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.