Negative SEO - On Purpose!

[SpiderBlast]

I had a profitable site NEG SEO'd and it made me furious and angry. But those emotions pass over fairly quick and you realize its just par for the course.

Like if you're going to play golf, don't cry when you lose your ball in the water.

Learn how to play the game better than your competitors. I automatically knew who NEG SEO'd my site and launched a campaign 10xs worse against their site (I've been in this niche for about 8 years and know my competitors personally). And the reality is, they have a lot more to lose than I did, because their site gets more traffic. But once I'm done with it that piece of shit owner will be homeless and applying for jobs at Micky D's.

Neg SEO may not be morally acceptable. But this is business and business is war. Its like when Americans were complaining about Vietnam torchering prisoners of war. They tried to act morally superior saying they would never keep POW's meanwhile they were bombing villages left and right.

I don't like NEG SEO but I think it would be far more useful to accept it as a reality of life than try and sign some stupid ass petition thats not going to accomplish a single g/damn thing.

-SB

 

[FrankJack]

Like if you're going to play golf, don't cry when you lose your ball in the water.

I would not cry if it was ME who lost my ball in the water. But I would cry or get mad if another random golfer kicks MY ball into the water. If another golfer can kick my ball at will then it's hard to accept it as 'part of the game.'

 

[Scritty]

I would not cry if it was ME who lost my ball in the water. But I would cry or get mad if another random golfer kicks MY ball into the water. If another golfer can kick my ball at will then it's hard to accept it as 'part of the game.'

And that's the difference.

Negative SEO is anti competitive.
I'm fine with it, moved on and making money - it's just encouraged me to make more "crash and burn" sites and resurrect some old MFA sites that I had not looked at for 4 years.
Guessing that's probably the complete opposite of the effect Google wanted. But if they are going to play silly fuckers and reward spam... then they reap what they sow.

Scritty

 

[pompano]

I have seen major Negative SEO done first hand. It is defiantly real. Client had it done to him, 200,000+ links in under month, his site content taken and reposted on porn sites. Everything you can think of. We have tried disavowing every single link even if they were good, still getting rejected by google with example links coming back that are obvious negative SEO links.

Why would we post my clients sites content on a porn profile? lol!

 

[kominik]

Neg Seo was made by G000000000000..........

 

[Deleted member 708208]

You cannot deny negative SEO is real and a potential problem but what can we do? Google makes the rules and we
learn how to bend them to make money.

 

[FrankJack]

You cannot deny negative SEO is real and a potential problem but what can we do? Google makes the rules and we learn how to bend them to make money.

negative SEO = NO rules = Anarchy

Do you really think you can learn how to bend the anarchy to make money? It's like putting yourself in a jail with criminals and telling yourself that you will learn to bend the rules.

Not trying to be funny, but all you, me, or any other typical webmaster or business owner could do is to bend and take a big c0ck in the as#.

 

[Logician]

Back when there was a rep system, anyone that mentioned neg seo got negative rep.

 

[Scritty]

Back when there was a rep system, anyone that mentioned neg seo got negative rep.

If mentioned as a tactic yes. A that's as it should be.

End of the day it's hard to reconcile the nonsense that goes on sometimes.
Link spam should just be ignored. no positive or negative effect. Very soon all but the dullest of dullards would come to the conclusion that link spam added no value anywhere and it would stop.

Having a system where it benefits anyone - albeit in a negative way by allowing them to target their opposition - is just fucking stupid


Scritty

 

[JustUs]

If mentioned as a tactic yes. A that's as it should be.

End of the day it's hard to reconcile the nonsense that goes on sometimes.
Link spam should just be ignored. no positive or negative effect. Very soon all but the dullest of dullards would come to the conclusion that link spam added no value anywhere and it would stop.

Having a system where it benefits anyone - albeit in a negative way by allowing them to target their opposition - is just fucking stupid


Scritty

While I personally agree with you, I am running a -seo campaign right now against a spam reporting site. Why, because the site picked up some of the links I am running for a client and it is showing in the serps. I expect to create 138 million links over the next two days against that site.

Sometimes you just have to do what you have to do. We are speaking of Blackhat here and that is bending the rules. Bend them enough and Google will fix the problem, especially when you start taking down sites that Google uses to determine link spam.

 

[crazymatthere]

Negative SEO doesn't work on a site that has quality backlinks. Period.

 

[Aksa786]

This is not good , Negseo hurts big players.

 

[JustUs]

Negative SEO doesn't work on a site that has quality backlinks. Period.

Keep believing that.

 

[50cent]

but STRICTLY speaking, how does this help G kill off seo? If someone goes and neg seo and de-ranks a genuine site that has reached the top with genuine WH credibility then G lose a genuine site right at the top? And that site can be potentially replaced by the very same seo guys who may have run the neg seo campaign who want that spot. So in turn you are potentially getting sites of neg seo'ers to the top. How does that help G...? People sometimes over think G even though it could be a genuine cock up that G could have made in their strategy.

 

[crazymatthere]

Keep believing that.

I know it from experience dude. My site has been blasted with SB comments but it's still going strong because it has good natural links.

Technically, you can't do Negative SEO to wikipedia

 

[RAYRAY7]

That is not true. wikipedia has an army of linkers. Almost any site can be taken down with negative SEO. It's more widespread than you think. People just do it quietly, and you probably would never know who done it!

 

[JustUs]

I know it from experience dude. My site has been blasted with SB comments but it's still going strong because it has good natural links.

Technically, you can't do Negative SEO to wikipedia

There was a a study done by some people as a test against some well known web sites. In the test, 1,000,000 links were blasted with Scrapebox. Both sites that were the test subjects lost ranking. One site had a PR 3 and the other a PR 4. Using Scrapebox alone, you are playing dicey with a PR 4 site, and Scrapebox alone would not be able to takedown a higher PR site. You could use Xrummer OTH and take most sites down.

Wikipedia has a very high normal link velocity, so yes, they could not easily be taken down. Wikipedia also has a very high page count.

I leave it to you to look up the studies, but here is your starting point: http://legitseo.com/negative-seo-case-study/ and http://trafficplanet.com/topic/2369-case-study-negative-seo-results/

 

[iglow]

or the opposite.. do it to peopel so they whien to google and google changes filters.

 

[JustUs]

but STRICTLY speaking, how does this help G kill off seo? If someone goes and neg seo and de-ranks a genuine site that has reached the top with genuine WH credibility then G lose a genuine site right at the top? And that site can be potentially replaced by the very same seo guys who may have run the neg seo campaign who want that spot. So in turn you are potentially getting sites of neg seo'ers to the top. How does that help G...? People sometimes over think G even though it could be a genuine cock up that G could have made in their strategy.

When sites that rely on visits for sales, such as a realtors website, loses rankings, they lose opportunity to make sales. When this happens, those site often to to PPC and Adwords. Google wins. One of my Real Estate acquaintances pays $7.00 USD per click through.

This is why neg SEO works to Google's advantage.

 

[crazymatthere]

There was a a study done by some people as a test against some well known web sites. In the test, 1,000,000 links were blasted with Scrapebox. Both sites that were the test subjects lost ranking. One site had a PR 3 and the other a PR 4. Using Scrapebox alone, you are playing dicey with a PR 4 site, and Scrapebox alone would not be able to takedown a higher PR site. You could use Xrummer OTH and take most sites down.

Wikipedia has a very high normal link velocity, so yes, they could not easily be taken down. Wikipedia also has a very high page count.

I leave it to you to look up the studies, but here is your starting point

Thanks for the links man, but it's 2014, not 2012..