Can inbound links really hurt you?

[fathom]

Originally Posted by crankydave

For there to be an IBL there needs to be an OBL... no? Can't have one without the other... no?

You also noted earlier, that there are "practices" (re external linking) that one can do to themselves that can harm them. What's to prevent a service, contracted by the site owner, or a "disinterested" (interested?) 3rd party from emulating the very same thing besides nothing?

Dave

That's true... but the difference [in our arguments] are based on the [VALUE Passed or Not MINE] or [HARM passed or Not YOURS] ... the link itself is merely an extension from a page to another page so the issue is really between the pages... the sending page or the receiving page.

Let's say for the moment your version is more accurate: and "HARM" is the order of things... like Google noted in their Q&A there would be no way to determine if you HARMED yourself for self-serving interests or a competitor did it- where in my version it matters not who decided to get a bunch of paid links to a domain [or any version of crappy links] - at worse they just don't count.

I just can't fathom Google having a "HARM" policy that negate the value you get from a DMOZ link because you have a less savory link... it don't make sense.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by AVC

You are talking about Google bowling once again Dave where a large amount of links are pointed at a site in a short period of time damaging the website with Google.

Google is aware of Black Hat Negative SEO, I think that is why they went to the warning notices where they warn webmasters of suspect tactics, I guess in an attempt to fight this sort of fraudulent activity and to give a webmaster a chance to respond.

Personally, I don't consider it any kind of "hat". It's the practice of pointing lots of links at a target site. Intent is another matter.

Four things can happen...

1. Nothing
2. Positive
3. Negative
4. Combination of the above

If anyone believes that #3 *can* happen, the question of whether or not IBL's can harm a site has been answered.

Dave

[AVC]

Dave it is a known issue, some dirty SEO's have used the tactic to knock out competitors of their clients.

Fathom, Google themselves in their spam report form mentions the very negative impact of paid links (search engine spamming).

Quote:

Trying to deceive (spam) our web crawler by means of hidden text, deceptive cloaking or doorway pages compromises the quality of our results and degrades the search experience for everyone.

We think that's a bad thing, and so we request that, if your Google search returns a result that you suspect is spam, you please let us know by using this form. We thoroughly investigate every report of deceptive practices and take appropriate action when we uncover genuine abuse. In especially egregious cases, we will remove spammers from our index immediately, so they don't show up in search results at all.

PS: The above does not mention Paid Links, but it should, Google calls it "genuine abuse", but this is the same form Matt Cutt's linked to when he told webmasters to start reporting "PAIDLINKS" and asked all to put "PAIDLINKS REPORT" in the text or title of the spam report.

[fathom]

Matt Cutts Said,
April 14, 2007 @ 4:41 pm

Ash, there’s absolutely no problem with selling links for traffic (as opposed to PageRank). At Hidden links I mention a couple ways to sell links that Google would have no problem with.

As long as we’re talking about links, this seems like a pretty good opportunity to talk about a simple litmus test for paid links and how to tell if a paid link violates search engines’ quality guidelines. If you want to sell a link, you should at least provide machine-readable disclosure for paid links by making your link in a way that doesn’t affect search engines. There’s a ton of ways to do that. For example, you could make a paid link go through a redirect where the redirect url is robot’ed out using robots.txt. You could also use the rel=nofollow attribute. I’ve said as much many times before, but I wanted to give a heads-up because Google is going to be looking at paid links more closely in the future.

The other best practice I’d advise is to provide human readable disclosure that a link/review/article is paid. You could put a badge on your site to disclose that some links, posts, or reviews are paid, but including the disclosure on a per-post level would better. Even something as simple as “This is a paid review” fulfills the human-readable aspect of disclosing a paid article. Google’s quality guidelines are more concerned with the machine-readable aspect of disclosing paid links/posts, but the Federal Trade Commission has said that human-readable disclosure is important too:

So on the paid side of things... that's no problem - but seriously "PAID FOR PAGERANK" is what Google is negating and they also suggest very strongly that what they do is "PREVENT" not "HARM"... and that means - prevent what you would have gotten had the link page not violate Google's policies... so inbound links according to Google don't harm any domain.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Four things can happen...

