Google does not like automated backlinks, correct ?

[SquirlyNutz]

So if i want to take down my competitor, then i just add the domain to my automated link submission form and voila his rankings drop in the toilet ?

Something doesn't add up here.

 

[Kralj187]

Google is too lazy to find a better solution for their link spam problem and as long as they make big $ they don't give a **** if competition is fair or you buy links or however else you rank...

 

[Abstroose]

Dude you've been here for almost 4 years and made 451 posts... have you been living under a rock?

 

[SquirlyNutz]

My post has obviously gone over your head.

Dude you've been here for almost 4 years and made 451 posts... have you been living under a rock?

 

[ButcherPete]

So if i want to take down my competitor, then i just add the domain to my automated link submission form and voila his rankings drop in the toilet ?

Something doesn't add up here.

Whether or not "negative SEO" is possible is up for debate. A lot of people on here claim that they have been able to knock their competitor's websites down. But on the other hand, SEOmoz did a big thing where they challenged everyone to blast their site with spammy links from SB and Xrumer, and nothing happened.

With this Google Disavow tool, it sounds like negative SEO might not be possible anymore. Then again, it's better to beat your competition with superior content than underhanded methods like that.

 

[Jyeshtha]

I have seen this, as soon as those spam updates started from Google, a site of one of my friend was blasted massively, don't know who, but maybe one of the competitor I guess and the site was in 2nd page soon after. The surprising thing was, in a week the site was on 1st place, which was on 4th before blasting. After that, I thing not everything works as NSEO. Yes, I'm afraid to do that myself.

On the other hand, we discussed and tested on a new site and it was soon on 1st page, but not on 1st place though and then it vanished. So, I'm still confused if NSEO exists or not.

 

[SquirlyNutz]

I would never do this to my competitor. Im just using this as an example and trying to understand how google can punish you if your link ends up on a spammy page.

I was not aware of the Google Disavow tool, thanks for your help.

 

[Abstroose]

My post has obviously gone over your head.

It hasn't at all. What you're talking about is called 'negative SEO' and has been a topic of continuous discussions and case studies for years, particularly the last couple, with recent algorithm updates. I see at least one post per day regarding negative SEO - that's why I couldn't understand how you've been around for so long and made all those posts without seeing one.

 

[georgeorwell]

One thing to watch out for - I used a well known Link Generating Bot Program and 'opened up' just to see how many links I could create to my Target site ..... a couple of weeks later, my PPC Account Manager contacted me to say that McAfee had put a warning up on my site :O I then noticed in Compete.com a month or so later, that the most popular term related to my sight was Pornography! It's a Family Website by the way!
Sure enough, when I investigated wtf had actually occurred, it transpired that my mass link building had hit a rich seam of Blog Commenting friendly Porno sites! Doh!

So in a very real sense, this just proves Negative SEO, right? By accident of course LOL

 

[TrevorB]

Yes this negative SEO works. If you can tank your own site with spamming, why couldn't you do it to some other site?

 

[tencentpiece]

Whether or not "negative SEO" is possible is up for debate. A lot of people on here claim that they have been able to knock their competitor's websites down. But on the other hand, SEOmoz did a big thing where they challenged everyone to blast their site with spammy links from SB and Xrumer, and nothing happened.

With this Google Disavow tool, it sounds like negative SEO might not be possible anymore. Then again, it's better to beat your competition with superior content than underhanded methods like that.

Two things, maybe google is smart enough to apply a manual filter to such a public case study? Also, show me evidence of a site regaining rankings after using the disavow tool.

Some of you guys are making it so insanely easy for google to spot paid links it's ridiculous.

 

[hbhanot]

If you have good content then you can go with any kind of backlinks. Once visitors start reading and staying on your website Google will automatically rank you.

 

[Kralj187]

Whether or not "negative SEO" is possible is up for debate. A lot of people on here claim that they have been able to knock their competitor's websites down. But on the other hand, SEOmoz did a big thing where they challenged everyone to blast their site with spammy links from SB and Xrumer, and nothing happened.

With this Google Disavow tool, it sounds like negative SEO might not be possible anymore. Then again, it's better to beat your competition with superior content than underhanded methods like that.

This is the text from original Google Disavow tool

Disavow links

"If you believe your site's ranking is being harmed by low-quality links you do not control, you can ask Google not to take them into account when assessing your site. You should still make every effort to clean up unnatural links pointing to your site. Simply disavowing them isn't enough."

They pretty much tell themselves that this won't solve any major link spam problems for your site...

And how paradox are those two sentences in there?? On one hand they say contact us if "your site's ranking is being harmed by low-quality links you do not control" and then the next sentence "You should still make every effort to clean up unnatural links pointing to your site".

How am I supposed to clean unnatural links from other sites I do not own? wned2:

 

[Jackson Soo]

Takes more than a few bad backlinks to mess up a site's ranking in search engines, especially with the webmaster disavow tool. If you have enough high quality backlinks and on page content, a few links won't matter.

 

[juniorj23]

not really sure about this