Penguin 3.0 - real explanation?

[bartosimpsonio]

Google shares took a dive, their adwords-promoting algorithm gets tougher. That's all there is to it.

 

[SEODEMON]

Negative SEO works but not on some EMDs. Some EMDs it ranks them.

You want to really do Negative SEO, Use Xrumer major blast will get people to send complaints to Google.

 

[TheLinkGuy]

Negative SEO is real and works extremely well. Trust me on that. Some tests I ran worked even better than I expected with the Penguin update.

 

[unsungwarrior]

Any conclusion till now guys?

 

[artificial_genius]

I completely disagree with the post. If all that Penguin did was erase the value of a link than why did my rankings recover with the last penguin refresh when the only thing I did was REMOVE links for the past year? If those links were essentially valueless and of no harm, than why did that fix my problems with penguin? If after a lack of high quality links was the issue why couldn't sites recover from penguin until the refresh, regardless of new high quality links?

I think it's delusional to think that negative SEO does not exist and the real problem is the lack of high quality links.

It's what the data said and I think there is more value at looking at what is going on with thousands or millions of keywords in an unbiased way compared to looking at anecdotal evidence from one site.

If you only removed links then I'm sure if you clicked on the "New Links" tab in Ahrefs there would be no results - is that true?

Additionally the article is talking about this update, not past updates, and in fact it admits that there may have been penalties in the past.

 

[b1step-ahead]

some good info to look at. Seems like p-3 is a rollback to 2012. IDK seems like yelp got the boost for alot of verticals.

 

[unsungwarrior]

yeah, but don't really get, what's been actually affected by this update?

 

[Jouster]

Penguin has always targeted the same thing.........links from low authority domains using spun content and commercially rich anchor text.....do the opposite and you're fine...

 

[Slashdot]

I think this might actually be somewhat right. I lost a few places in SERPs due to this update as well and the posts that went down definitely did not all have only really high quality backlinks.

 

[unsungwarrior]

oh, but some of my websites, which are having good quality links and unique content still under the attack! why??

 

[bartosimpsonio]

oh, but some of my websites, which are having good quality links and unique content still under the attack! why??

Because the guys above you probably spend more on adwords.

 

[bartosimpsonio]

Negative SEO is real and works extremely well. Trust me on that. Some tests I ran worked even better than I expected with the Penguin update.

Wow that's really something coming from someone who usually sounds like Matt Cutts

Glad you're finally seeing the light, brother.

 

[artificial_genius]

A lot of people are claiming that negative SEO works extremely well but besides anecdotal evidence I have not seen anything conclusive showing that negative SEO works which makes me very skeptical.

If someone here is confident enough that negative SEO works and they can prove it with a completely verified case study, let me know and I would be happy to help facilitate it. I am the author of http://www.micrositemasters.com/blog/penguin-3-0-analysis-what-got-hurt-what-didnt-and-3-things-you-need-to-know-to-remain-relevant/ and our http://www.micrositemasters.com/blog/penguin-analysis-seo-isnt-dead-but-you-need-to-act-smarter-and-5-easy-ways-to-do-so/, and since our very large dataset is not showing any value in negative SEO I would absolutely love to do a case study that shows the opposite assuming there is someone on here convinced enough that negative SEO is possible.

I tend to think a lot of people cry "negative SEO" because they are spreading FUD and trying to get Matt Cutts to be less aggressive with his updates (or because they are bitter or want to blame someone besides themselves when they get hit by an update), but mostly my opinion is based on the data I have seen and I am perfectly willing to change my opinion if we can do a case study that proves the opposite.

As the owner of both Microsite Masters and WordAi, and considering how much traction my original Penguin Post got (Matt Cutts confirmed he read the post), any negative SEO case study we publish will certainly get in front of Google's webspam team, and I'm confident that if we were able to conclusively show that negative SEO is practical, the PR surrounding such a major discovery would make them reconsider parts of their algorithm, which would be good for everyone.

