1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Google cannot penalize spam links to money site.. unless

Discussion in 'Black Hat SEO' started by blackieman, May 4, 2012.

  1. blackieman

    blackieman Power Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    79
    Hi, I like to make controversial statement. I don't think google can penalize spam links to your money site, unless they are 100% sure it is from a paid source (like BMR..).

    Why? imagine this scenario, happens a lot. Someone drops a link at your blog or your forum, and blasts it away with all they got. Would your site be penalized? If I can figure out this scenario, I am sure google can too.
    So I think they would simply discount those links. Their algo has to establish a under-the-table relationship before they can penalize.
     
  2. SuperLinks

    SuperLinks Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,903
    Likes Received:
    847
    Location:
    New York
    Your logic is flawed.

    What would stop a competitor from utilizing a service like BMR and pointing links to your site? Nothing.
    What is the difference between buying a Fiverr or Xrumer/Scrapebox blast, and signing up for BMR? Nothing.
    What's to say someone doesn't buy blatant paid links and points it at competitors websites?

    The point is, if negative SEO works, it can't be isolated to the theory you just proposed. At the end of the day Google has NO clue who's behind buying links to a website.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  3. blackieman

    blackieman Power Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    79
    True that you can do neg-seo with BMR. You can also buy obvious paid links and point them to your competitors.

    Those are special cases, and google loves - but has a hard time- dealing with on a large scale (sure, they can zap BMR).

    But once google has happily de-indexed BMR's of the world, how can they be sure that a blast to the page is not to strengthen those links on it, and not for the benefit of the page owner? I am always thinking of blasting my links on another site, and everyone else is. Surely google can see that - why would they penalize the site owner? This is too common. It is not neg-seo either; it is strengthening the links on that page.
     
  4. BLIXX

    BLIXX Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    488
    Location:
    Location, Location.
    The theory is not entirely without merit. I don't believe it's true, but it's not without merit. IF it is true, it would mean that velocity is a lot more important than anyone previously realized.... which pretty much goes right back to Google penalizing for spammy links, lol.
     
  5. gorang

    gorang Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes Received:
    1,650
    Occupation:
    SEO Consultant - Marketing Strategy
    Location:
    UK
    i have a site with great content that didnt use BMR and other networks. I simply used blog comments.

    It dropped about 100-200 places after penguin.

    The on-page is fine, it was my backlinks which did it.
     
  6. blackieman

    blackieman Power Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    79
    Instead of "penalizing" I suggest discounting

    Velocity - very important, but I don't know how goog deals with pages that all of a sudden catch fire. Maybe then they look at the "spam rating" of backlinks to adjust the velocity funnel.
     
  7. acotut

    acotut Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Negative SEO is a real thing for more then 1-2 years,so your theory is down :D
     
  8. blackieman

    blackieman Power Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    79
    I thought it is a recent phenom. I am not familiar with neg-seo cases, specially going back.

    Do they result in google dance, or permanent demotion. Do you have any references on this?

    Regardless, I hope MattC is reading, since positive blasting to your link does the same.
     
  9. ok888

    ok888 Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    649
    Example a batch of sites have SB blast directly to the money site and some got dropped and some gained rank


    One of the site tht got directly SB blast have dropped from top 3 to page 2
    After the PR update the site went from PR0 - PR1 and now back to top 5 again
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2012
  10. BLIXX

    BLIXX Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    488
    Location:
    Location, Location.
    Actual penalties and link devaluations are different things, though. Your thread title specifically references penalties, so this statement is probably something of a red herring (unintended, I'm guessing :)).

    Despite the mass ignorance of what is and is not an actual penalty and a link devaluation, each are what they are. (For example, link devaluations/de-indexings are easy to spot in ahrefs; penalties have things such as no longer ranking first for one's brand name associated with them every time).

    Many signals and meta-signals can't really be manipulated in the aggregate of what Google considers in its rankings; this is why neg SEO, for example, is really only possible in specific, low-authority/limited-metric circumstances and nothing for the majority of people to panic about. Further, Google can compare and contrast intra-niche averages (as well as draw relevant data from inter-niche averages) and draw conclusions from that, as well.
     
  11. SuperLinks

    SuperLinks Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,903
    Likes Received:
    847
    Location:
    New York
    Or... Maybe the deindexing of the network was what caused drops in rankings since the value of all of those links disappeared at once.

    Atleast in BMR's example, something that appeared as a penalty was nothing more than a mass devaluing of a backlink profile almost overnight. If a websites backlink profile was built on this foundation, there's no doubt that a website would see significant drops in rankings after the deindexing.

    Now, I'm not saying that negative SEO doesn't exist. It does. But in the case of BMR, its likely the result of devalued links than a penalty.
     
  12. bhedbri

    bhedbri Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    14
    Exactly, how can Google penalize webmaster if a tactic they use could be used against them in a malacious manner to hurt their ranking. If buying links can hurt ones ranking then I could buy links for all my competitors and hurt them. They have no way of telling who is buying what.
     
  13. ajithrocksca

    ajithrocksca Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,102
    Likes Received:
    590
    Occupation:
    full time internet marketer
    Location:
    Jersey City
    Google is very careful in wording their announcements and for long they have maintained that negative SEO is impossible, even in the recent post by matt cutts, he was talking about the on-page over optimization and irrelevant links and not about building a backlink profile.

    I have blasted my personal blog through xrumer and scrapebox directly and to junk pages.. nothing happened and rankings are still intact.

    With the BMR, what happened was the devaluing of links (and hence a fall in ranking) rather than a penalty.. the penalty happened only for the BMR sites which had irrelevant links for the content.

    I am not saying negative seo doesn't exist. We do get mails from webmaster tools about unnatural linking, but negative seo is not something that we need to worry about if we do the other things right..