Can inbound links really hurt you?

[galide]

Ok, here we go, in a few seconds, I am done with this thread!!! A thread which is clearly showing that a thread is not about a specific topic, but about the ego of people posting on it.

Nobody cares about what is actually written (otherwise this thread would have stopped at page 2!), but everyone here cares about the creit they give to themselves.

[galide]

That's it, 100 Posts! And my signature switch now. Let's see if the blog looses the few visitors / day, or if traffic increases

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by fathom

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...

Google says IBL's can harm in the guidelines! Irrefutable proof that IBL's can cause harm... especially "paid" links. What is "paid" is opaque... whether you could be harmed by a competitor is questionable or at the very least IMO, a new risk/consideration... but according to Google that's for everyone's benefit. I agree with Google to some extent as the Magna Carta like status the PR paper posesses is indicative of how SEO's act when given complete transparency. It is like giving candy to a baby... many will eat til they puke all over someone.

Harm is a subjective description hence the debate is seemingly just a lengthy exercise in semantics 101. IMO, debate steeped in definitives is why joepublic trusts no one... with good reason! I often hear from the terminally confused... they don't know who to believe or how to sort the BS from the shinola. I've been doin' this for a long time and some of this is confusing to me... one has to wonder what joepublic thinks when they see this kind of debate.

Originally Posted by fathom

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.

I agree that rank/position should be earned and if you build success based on manipulation|deception|risky tactics, rather than reputation built via content you have chosen a temporary fix/solution to a long term problem. But... I think SEO's obsession with links is nonsense and link development has been given way more focus then it deserves, so...

I am only interested because I manage a website that may affect members sites so I need to figure out if public posting of members sites is a risk. To what degree is it a risk. Are all Org OBL's to members affected or only those not labelled/put in the context of "sponsored". I may put the members list in a secure area because the only way to be sure Google isn't going to misinterpret the Org or the member's motives is to remove the need to interpret our motives. The trust in "the machine" has waned.... unfortunately, IMO, this will/can change how websites are developed, monetized and free useful information could disappear behind a firewall because that is looking like the only way to completely remove and doubts on the part of Google or the Members. Something is wrong when webmasters/Organizations have to make that decision.

[AVC]

Originally Posted by galide

Ok, here we go, in a few seconds, I am done with this thread!!! A thread which is clearly showing that a thread is not about a specific topic, but about the ego of people posting on it.

Nobody cares about what is actually written (otherwise this thread would have stopped at page 2!), but everyone here cares about the creit they give to themselves.

Maybe your ego is boosted by posting in threads and signature spamming, but some of us do it for the love of the topic, not for vanity's sake and to boast.

You using this thread to find out if your rank is effected by signature links is a waste of time, all of us who have been around know your test will be flawed and can not be taken seriously one way or an other, Google SERP's change daily for the sake of change and re-indexing, you will not gain rank by pointing signature links at anything.

[deepsand]

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..

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Maybe your ego is boosted by posting in threads and signature spamming, but some of us do it for the love of the topic, not for vanity's sake and to boast.

Why do you persist with the juvenile ad hominem attacks?

Originally Posted by AVC

You using this thread to find out if your rank is effected by signature links is a waste of time, all of us who have been around know your test will be flawed and can not be taken seriously one way or an other, Google SERP's change daily for the sake of change and re-indexing, you will not gain rank by pointing signature links at anything.

If you took the time to carefully read galide's posts, and honestly respond, you would know that he does not expect that which you here falsely claim that he seeks.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Google says IBL's can harm in the guidelines! Irrefutable proof that IBL's can cause harm...

Choose words carefully:

Surely you mean "if you buy paid links and Google will prevent any value from coming from them [when they find them] and that's the "harm" you speak of... Not Google finds paid links so it kills off all non-paid links as well like your DMOZ Link and Chamber of Commerce link and Your State association dot.gov links... Surely you're in error there? Or did you simply mis-speak?

Losing something you're not suppose to have isn't harm [IMHO]... You stole you neighbor's car - did the police 'harm you' by taking it away from you? You borrowed the boss's wife... when he takes her back did that actually 'harm you'?

I agree that if you invest in paid links those links can be made "worthless"... and that is what Google said but I disagree that Google will intentionally HARM all the good links you got (IF ANY).just to prove a point.

Be that as it may - get Matt Cutts or Google to admit to overkill [doing evil] or show irrefutable proof that Google said [paraphrasing] DMOZ links are great but if you buy paid links we'll kill off your non-paid ones as well.

It's far better to say "if you want sustainable ranks use ONLY these link types and AVOID these... rather than loosely defined "inbound links" or even paid links... Yahoo is a "paid link" and a Yahoo inbound link will NEVER HARM, HURT, or be DEVALUED (unless Yahoo is bought out by Microsoft).