1. Nothing
2. Positive
3. Negative
4. Combination of the above

If anyone believes that #3 *can* happen, the question of whether or not IBL's can harm a site has been answered.

Dave

Incorrect.

That item 3 may possibly exist is not the same as exists. And, therefore, to say that "IBLs might cause harm" is not to say that "IBLs do cause harm."

Your items no. 1 & 2 are here taken as givens; 3 awaits proof.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by fathom

That's true... but the difference [in our arguments] are based on the [VALUE Passed or Not MINE] or [HARM passed or Not YOURS] ... the link itself is merely an extension from a page to another page so the issue is really between the pages... the sending page or the receiving page.

Let's say for the moment your version is more accurate: and "HARM" is the order of things... like Google noted in their Q&A there would be no way to determine if you HARMED yourself for self-serving interests or a competitor did it- where in my version it matters not who decided to get a bunch of paid links to a domain [or any version of crappy links] - at worse they just don't count.

I just can't fathom Google having a "HARM" policy that negate the value you get from a DMOZ link because you have a less savory link... it don't make sense.

Not only does it make no sense, but it remains unproven, except in the minds of those who claim to have anecdotal evidence, and hold such to be the logical equivalent of empirical evidence.

[AVC]

I guess you missed this DeepSand:

Quote from Google spam report form:

We thoroughly investigate every report of deceptive practices and take appropriate action when we uncover genuine abuse. In especially egregious cases, we will remove spammers from our index immediately, so they don't show up in search results at all.

This means if Google finds that you are working paid linking schemes, reciprocal linking schemes, one way links purchased from link broker schemes that your website can be de-indexed.

These are all "incoming links", or in Fathom's case outgoing links !!!

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by fathom

That's true... but the difference [in our arguments] are based on the [VALUE Passed or Not MINE] or [HARM passed or Not YOURS] ... the link itself is merely an extension from a page to another page so the issue is really between the pages... the sending page or the receiving page.

Let's say for the moment your version is more accurate: and "HARM" is the order of things... like Google noted in their Q&A there would be no way to determine if you HARMED yourself for self-serving interests or a competitor did it- where in my version it matters not who decided to get a bunch of paid links to a domain [or any version of crappy links] - at worse they just don't count.

I just can't fathom Google having a "HARM" policy that negate the value you get from a DMOZ link because you have a less savory link... it don't make sense.

When was the last time Google made sense?

I don't, and haven't disagreed as to what "seems" to make sense. It boils down to the aggregate and how it is perceived. If the "single" link a site has is a DMOZ link and the rest display an "agegious" pattern (ie intent to manipulate) the the single will matter not.

It's a matter of thresholds and when they are met and/or crossed in the aggregate. Naturally, we're not told the thresholds. It's why I pointed out the importance of establishing and maintaining a solid (strong) link profile from the very beginning.

Dave

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

Dave it is a known issue, some dirty SEO's have used the tactic to knock out competitors of their clients.

Gotten love that "known issue"... can you actually point one of these "known cases"... since they're KNOWN you should have the exacting details.

Fathom, Google themselves in their spam report form mentions the very negative impact of paid links (search engine spamming).

Quote:

Trying to deceive (spam) our web crawler by means of hidden text, deceptive cloaking or doorway pages compromises the quality of our results and degrades the search experience for everyone.

We think that's a bad thing, and so we request that, if your Google search returns a result that you suspect is spam, you please let us know by using this form. We thoroughly investigate every report of deceptive practices and take appropriate action when we uncover genuine abuse. In especially egregious cases, we will remove spammers from our index immediately, so they don't show up in search results at all.

PS: The above does not mention Paid Links, but it should, Google calls it "genuine abuse", but this is the same form Matt Cutt's linked to when he told webmasters to start reporting "PAIDLINKS" and asked all to put "PAIDLINKS REPORT" in the text or title of the spam report.

hmmm... [must be a form of attention deficit syndrome] where does it say that reporting links of any type harms a domain?

