Google's misdeeds are going to catch up with them, eventually.

I dumped Google's services and dependency several years ago. When Adwords was launched, I knew this is where Google was going.

 

[affarmy]

My XR / SB tools are running 24/7 posting over a million links a day and not a single one on my properties. I typically have several dogs in the race for targeted kw phrases and currently the surviving dogs are the ones I spent the least amount of effort with linkbuilding. So I'm just clearing the path for those to reach #1. Analyzing why Google penalized my previous #1 websites makes the job much easier.

As for caring about my fellow man and such, I give them the same consideration I know they'd give me. For all I know they filed snitch reports on my websites. I believe that is how business works. My properties are going to #1 because that is what I get paid to do. If anyone gets in my way it's just too bad for them. All is fair in love, war and business.

Google has opened pandora's box and I'll be damned if I sit here and watch my lazy competitors benefit because Google changed the rules to penalize webmasters that actually worked on building backlinks while rewarding webmasters that did nothing during the last 3 years.

That truly is a solid mindset with the way Goog has paved the new frontier. Hard to believe their arrogance has allowed this gaping hole. But business is dog eat dog-
There is no reason to go the snitch route either. Links are cheap and bad ones even cheaper. They made a bad decision and hopefully they will rescind it soon. Either way it is win/win for us BH'rs.
What they've failed to realize is that the best websites are those that usually do some form of seo. The shitbox sites sit idle and have now crept to the top and the quality of search is hardly relevant to boot, and the quality of the results is what we have all seen..a total joke. Bing is a better engine at the moment.

 

[illfounded21]

The thing that creates unease with me is that innocent parties will get caught up in this.

People have mentioned they were doing blasts in retaliation etc, and I have no qualms about that- like someone said, it is like a war....

However, I don't like the fact that innocent people's hard work & toil can be instantly destroyed because someone else is looking to jump ahead of them. It is like in war, where all the women and children are killed, innocent people who had nothing to do with it.

 

[CosmicSoundz]

It works. Ive used the negative seo gigs on fiver and moved sites from page 1 to page 5 within 2 weeks time.

 

[ryannull]

I'm not completely sure what to think on this. I had a site that dropped a few pages "post-penguin". I hit it with about 75K SB links to see what would happen... after 2 days it dropped to page 9, a few days after that it wasn't in the top 1K... but shortly after it reappeared on page 3 and is now happily sitting back on the first page. The whole process took about 10 days to unfold.

I'm thinking that negative SEO would have to be done repeatedly to move a site with any real history to "convince" Google its part of a strategy, otherwise all-hell will break loose pretty quickly!

The speculation of negative seo is that you hit a website with thousands of crap links, there serps will sink. I don't necessarily think it's the low quality of the links, than it is anchor text. Everyone assumes its the quality of the link, and doesn't account for the anchor text.

If you point 75k links at a website all with the same anchor text, under the penguin update, of course it will sink. Penguin is mostly about anchor text diversity. You have to diversify and spread it out.

 

[Minister]

Negative SEO is a Matt Cutts gift to all folk as nasty as they are. Just post shit, ping and report-to-google your victim is a spammer and your competitors will be in tatters in no time at all! Well that's a great business model isn't it? What a bunch of fucking Morons!

It's a ridiculous state of affairs! Google are scamming everybody. Who was it, Overstock I think, penalized for having links on university pages for students to get access to discount prices? What's wrong with that. Good business marketing and useful for students. So Google have decided 'they run things' to the extent you can only market your business online in the way 'they want'! Bullshit. There is nothing morally wrong with having buying advertising/link space on targeted sites in order to improve legitimate business sales. What the heck is wrong with Google anyway? Will they start penalizing companies who have TV ads, Newspaper ads, Radio, Billboards?? You gotta pay to have that ad space and there is nothing different about buying ad-space on the web. Makes perfect business sense.

They are simply trying to force a way to siphon more of the online advertising revenue while there are no real laws in place to stop them. I think they are destroying what looked certain to be a great business empire, themselves. They are ruining their own reputation and I think they are running out of time before they get stomped on. They are not above the law, they just have alot of money to dodge it by playing country monopoly.

 

[kvmcable]

The thing that creates unease with me is that innocent parties will get caught up in this.

People have mentioned they were doing blasts in retaliation etc, and I have no qualms about that- like someone said, it is like a war....

However, I don't like the fact that innocent people's hard work & toil can be instantly destroyed because someone else is looking to jump ahead of them. It is like in war, where all the women and children are killed, innocent people who had nothing to do with it.

I don't see that Google gave any consideration to the innocent parties. These shot first and never looked back. They didn't even offer much of a way to end the war. Your site has un-natural links so remove the links from SOMEONE else's website for reconsideraton. They know damn well most can accomplish that.

It's easy to blame the guy that throws the second punch but make no mistake Google threw the first punch. Let the pieces fall where they lie. I can't be concerned about imaginary casualties just like Google didn't give a damn whether I created the "un-natural" links or a competitor did it.

 

[illfounded21]

I don't see that Google gave any consideration to the innocent parties. These shot first and never looked back. They didn't even offer much of a way to end the war. Your site has un-natural links so remove the links from SOMEONE else's website for reconsideraton. They know damn well most can accomplish that.

It's easy to blame the guy that throws the second punch but make no mistake Google threw the first punch. Let the pieces fall where they lie. I can't be concerned about imaginary casualties just like Google didn't give a damn whether I created the "un-natural" links or a competitor did it.

