Register

Welcome to the SEOSunite - Elite Internet Marketing & SEO Forum.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

xrumer-glow

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 55
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: Negative SEO For Beginners

  1. #1
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,732
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 731 Times in 306 Posts

    Negative SEO For Beginners

    What is 'Negative SEO'


    • Negative SEO has previously been narrowly defined as creating links that will negative impact a website in Google's index. For the purposes of this thread, I will maintain that as the core meaning of negative SEO despite the fact that it can mean much more in the broad scope. The fact is, any time Google gives SEO's a weapon to hurt their competition, no matter what that weapon is, Negative SEO will begin to take root and flourish.
    • Negative SEO is often considered a purely black hat SEO technique, but Google has officially broken that connection. In early 2012 Google went on a mission to destroy blog and homepage backlink networks. These had been considered Grey Hat (in terms of SEO, not cracking - which is also Grey Hat) SEO techniques, while some at WarriorForum even considered them White Hat means of link building! We don't give much credit to what comes out of high school hallways of marketing known as warriorforum however.
    • Negative SEO at it's root is using any and all means required to create highly unnatural links, SEO farm linking, and link distraction to force Google's automatic algorithm to punish a site or domain.
    • For internet marketers and affiliate marketing, this means you have a chance to destroy your competition, and take all of the traffic from the search engine rankings for yourself.


    Many internet marketers have begun to feel that Google purposefully created this major hole in early 2012 to compensate for Google's very poor Q1 earning performance. In order for Larry Page to not look incompetent on the job, the theory is that Google would earn substantially more in adwords revenue is companies were to invest in that kind of advertising over SEO. In order to accomplish that, the SERP's needed to become a less reliable way to have traffic and buyers get to your site. What better way to create that instability than to turn SEO's against each other and make the SERP's a dog-eat-dog battle of who could buy more domains in an arms race to have any presence on the web what so ever. Did it work? Kind of...

    What Went Wrong For Google and Negative SEO?

    Simply put, negative SEO has been around for years. Since Google's algo would punish sites if their inbound link velocity was too high suddenly, it's no surprise that marketers with poor intentions would simply pound their competition with over a million links a day (if not more) until Google slapped the target. This was fine for the most part because so few marketers had the ability to create that many links.

    Then Google lowered the standards for Negative SEO related punishments, and all hell broke loose. In order to be successful using Negative SEO, you no longer needed to be able to create millions of links in a day. You merely need to buy some profile link blasts from easy-to-find and willing vendors as well as using more widely available blog and article link farms that Google decided they had to punish just months before.

    They essentially put the average marketer with any kind of reasonable budget into the business of Negative SEO. There was no training or education required, merely a desire and access to widely available and advertised services.

    Negative SEO Counter Strike Pending Against Google

    As a result of Google essentially devaluing the hard work of thousands of honest and sincere SEO's, there have been rumblings of an Adsense Program Devaluation Movement. It's hard to know if any of these rumors would ever come true, and if the movement would be organized enough to do enough damage to the system to be productive but the thought is simple.

    How Google Affected SEO's
    • SEO's earn a living by helping boost a site's visibility in Google's search Engine.
    • Google decided to create an atmosphere that will damage the livelihoods of SEO's all over the planet.
    • Google decided to ruin the financial investment of thousands of small businesses across the globe by not only permitting Negative SEO, but encouraging it with it's most recent algorithm updates.
    • At the same time, Google's stance has been that it's their search engine - and their results are up to them as a company to decide. Nobody should have room to complain.


    How SEO's Would Affect Google
    • Google's earnings are very closely affected by the success of the Adwords and Adsense programs.
    • Every time an Adsense link is clicked on, it costs the advertiser money.
    • If a large number of clicks begin to occur without sales being generated, the advertiser will have to devalue their investment in the Adwords program.
    • The result of advertisers pulling out of the Adwords program will be a financial impact against Google similar to the financial impact that Google has exposed honest SEO's and webmaster to already.


    The principle is solid. If there is nothing wrong with Google automatically punishing site's that have SEO's and webmaster who are honest and of good moral and ethical character - then equally where does Google have room to complain about those SEO's simply clicking on the same little blue links that you find across the internet already?

    As you can see, the internet has suddenly found a way to remind Google that 'Two can play that game.' See, there's no legal binding agreement in place between your casual internet surfer who might click on an Adwords link and Google. As such, Google is in no position to tell a person when and how they can click on that link.