So if you really think you can make this happen, PM me and let's set up a completely statistically sound case study where we conclusively determine once and for all if negative SEO is possible and practical. Otherwise I'll continue to go with the data I have which shows that Penguin is a link devaluation update and not a link penalty update and that negative SEO is generally impractical.

 

[artificial_genius]

A lot of people are claiming that negative SEO works extremely well but besides anecdotal evidence I have not seen anything conclusive showing that negative SEO works which makes me very skeptical.

If someone here is confident enough that negative SEO works and they can prove it with a completely verified case study, let me know and I would be happy to help facilitate it. I am the author of http://www.micrositemasters.com/blog/penguin-3-0-analysis-what-got-hurt-what-didnt-and-3-things-you-need-to-know-to-remain-relevant/ and our http://www.micrositemasters.com/blog/penguin-analysis-seo-isnt-dead-but-you-need-to-act-smarter-and-5-easy-ways-to-do-so/, and since our very large dataset is not showing any value in negative SEO I would absolutely love to do a case study that shows the opposite assuming there is someone on here convinced enough that negative SEO is possible.

I tend to think a lot of people cry "negative SEO" because they are spreading FUD and trying to get Matt Cutts to be less aggressive with his updates (or because they are bitter or want to blame someone besides themselves when they get hit by an update), but mostly my opinion is based on the data I have seen and I am perfectly willing to change my opinion if we can do a case study that proves the opposite.

As the owner of both Microsite Masters and WordAi, and considering how much traction my original Penguin Post got (Matt Cutts confirmed he read the post), any negative SEO case study we publish will certainly get in front of Google's webspam team, and I'm confident that if we were able to conclusively show that negative SEO is practical, the PR surrounding such a major discovery would make them reconsider parts of their algorithm, which would be good for everyone.

So if you really think you can make this happen, PM me and let's set up a completely statistically sound case study where we conclusively determine once and for all if negative SEO is possible and practical. Otherwise I'll continue to go with the data I have which shows that Penguin is a link devaluation update and not a link penalty update and that negative SEO is generally impractical.

Since nobody has replied to his in the past two weeks I'll assume that negative SEO is not effective and that everyone complaining about it realizes that they have no way of actually reproducing the effects of negative SEO.

If of course anyone disagrees and is willing to work together on a case study, please message me, but I think the Microsite Masters data, combined with an unwillingness for anyone to assist in a negative SEO case study pretty firmly indicates that negative SEO is not a currently effective SEO strategy.

 

[domainmadness]

Since nobody has replied to his in the past two weeks I'll assume that negative SEO is not effective and that everyone complaining about it realizes that they have no way of actually reproducing the effects of negative SEO.

If of course anyone disagrees and is willing to work together on a case study, please message me, but I think the Microsite Masters data, combined with an unwillingness for anyone to assist in a negative SEO case study pretty firmly indicates that negative SEO is not a currently effective SEO strategy.

You have to understand that those who knows how to do negative SEO in a practical way have no interest getting it fixed - that's why you are not getting any responses.

 

[Tayscrim]

Sounds promising, also they seem to be right from everything I can tell.

 

[firstblade]

They are sort of saying the right thing, far more knowledgeable than anyone you'll find in the white hat world or at Moz anyway!

I'm doing a case study on 178 domains, my data points to the same stuff - especially crap directory links.

Wtf 178 domains? wtf.

 

[unsungwarrior]

so what's the conclusion???

 

[artificial_genius]

You have to understand that those who knows how to do negative SEO in a practical way have no interest getting it fixed - that's why you are not getting any responses.

We've mined through rank tracking data for millions of keywords and have seen no evidence of negative SEO.

So if people are complaining about it they either need to provide some evidence of their own or stop complaining.

You can't just say "oh all of your evidence is wrong but I refuse to bring any evidence of my own."

There are plenty of people here (even in this thread) who believe negative SEO works and most of them are complaining about it (they don't like it and DO want it to get fixed) yet they all disappeared when I asked if they'd be willing to help with proving it.

 

[ThopHayt]

The update was created while a man named Matt was making love to a penguin at the zoo one day. He made the bird pregnant and it's offspring started working for the company and coded an update one sunny morning.