I already pointed out that Matt Cutts mentioned specifically Site A cannot harm Site B by way of Google PREVENTING the passing of PageRank and ranking merits... wouldn't seem appropriate that they now intentionally HARMED another site while PREVENTING the passing of PageRank and ranking merits... talk about being deceptive.

[AVC]

Yes Fathom, it is a known issue called Negative SEO or Google Bowling.

matt cutts google bowling - Google Search

Yes, Paid links are incoming links that can get you de-indexed and are considered search engine spam.

Like I mentioned, Matt Cutts requested that we report paid linking schemes using the Google spam report form.

Put 2 + 2 together, it is very simple Fathom, you are making the simple complex with some of your fellow WPW members here.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by crankydave

When was the last time Google made sense?

I don't, and haven't disagreed as to what "seems" to make sense. It boils down to the aggregate and how it is perceived. If the "single" link a site has is a DMOZ link and the rest display an "agegious" pattern (ie intent to manipulate) the the single will matter not.

It's a matter of thresholds and when they are met and/or crossed in the aggregate. Naturally, we're not told the thresholds. It's why I pointed out the importance of establishing and maintaining a solid (strong) link profile from the very beginning.

Dave

Ya point taken...

But I've seen this before and on this ve3ry forum with Janeth, Dave Hawley and Mel [I think] and the sig links saga; and they all gave up long before you could see anything... I run it for 6 months and showed tabular results for why they do count [while limitedly].

In your case anything can cause a rapid ranking decline and increases in quick order... and most don't have anything to do with links or link types.

I'm reminded of a saying in submarines though... if it wasn't recorded - it didn't happen!

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

Yes Fathom, it is a known issue called Negative SEO or Google Bowling.

matt cutts google bowling - Google Search

Yes, Paid links are incoming links that can get you de-indexed and are considered search engine spam.

Like I mentioned, Matt Cutts requested that we report paid linking schemes using the Google spam report form.

Put 2 + 2 together, it is very simple Fathom, you are making the simple complex with some of your fellow WPW members here.

So how exactly does Negative SEO or Google Bowling "prevention" harm the domain being Bowled?

Did Negative SEO or Google Bowling delist whitehouse.gov? I don't see the parallel??

I can't believe anyone paid to have links to the whitehouse.gov site? Are you sure?

[AVC]

Google bowling is the ability to point thousands of links at a site in a short period of time, you would first have to have the ability to do this or buy the ability from another webmaster.

I am not going to go into detail and give a bunch of folks bad ideas though, most folks that have been around know how it is done already.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

Google bowling is the ability to point thousands of links at a site in a short period of time, you would first have to have the ability to do this or buy the ability from another webmaster.

I am not going to go into detail and give a bunch of folks bad ideas though, most folks that have been around know how it is done already.

But doesn't that refute your own claim? They ranked #1 for everything they were about before the bowl, during the bowl, and after the bowl ended... what link "harmed their rankings"

I mean if you linked to me as Fathom's an Idiot and I ranked #1 for SEO do I really care if Google delists me for Fathom's an Idiot

Surely you don't believe people search for Miserable Failure to find the best domains for it... do you?

[AVC]

If you are interested in it Fathom, you can find all the data, I am not going to advertise the idea any further, I hate all spammers and hackers.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

If you are interested in it Fathom, you can find all the data, I am not going to advertise the idea any further, I hate all spammers and hackers.

You've suggested that inbound links harm domains and cite Matt Cutts references in support...

When I show a somewhat different voice of Matt Cutts citing specific quotes from that same source you provided [which you clearly didn't read] you cite Googlebowling as the real harm...

When I point out "what harm to ranks did Googlebowling do... [noting this is still about harm from inbound links] ...actually what harm did Google's prevention of Googlebowling do... you cite that you're not going to advertise something that doesn't work anymore?

Does that sum up your position accurately?

[AVC]

NO, I said I am not going to give young webmasters ideas, that is the end of it Fathom, don't try to find any other motive within the statement.