I am not disputing who threw the first punch, i'm just stating my unease.

I think it's a messed up state of affairs, that's all.

How easy it is to potentially RUIN someone's livelihood doesn't sit well with me. It is one thing outranking and thus stealing customers & potential revenue, it is another destroying them completely. It all seems needless.

 

[Expertpeon]

I'm not completely sure what to think on this. I had a site that dropped a few pages "post-penguin". I hit it with about 75K SB links to see what would happen... after 2 days it dropped to page 9, a few days after that it wasn't in the top 1K... but shortly after it reappeared on page 3 and is now happily sitting back on the first page. The whole process took about 10 days to unfold.

I'm thinking that negative SEO would have to be done repeatedly to move a site with any real history to "convince" Google its part of a strategy, otherwise all-hell will break loose pretty quickly!

SB links are not being punished directly that I can tell... there's some kind of advanced punishment BS going on here.
However, profile xrumer links are basically a death sentence en masse... try it for yourself with the above method I described. Your site will disappear for good.

 

[rugbyjack2005]

I'm not completely sure what to think on this. I had a site that dropped a few pages "post-penguin". I hit it with about 75K SB links to see what would happen... after 2 days it dropped to page 9, a few days after that it wasn't in the top 1K... but shortly after it reappeared on page 3 and is now happily sitting back on the first page. The whole process took about 10 days to unfold.

I'm thinking that negative SEO would have to be done repeatedly to move a site with any real history to "convince" Google its part of a strategy, otherwise all-hell will break loose pretty quickly!

Apologies that this is slightly off topic but out of interest, did you do this to diversify the anchor text? E.g. 500 LSI keyword anchor text to all of your pages in the site. The obvious way to solve anchor text diversity and too many exact match anchors but i haven't been brave enough to try it myself!

 

[jb2008]

Exactly Minister, Google is running wild WHILE THERE ARE NO LAWS IN PLACE.

The internet, search engines even more so, is new. It takes time for injustice to be identified clearly in legal terms and then laws will be passed.

Lol kmvc, you naughty boy. Are you using any anonymity at all eg VPN, proxies?

 

[Santa Claus]

Negative SEO works, period. I've been using it since the day Penguin impacted my websites, that day I discovered exactly what would make a site disappear. Some people will argue that Google just discounts bad links, that's not true. First, most sites that were hit wouldn't rank below page 2 if that was the case. Second, I have evidence that links, when used in a specific fashion, can harm a site badly. I did some tests and almost all of the sites I targeted dropped in less than one week.

Some say that if negative SEO become common practice, people will start using Bing. I don't think so, because most people don't really notice when a keyword shows "bad results".

 

[Expertpeon]

Some say that if negative SEO become common practice, people will start using Bing. I don't think so, because most people don't really notice when a keyword shows "bad results".

I think the FTC, EC, and Oracle cases will have a lot more effects in the short term. Google is untouchable at present, and clearly fearless when it comes to increasing revenues at any costs.

 

[googlemonster]

The speculation of negative seo is that you hit a website with thousands of crap links, there serps will sink. I don't necessarily think it's the low quality of the links, than it is anchor text. Everyone assumes its the quality of the link, and doesn't account for the anchor text.

If you point 75k links at a website all with the same anchor text, under the penguin update, of course it will sink. Penguin is mostly about anchor text diversity. You have to diversify and spread it out.

I can't understand how buying links through their adwords problem is deemed ok, yet it isn't on someone else's website. This to me screams monopolistic practice, greed, double standards call it what you will, I am not sure who's at the center whether it is that cubed headed wanker Matt Cutts or some of their upper directors. Also what other things do they do? What data do they use against us, what data do they save, all this needs to be transparent. Do they use Google analytics to find out things etc.

 

[kvmcable]

Lol kmvc, you naughty boy. Are you using any anonymity at all eg VPN, proxies?

Always run anonymity - foolish to do otherwise.

Some people will argue that Google just discounts bad links, that's not true.

That's my whole beef with G. Before this year they did just discount bad links and said so many times and my experience was this WAS true. Then this year they got a hair up their ass and said screw that, let's penalize for bad links and make it RETROACTIVE. There lies my problem with Google. It should have never been made retroactive because site owners can't remove the majority of links that are out there pointing towards their websites years after they were made.

My main money maker that was #1 for the last year or 18 months hasn't had any link building for at least that long. It was #1 and I figured until it slipped I would let sleeping dogs lie. It got the un-natural link notice in mid-March and fell 5 weeks later. So unless a competitor hammered the website which I don't see any evidence of, the website was penalized for shit that happened over a year ago and maybe two years ago. There is no excuse IMO for Google to behave so irrationally. Set the rule, show the penalties if you break the rules and move forward. Everyone knows what to expect. What they did was borderline criminal IMO and cost me over a grand a week in net revenue. You don't create a penalty today and make it retroactive to shit that happened years ago.

Anyhow, good luck to everyone and see you at the top. I know real SEO experts will adapt and put their sites right back where they belong.

 

[the-dream]

A competitor blasted around 10k spam blog comments to my site, a week later it got a -50 penalty.

Somehow I found out who it was... I went and retaliated, I fired 60k blog comments at it and guess what? It increased in rankings! lol

It's been a few weeks and I've yet to see any penalties on his site.

Weird... I guess I'll have to wait and see.

Give him another blast? How did you find out, you knew him before or he told someone or you actually detected it somehow?