    SEOSUNITE.COM and I, as GODOVERYOU have no connection to this Anti-Adwords movement, and merely bring it up as an example of the 'Can of Worms' that Google is allowing to be opened by keeping unethical SEO's in the business of Negative SEO.

    Conclusion on Negative SEO:

    Google has to ability to stop Negative SEO immediately, but it seems they are committed to allowing it to continue. As a result, the very structure of how we all get information will change significantly every day they allow it to continue. Overall, as a marketer, I find this whole thing somewhat stimulating from the sense that there's a new function and process to learn - but as a person - this is a dangerous game that Google is now playing.

    What if:

    • Big Brands such as Amazon, Ebay, Wikipedia, and news outlets such as cnn.com could be destabilized and removed from Google's easily found indexed results?
    • Small start-ups could be destroyed and equally removed from the easily accessed search results - removing any new innovation or value they could eventually offer to the internet?


    Would the internet be a better place? Of course not.

    Overall, Google can't stop internet marketing, because internet marketing is bigger than Google - but they are risking the rest of the purely informational outlets to try to stop marketing and for what reason? Why risk how every man and woman who uses Google get's information just to stop someone from selling something that Google has decided they don't want to have sold?

    The Bigger Picture Of Google


    Google has spent years protecting themselves with a zero-transparency policy. This has lead to a lot of resentment for the company.

    • They will close people's adsense accounts for cookie cutter reasoning with no specifics listed.
    • They will flush site's out of the SERP's and pretend that there's nothing more to be said on the matter.
    • If you go to their offices to speak to anyone, they refer you to their legal department and treat you as if you were something less than human.
    • They collect volumes of information against you, and they know they can as the largest provider of search engine results on the face of the planet.


    Essentially, they have committed themselves to acting like thugs and bullies, giving people the choice of either:
    A) Not using the largest search engine and not using the most widely installed mobile phone operating system, essentially cutting off people's rights to free and fair choice.
    or
    B) Selling the massive piles of personal information they collect on you to the highest bidder, deciding how and what information you deserve to read, and how you should be able to conduct your life - even down the the type of cell phone you are permitted to use.

    What's changed now?

    Their arrogance has finally caught up to them and got the attention of even the most pure and innocent SEO and allowed everyone with a website to become a victim. They just put every SEO in the business of digital assassination ... and have yet to say there's anything wrong with it.

    The question is....

    Does your website have a target on it's back? If so, is Google liable for it's death? I think so... but what do I know anyways?

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to GODOVERYOU For This Useful Post:

    adamv (04-20-2012),Daisy (04-20-2012),drhaze (04-28-2012),felku (04-20-2012),Lostincyberspace (04-20-2012),seo (04-20-2012)

  3. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    What a great and informative post. Honestly, none of the information was new to me BUT that is only because I've spent the last week reading dozens of posts on different forums all to gather the same information you have compiled in this one post.

    I just signed up for this forum a few minutes ago but I think it will quickly become my favorite forum. I wish I had come here first before wasting so much time at all of the other forums.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to adamv For This Useful Post:

    GODOVERYOU (04-20-2012)

  5. #3
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,732
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 731 Times in 306 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by adamv View Post
    What a great and informative post. Honestly, none of the information was new to me BUT that is only because I've spent the last week reading dozens of posts on different forums all to gather the same information you have compiled in this one post.

    I just signed up for this forum a few minutes ago but I think it will quickly become my favorite forum. I wish I had come here first before wasting so much time at all of the other forums.
    Good to hear, thank you for the support

  6. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    24
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts

    The worm that turned...

    Google has had everything its own way for much too long - it's way past time for the little guy to be heard.

    Guess what... Google does not own the internet!

    The fact is - Google needs webmasters as much as webmasters need Google - but this is something they seem to have forgotten. It would be great to establish some sort of meaningful dialogue because, really, we're in this thing together.

    I will be encouraging everyone I know to sign up here and contribute.

    Lostincyberspace

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Lostincyberspace For This Useful Post:

    GODOVERYOU (04-20-2012)

  8. #5
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,732
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 731 Times in 306 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Lostincyberspace View Post
    Google has had everything its own way for much too long - it's way past time for the little guy to be heard.

    Guess what... Google does not own the internet!

    The fact is - Google needs webmasters as much as webmasters need Google - but this is something they seem to have forgotten. It would be great to establish some sort of meaningful dialogue because, really, we're in this thing together.