There are more than enough scams going on with link farms and so on, I really don't want to get into automated reciprocal link exchanges, I hope they are all crushed.

It is a topic that should be discussed, but Google already knows about it and we do not need to educate them.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

NO, I said I am not going to give young webmasters ideas, that is the end of it Fathom, don't try to find any other motive within the statement.

There are more than enough scams going on with link farms and so on, I really don't want to get into automated reciprocal link exchanges, I hope they are all crushed.

It is a topic that should be discussed, but Google already knows about it and we do not need to educate them.

Right ... that's what I thought... 467 posts later... I think the cat's out of the bag!

[AVC]

and the Cat is ?

Please Fathom, you are trying to win a debate here with nothing based in current reality.

Webmasters now days, at least most of them that have common sense, know that incoming links can damage your site if they are blatant reciprocal exchanges, paid for links, links from automated link farms and so on.

Read Matt Cutts blog for all the proof you wish to discover, it is all in there.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

and the Cat is ?

Please Fathom, you are trying to win a debate here with nothing based in current reality.

Webmasters now days, at least most of them that have common sense, know that incoming links can damage your site if they are blatant reciprocal exchanges, paid for links, links from automated link farms and so on.

Read Matt Cutts blog for all the proof you wish to discover, it is all in there.

I'm challenging you to meet a balanced view... so people can make up their own minds... so long as you post - I'll counter-post to keep thing in a balanced view...

Webmasters 'non-SEOs' don't have a clue who to believe and while common sense prevails your posting style of going off on tangent side-topics to cloud the issue and use lot of rhetoric to make it impossible to have a balanced discussion... but I'm not one for giving in to a challenge...

Your first post in this thread was:

Originally Posted by AVC

I thought the title of the thread was "Can inbound links really hurt you"?

The answer is yes, for sure, they can hurt you, especially if you have 2,000 links with the same anchor text and they are all coming from link farm directories, guest books and other seedy pages.

That's totally and absolutely far-fetched.

If you're not ranked and get yourself 2,000 links from some link farm directories, guest books and other seedy pages and start climbing in ranks and get yourself up to #5 and then lose it all - you lost what you shouldn't have had in the first place.

Professional advice suggests "stay away from link farm directories, guest books and other seedy pages" [and that was the advice offered pre-Google] not stay away from inbound links".

You're not helping anyone by being so vague that you mean "anything just so you don't need to commit to anything".

Link farms are the problem - not the link you might get...

Guest books are the probelm - not the link you might get...

Bidding directories are the problem - not the link you might get...

Text link ads and other PageRank manipulation scheme are the probelm - not the link you might get...

Sitewide links don't help much more than a single - but the more sitewides you have the easier it is to paint a target on you.

Be that as it may... why confuse people arguing "inbound links harm"?

Not all inbound links harm

Not all paid links harm

and actually NONE HARM... if you risk using those listed above 'exclusively' you'll lose everything they provided -- eventually... and that can hurt the ranks you got use to having but those weren't the ranks you were suppose to have... so you didn't get harmed you just got a temporary fix.

Lastly, don't tell me to read Matt's Posts - you're the one that claims to know their information wealth while bumbling your supporting claims.

[AVC]

Why is it far fetched Fathom ??

Have you ever heard of the very popular "Directory submission" services that will submit your website to 2,000 directories for $49.00 ??

Do you understand that webmasters for the last 4 years or so truly believed that the more links they had pointing to their sites from any source the higher they would rank ??

You do understand that many directories have reciprocal link options in return for giving out a "free link", right ?

Keep posting Fathom, I am more than happy to respond to your posts with more facts, many that you are unable or unwilling to face.

Fathom, if you want "proof" that incoming links can hurt a site or get one de-indexed, maybe you should purchase some "directory submission" services and let these con men handle your "SEO" for you !!!

LOL man !!!

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

Why is it far fetched Fathom ??

Have you ever heard of the very popular "Directory submission" services that will submit your website to 2,000 directories for $49.00 ??