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by fathom

It's far better to say "if you want sustainable ranks use ONLY these link types and AVOID these... rather than loosely defined "inbound links" or even paid links... Yahoo is a "paid link" and a Yahoo inbound link will NEVER HARM, HURT, or be DEVALUED (unless Yahoo is bought out by Microsoft).

NEVER HARM, HURT, or be DEVALUED you have no way of knowing that to be true. Never is a big word, capitalizing it is even more definitive. The bottom line is that Yahoo! could be devalued if it started selling PR by the lb. and turning the directory into the biggest spam machine ever ie:what it was just before Google started providing search results oh so many moons ago. All the spam in the directory had turned it into a waste of disk space!

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by fathom

Choose words carefully:

Surely you mean "if you buy paid links and Google will prevent any value from coming from them [when they find them] and that's the "harm" you speak of...

Yes that was what I meant. That said, they also include sellers but aren't really specific about how that works. I would make the point that this is the part of the changes to the guidelines that no one knows for sure so... IMO, you are adding risk and there is possibility or the potential for harm depending on how Google uses the sellers algo. CrankyDave has shared his experience... so I choose to at least take it under advisement... to do otherwise is to just take some old "IBL's can't hurt you deal we had in the past" put on the blinders and go forward thinking nothing has changed... when Google adds a new page to the guidelines you know there is a lot more to it then what meets the eye at first glance!

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

NEVER HARM, HURT, or be DEVALUED you have no way of knowing that to be true. Never is a big word, capitalizing it is even more definitive. The bottom line is that Yahoo! could be devalued if it started selling PR by the lb. and turning the directory into the biggest spam machine ever ie:what it was just before Google started providing search results oh so many moons ago. All the spam in the directory had turned it into a waste of disk space!

Ya point taken... BUT the other word that means "have no way of knowing that to be true"... is "IF"! ... IF Google shareholders all took them money and ran... Yahoo could do whatever it wanted... Google's bankrupt!

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

CrankyDave has shared his experience... so I choose to at least take it under advisement...

At best a side effect of something else [much like Google's PR0 on YouTube a while back... Whoops! ...it wasn't suppose to do that!]

Dave's experiment [ok under advisement... it's true for ther sake of argument - what's actually true though?]

Dave's experiement didn't even test "paid links" [a series of patterns that resemble 'paid link adverts] -- it assumed that a paid link is a sidewide link, and not just that the topic of the linking domain differs from that of the receiving domain.

Consequently, if I take Dave's conclusion at face value... it isn't the "paid" part that negatively affect his experiement, and it may not even be the sitewide part... it could have been the "unrelated part"... which is it? ...

That's why when you're advising memberships of your first-hand experiment you allow scrutiny of the data... not your word.

[AVC]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Why do you persist with the juvenile ad hominem attacks?



If you took the time to carefully read galide's posts, and honestly respond, you would know that he does not expect that which you here falsely claim that he seeks.

OK, then what was he trying to do then with his "100 trumped up signature links" DeepSand ??

I imagine you have a good idea with your posting track record here.

[kgun]

Only a reminder:

Originally Posted by AVC

The burden of proof is upon the man who started the issue, not on those questioning you, so put up your facts and proof or move on.

Source: Sell your Google stock NOW! It will be worth pennies!

[kgun]

Originally Posted by galide

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

Not they can not.

1. A priori they can give you a positive or zero (>= 0) effect without rel="nofollow".
2. A posteriori the effect can be zero where deleted from the index, that is completely zeroed out is the lower limit.

I thought paid links was fully discussed here:

The Ongoing PageRank Massacre Hits Big Players

Eliminating an undeserved positive or manipulative effect is no hurt in my understanding of the original posters intentinon of the topic.

Please return to 2nd post that answered the question and the 3rd that confirmed it.

The only addition is IMO that algorithms are not perfect. Hopefully they are getting better. That has also been discussed.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by kgun

Please return to the first three post, that has answered that topic.

While I agree... it was the fourth that basically said "the first 3 were wrong"... and the flood gates opens and we're here on page #11... still debating the different views of posts 4 (same as 2 & 3) & 5 (with suggested first hand experience and a mod) ... and the flood gates opened up and while Noah is floating on top of the waters -- Moses is parting them...

[AVC]

Face it guys, we have a contingent of members here beaming with pride that were proved WRONG who will not give up, that is the only reason this thread goes on.

You guys want to save face so much that you continue to take hits and look even worse.

Now lick your wounds, clean up the mess you all have created by being stubborn and clinging to the false belief that you are correct and face the truth, you lost, you were beaten, the truth and facts are not on your side, nor is the worldwide community of webmasters.

Fathom portraying himself as Moses leading all to the SEO promised land takes the cake and really illustrates what I say above in real terms.

Now we can all laugh, at least the thread was a success for WPW.