    I will be encouraging everyone I know to sign up here and contribute.

    Lostincyberspace
    Thank you - That is actually very meaningful... thank you.

  9. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    +1 for Yandex

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to talkingsmack For This Useful Post:

    GODOVERYOU (04-20-2012)

  11. #7
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,732
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 731 Times in 306 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by talkingsmack View Post
    +1 for Yandex
    Their machine learning systems may not be the best, but in this case - I'd take it over WEAPONIZING LINKBUILDING

    Now if we can just convince Yandex to enter the US Domestic market
    talkingsmack likes this.

  12. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    137
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 73 Times in 47 Posts
    How would you defend yourself against becoming a target of negative seo though?

    One way is to leave the "trophy terms" alone and go for the long tail (which converts much better anyway). Stay under the radar.

    The guy that mentioned taking out justgoodcars.com said he scraped their site and was posting duplicates elsewhere in the hopes of getting the duplicates indexed faster than the main site's content (so the car site would get a duplicate penalty). You can defend against that by enabling pubsubhubbub so that you fat ping your entire content as it is published.

    Some of the service providers on other forums are saying that building spam links wasn't what hurt that site, it was the removal of existing links that did it. The sceptical part of me says "they would say that wouldn't they" - if people think using drip-feed-blasts or whatever can take down someone elses site, it could take down your own, so if you sold such stuff you would want to squish the idea that links hurt pronto. But I also know that removal of existing links is a powerful tool - have done it myself (simply went into answers.com and edited the links out - my husband boosted my resolve by saying "why are you hesitating, love, they shouldn't have spammed those sites so removing the links is white hat" LOL). Know people who have removed wiki links too. I guess the way to defend against link removal is to make sure your links are in places where people can't edit them.

    I've also had people build porn links to my site but nothing happened to it at all, it retained it's rankings. I don't know if it is down to G knowing this to be a trick of old and specifically discounting porn links if there is no porn in the text of the website or if it's because I had some very strong links with my main anchor text and they overwhelmed the weak porn stuff that was pointed at me.

    The most recent negative seo studies seem to be trying over-optimisation - instead of pointing porn anchors, you point legitimate anchors and over do it. You can defend by not just having a varied anchor profile, but some of the obscure anchors coming from strong links.

    Finally - we're assuming that this site got hit because of the campaign - but what if they were hit due to panda? Take the following page from their site:

    2011 BMW 5 Series Car Reviews, auto reviews BMW 5 Series

    The main review is a simple copy of a review that was originally published by thecarconnection.com - and there are thousands of copied car connection reviews on the justgoodcars site. I would think it was this duplication of another authority site en masse that was the real reason this site tanked in 2011

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Daisy; 04-20-2012 at 03:11 PM. Reason: spelling

  13. #9
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,732
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 731 Times in 306 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Daisy View Post
    How would you defend yourself against becoming a target of negative seo though?

    One way is to leave the "trophy terms" alone and go for the long tail (which converts much better anyway). Stay under the radar.

    The guy that mentioned taking out justgoodcars.com said he scraped their site and was posting duplicates elsewhere in the hopes of getting the duplicates indexed faster than the main site's content (so the car site would get a duplicate penalty). You can defend against that by enabling pubsubhubbub so that you fat ping your entire content as it is published.

    Some of the service providers on other forums are saying that building spam links wasn't what hurt that site, it was the removal of existing links that did it. The sceptical part of me says "they would say that wouldn't they" - if people think using drip-feed-blasts or whatever can take down someone elses site, it could take down your own, so if you sold such stuff you would want to squish the idea that links hurt pronto. But I also know that removal of existing links is a powerful tool - have done it myself (simply went into answers.com and edited the links out - my husband boosted my resolve by saying "why are you hesitating, love, they shouldn't have spammed those sites so removing the links is white hat" LOL). Know people who have removed wiki links too. I guess the way to defend against link removal is to make sure your links are in places where people can't edit them.

    I've also had people build porn links to my site but nothing happened to it at all, it retained it's rankings. I don't know if it is down to G knowing this to be a trick of old and specifically discounting porn links if there is no porn in the text of the website or if it's because I had some very strong links with my main anchor text and they overwhelmed the weak porn stuff that was pointed at me.