Analogy: when you were little did you mother tell you [paraphrasing] "...don't play on the road you might get hit by a car." or "...when cars go by, look up; cause bird love to shit on cars and you're near one"!

... just because those 2,000 directories didn't likely help ranks any doesn't mean:

1. you didn't get your money's worth [how long would it take you to submit to 2,000 directories? at 1/minute = 60/hour or about $1.44/hour labor for 33 hours... MINIMUM]

2. Where does it say ranks are provided for $49?

3. The submission service didn't actually harm ranks did it? ...which is the topic of this thread...

4. Since you're paying for submissions - where are these "Paid Links"?

5. How exactly do you harm something you never got... it's a huge stretch to say any domain with good ranks would fall for $49 for 2000 directory links... that's usually reserved for mom & pop "what a search engine?"

In the end - if the service actually did submit to 2000 directories that's a bargain - I charge $49,95 for a single review at spheri.com ... if a single link was worthy of anything that's cheaper and you can bet 1 click a year from a few of them so you're ahead.

In any case - this is absolutely off-topic.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

Fathom, if you want "proof" that incoming links can hurt a site or get one de-indexed, maybe you should purchase some "directory submission" services and let these con men handle your "SEO" for you !!!

LOL man !!!

I got $50 is it ok that I submit your forum domain tomorrow?

You don't mind being "delisted"?

[AVC]

Whatever Fathom, discussing topics with you is like pissing against the wind anyway man !

You do provide a bit of entertainment though !!

[fathom]

All I could find was iNetZeal - Manual Directory Submission Service 250 directories for $40...

I don't think that's "shady enough" - anyone find more for $50?

[AVC]

Good deal Fathom, at least you made me laugh tonight man, but I need another beer to go on with you, chat on you later, it was the real deal discussing SEO, link pimping con men, reciprocal link farms and so on, and "outgoing links" too !!!

[fathom]

This looks like the ballpark
1000 Directory Submissions - $49
100% Manual Directory submission upto 1000 Directories, Cheap and free offers inside

...and no HARM!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

I guess you missed this DeepSand:

Quote from Google spam report form:

We thoroughly investigate every report of deceptive practices and take appropriate action when we uncover genuine abuse. In especially egregious cases, we will remove spammers from our index immediately, so they don't show up in search results at all.

This means if Google finds that you are working paid linking schemes, reciprocal linking schemes, one way links purchased from link broker schemes that your website can be de-indexed.

These are all "incoming links",

Actually, it is you who continue to completely miss the point as to what is being debated.

Additionally, you've obviously not yet grasped the fact that I am done trying to engage you in rational discourse, as you've proven yourself to be incapable of such.

Therefore, your continued efforts to bait me are doomed to failure.

PS - Your "smile" emoticon is so obviously phony, it begs the question as to why you bother.

[AVC]

Deepsand, you are the Piss into the wind champion here, you are much worse than Fathom, just have a good night man and think up more big words, maybe someone out there has a real time dictionary and will be able to actually understand your posts !!!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

NO, I said I am not going to give young webmasters ideas, that is the end of it Fathom, don't try to find any other motive within the statement.

There are more than enough scams going on with link farms and so on, I really don't want to get into automated reciprocal link exchanges, I hope they are all crushed.

It is a topic that should be discussed, but Google already knows about it and we do not need to educate them.

Ah, yes, the old "I have a secret so terrible that I can't divulge it, so you'll just have to trust me" line.

Pure, unadulterated BS.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Read Matt Cutts blog for all the proof you wish to discover, it is all in there.

Sage advice; try heeding it.

[AVC]

Face it Deepsand, all the big words you use that no one understands can't teach you about SEO when you have not been around all that long, nor have you seen the con men and scam artists in this business or you would know better than to make stupid posts like your last one (two).

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Google bowling is the ability to point thousands of links at a site in a short period of time, you would first have to have the ability to do this or buy the ability from another webmaster.

And, causes no harm to the target site!

[AVC]

Really, why did Matt Cutts say it was possible then ?

