Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne
Google says IBL's can harm in the guidelines! Irrefutable proof that IBL's can cause harm... especially "paid" links.
Harm is a subjective description hence the debate is seemingly just a lengthy exercise in semantics 101.
|
Very early in this discussion, several of us tried to avoid the problem of subjectivity by defining "harm" as here meaning a
net negative effect.
This, in recognition of the fact that the discounting of incoming
PR which was not legitimately earned yields a result precisely equal to that prior to the existence of such inbound
PR; i.e., the undue positive benefit, or gain, is nullified, yielding a
net zero effect.
Unfortunately, that definition was repeatedly ignored, particularly by those who came to this discussion when it was well under way, and who declined to read that which preceded their arrival.
Additionally, there are those who have claimed that a
negative benefit can be effected by a 3rd party, without the cooperation of the 1st; unfortunately, no more than anecdotal evidence has been here offered in support of these claims.
As a result, the issue of whether or not passively acquired IBLs for "bad" neighborhoods cause "harm," which was the thrust of the OP's question, was lost in the myopic maelstrom surrounding paid links, Google bowling, etc..