    The most recent negative seo studies seem to be trying over-optimisation - instead of pointing porn anchors, you point legitimate anchors and over do it. You can defend by not just having a varied anchor profile, but some of the obscure anchors coming from strong links.

    Finally - we're assuming that this site got hit because of the campaign - but what if they were hit due to panda? Take the following page from their site:

    2011 BMW 5 Series Car Reviews, auto reviews BMW 5 Series

    The main review is a simple copy of a review that was originally published by thecarconnection.com - and there are thousands of copied car connection reviews on the justgoodcars site. I would think it was this duplication of another authority site en masse that was the real reason this site tanked in 2011

    Thoughts?
    This really should be put in a separate thread, but I'll answer it here

    That's part of the problem. There is no real defense at this point. Anyone can build links to any pages of your site, any way they want to with any anchors that they want to. That's why it's so dangerous, Google left nobody a way out. It's basically like handing every Xrumer user a small nuke and saying "Now don't you use that..." then walking away and trusting that they wouldn't... LOL

    Let's take your example of building yourself a varied anchor profile (which you should be doing anyways).... It may be great, but it will be meaningless if I build 20 or 30 million links to your site in under a week or two for a single anchor.... You can't control what I do, or what anyone else does. Your varied anchor won't save you. You won't be able to have my links removed either unless you learn every language spoken in Europe because I'll purposefully target link sources that will be hard for you to communicate to the owner of those domains with.... or even better yet - completely abandoned sites.... then what will you do to get the links removed?

    There is no protection. Google just handed every link builder weapons to use on EVERYONE, not just fellow SEO's.... Everyone is a potential target now...

    Here are some examples....
    Let's say you found a product on clickbank you want to promote... want to rank #1 for the team 'Awesome Product Cash Machine' which is the name of the product, and it's on awesomeproductcashmachine.com

    What can certain SEO's do?

    Step one, get that pesky domain right out of Google top serp's....
    Step two, do that to the rest of the top 9...
    Step three, rank your site with ease...

    Now the real problem:

    Unethical SEO #2 comes around and says "Hey, I want to promote that product...."
    Guess what just happened to your nice new #1 ranking? It's at 975 and you're done until you rerank a new domain...

    And the process will keep going and going....

    This is the hell that Google has now given a lot of people the opportunity to unleash across the internet...

    BUT IT'S NOT JUST FOR AFFILIATE PRODUCTS

    You could also do this for keywords and sites that are typically 100% educational in their intent. You have a green energy product to sell? Okay, now as an unethical SEO you are declare war on every site in the entire niche, one at a time and basically screw up all of the good, valid sites that Google claims they want to prosper and excel.

    So far it appears the only way to really handle the situation is to have an very large, very well aged, very well respected authority site... AND THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE WE HAVEN"T SEEN ONE OF THOSE TAKEN DOWN...... YET

  14. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    137
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 73 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by GODOVERYOU View Post
    There is no real defense at this point. Anyone can build links to any pages of your site, any way they want to with any anchors that they want to. That's why it's so dangerous, Google left nobody a way out. It's basically like handing every Xrumer user a small nuke and saying "Now don't you use that..." then walking away and trusting that they wouldn't... LOL

    Let's take your example of building yourself a varied anchor profile (which you should be doing anyways).... It may be great, but it will be meaningless if I build 20 or 30 million links to your site in under a week or two for a single anchor.... You can't control what I do, or what anyone else does. Your varied anchor won't save you. You won't be able to have my links removed either unless you learn every language spoken in Europe because I'll purposefully target link sources that will be hard for you to communicate to the owner of those domains with.... or even better yet - completely abandoned sites.... then what will you do to get the links removed?
    Well thankfully you are in a different league from the negativeseo guy because he seems to have just used dripfeedblasts, fiverr and some blog networks (and I'm pretty sure the reason why the dripfeedblast guys are so adamant that links didn't take down the site is because they are worried that no-one will buy their service - if it takes down other sites it will take down yours).

    Would you be able to tank a wikipedia page? Some of the people in the other forums are arguing it's impossible. If you can do it, I'm happy to get the word out that you're undertaking the case study (it would be great publicity for this forum!).

    One page they suggested was Search engine optimization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which ranks for these terms:

    seo 1
    search engine optimization 1
    what is seo 2
    seo consultant 10
    search engine optimization tips 12
    google white pages 16
    seo marketing 3
    seo optimization 1
    seo expert 9
    website optimization 4

 

 
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to Top