Maybe because it is an exploitation of the Google algorithm and a hole they have yet to plug Deepsand !!!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Deepsand, you are the Piss into the wind champion here, you are much worse than Fathom, just have a good night man and think up more big words, maybe someone out there has a real time dictionary and will be able to actually understand your posts !!!

More argumentum ad hominem?

Is that the best you can muster?

[Ne0]

hmmmm... keep getting notice about this thread but I'm not going to go back through 10+ pages to figure out what the fights about...

I will pop in to say this though... I had a chance to hang out w/ Matt Cutts a bit after his "Are paid links Evil?" track at SES San Jose - and well it seems that if you do it...don't get caught... so I asked if I could just buy links for my competitions site to get them de-indexed... you could, but then what if the Googlebot or the Spam team doesn't catch it? You just helped your competition -

Who knows what's up with the algo right now? it's been crazy these last few weeks and it's not slowing down - the DC's are all over the place... My best advice to any of you would be to get good IBL's (by link bait, quality blog comments, press releases, social networks and the like and when you have a good OBL to give... by all means DO IT

that's my .02

not sure what all the fuss is about?

NeO

[AVC]

It is about a small group here that insists that they are correct when their positions are contrary to the real facts, to the truth and to today's reality, sort of like Republican's who still cling to the belief that Bush and Cheney did what was right for America as we head into bankruptcy and an economic depression.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Face it Deepsand, all the big words you use that no one understands can't teach you about SEO when you have not been around all that long, nor have you seen the con men and scam artists in this business or you would know better than to make stupid posts like your last one (two).

Assumes so many, many facts not in evidence.

Given your continued juvenile behavior, and your obviously not yet fully developed sense of rationality, one might deduce that you are considerably younger than myself, and have yet to come to fully grasp the extent of your own ignorance, to gain that wisdom which accrues with age.

"As grows the circle of light, so grows the circle of darkness." - an ancient American Indian adage

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Ne0

not sure what all the fuss is about?

Me neither... I rather enjoyed the dribble!

[AVC]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Assumes so many, many facts not in evidence.

Given your continued juvenile behavior, and your obviously not yet fully developed sense of rationality, one might deduce that you are considerably younger than myself, and have yet to come to fully grasp the extent of your own ignorance, to gain that wisdom which accrues with age.

"As grows the circle of light, so grows the circle of darkness." - an ancient American Indian adage

Thanks Deepsand, that lingo hit the spot, your prose is fantastic but the logic does not add up, that's the bottom line.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Face it Deepsand, all the big words you use that no one understands

You would be well advised to not speak for others; they may very well understand words whose meanings elude you.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by fathom

Me neither... I rather enjoyed the dribble!

And, maybe we'll learn how to levitate birds, too!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Thanks Deepsand, that lingo hit the spot, your prose is fantastic but the logic does not add up, that's the bottom line.

Wait until you come to understand logic; then you'll get it.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Really, why did Matt Cutts say it was possible then ?

Maybe because it is an exploitation of the Google algorithm and a hole they have yet to plug Deepsand !!!

Draws a conclusion based on facts not in evidence.

[deepsand]

■■■■■■

[AVC]

You hit 1,000 posts tonight Deepsand, no need to keep spamming with worthless posts one after the other man, we know you're still here !!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

You hit 1,000 posts tonight Deepsand, no need to keep spamming with worthless posts one after the other man, we know you're still here !!

You've obviously mistaken me for one who gives a damn about what you have to opine.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

We've a name for one such as yourself in the Navy - Sea Lawyer.

[galide]

that's my .02

not sure what all the fuss is about?

The whole fuss is about people making a fuss of nothing - we all agree that paid links can hurt a site.

[galide]

I am now close to 100 posts by the way, time to switch links in my signature, and demonstrate that it cannot hurt.

I will target "problems with outsourcing SEO", and link to this blog (not mine )

This blog doesn't attract any traffic whatsoever. Let's see when I switch over my signature. If you are interested in the actual data, just PM me, more than happy to share them.