Can inbound links really hurt you?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

So what is the thread really about Deepsand ??

Is is about the issue you attempted to divert the subject to ??

Please explain to the readers what this thread is really about if you would.

The Bench summarily dismisses the Sea Lawyer's transparent attempt to enter into testimony conclusion(s) based on facts not in evidence.

[Ne0]

you know what this thread needs? MORE COWBELL!


Seriously though... maybe you guys should arm wrestle?

What I don't understand is how arguing is helping anyones website... for that matter, why don't you guys both run different tests and share your findings for the betterment of the community.

That I could get behind! And I would be interested in the results of your tests!

Then if someone can be proven wrong based on a set of tests... the other side concedes shakes hands and Viola! We're all better for the thread

get my drift?

DB

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Now it is time for Fathom (Moses) to used diversionary tactics (pathological lies) that he dreamed up, assuming that I was involved in Bidding Directory link farms in a vain attempt to save face.

That is great Fathom, try to get to the promised land (Moses) by fabrication of lunacy and unfounded lies, and at the same time insult the intelligence of the SEO community by thinking they are dumb enough to fall for your ineptitude.

To repeat, why do you persist in making juvenile ad hominem attacks?

Do you not understand that such brings naught but discredit to yourself?

Now, that's an example of a very real negative PR value!

[AVC]

Do we need tests Neo ??

Just search on Google de-indexed web directories - Google Search

DEEPSAND, your continued silly posts are making you look silly, wake up man and figure out that you are on a webmaster forum making a major joke out of yourself.

Your vain attempts at trying to moderate this thread and your reporting posts is not going to help someone like you who has no idea of what staying on topic really means.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Ne0

you know what this thread needs? MORE COWBELL!

Seriously though... maybe you guys should arm wrestle?

What I don't understand is how arguing is helping anyones website... for that matter, why don't you guys both run different tests and share your findings for the betterment of the community.

That I could get behind! And I would be interested in the results of your tests!

Then if someone can be proven wrong based on a set of tests... the other side concedes shakes hands and Viola! We're all better for the thread

get my drift?

DB

Those who claim to be able to use passively obtained IBLS to cause such harm have declined to provide empirical proof, of any kind, claiming that their's is information too dangerous to be divulged!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

DEEPSAND, your continued silly posts are making you look silly, wake up man and figure out that you are on a webmaster forum making a major joke out of yourself.

Your vain attempts at trying to moderate this thread and your reporting posts is not going to help someone like you who has no idea of what staying on topic really means.

This from one who tried to suck up to Dave by assuming the role of Moderator's Pet?

[Ne0]

Originally Posted by AVC

Do we need tests Neo ??

Just search on Google de-indexed web directories - Google Search

DEEPSAND, your continued silly posts are making you look silly, wake up man and figure out that you are on a webmaster forum making a major joke out of yourself.

Your vain attempts at trying to moderate this thread and your reporting posts is not going to help someone like you who has no idea of what staying on topic really means.

So because a lot of the directories got hit last August... and got de-indexed that means that you shouldn't have links in directories anymore?

I disagree... Of course there's stipulations to my disagreeing...

If your submitting to directories purely for the IBL then YES I agree = WORTHLESS!

If your submitting to directories because they drive traffic to your site, and you see the value in getting as many eyeballs to your site as possible = DO IT!

Plain and simple, every webmaster is going to have to make this decision for themselves when they get to the bridge... do we cross it or not? I've bought links for clients.... do I try and talk them out of it? Yeah... we've had some win's and some losses - what's more important though? Short term success or long term growth and building authority? It's all dependant on your paradigm.

So to answer the threads original question -

Can inbound links really hurt you?

I say no...

Can paid links hurt you?

you bet your a$$!

.02

DB

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Hard to answer simple questions that 99% of webmasters already know the answer to Deepsand, I know, I posted such already in this thread about "your side".

I will allow other members to fill you in, because I for one am not looking for you to give any proper responses on this forum, I know your track record here.

Thank you for publicly admitting that you have no intent at engaging in rational discourse.

Thank you for confirming that my initial appraisal of you and your presence here was most accurate.

As for your track record, labeling the page at www-internetnamebank-com/softwaredesign-html as "IT, SEO, Web Design, Computer Software, services and applications," and filling it with junk ads touting "Guaranteed Page 1 Ranking," "Free URL Submission," "Free Web Site Traffic?" and free "Search engine submission" suffices to tell someone like myself, whose IT experience spans 49 years, that one should not look to you for IT services and/or applications.

[AVC]

Funny Deepsand, I guess you started punching cards at IBM then ???

I guess that would make you about 69 years old then, or your Information Technology know how started when you were a gleam in your Daddy's eye ?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Funny Deepsand, I guess you started punching cards at IBM then ???

I guess that would make you about 69 years old then, or your Information Technology know how started when you were a gleam in your Daddy's eye ?

Not quite; I started punching tape, in octal machine code, for PENNSTAC, at age 12. See pennstac

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Ne0

Can inbound links really hurt you?

I say no...

Can paid links hurt you?

you bet your a$$!

.02

DB

Here's my problem with you understanding of things... maybe we merely view the meaning of words differently:

1. define "paid links" -

2. define "hurt" -

For #1 for me... "Paid Links"... any service offered where a hyperlink is the primary products or a benefit or features of some products added value "AND" a monetary payment changes hands for that service/product including any benefits or features.

e.g. almost all industry associations charge dues and provide a link for members... that suggests the link is paid,

ppi directories like yahoo charge for a review the link in association is paid for (unlike your reference Yahoo doesn't charge for traffic from their directory so it's easy to misinterpret your context,

but even a specific industry resource like a blog can charge for ad space and that can be similiar to textlinkads

what's your version of criteria to define what is and is not a "PAID LINK" [Dave suggests a paid link is "sitewide" and "unrelated" -- yours?


For #2 for me... "Hurt"... to cause damage to your current exposure to the detriment of any and all good merits or methods used... in short; what Google leans towards when they say [paraphrasing] that wee little bit a competitor can do to harm you. {there is almost nothing...} -- to me that really suggests 'if they're ranking above you - that is harm to your exposure' but as for them doing something directly to you that will influence a ranking drop - isn't what they mean...

In your suggested hurt [the way I understand your meaning] if you have volumes of solid content that supports lots of dot.gov & dot.edu links - those do not matter anymore because you have intentional, unintentional, or someone else has placed the worst of any "paid links" to you domain -- e.g. AVC noted bidding directories? To me if I'm on Page 2 and can't seem to get to page one getting 'good links'... you can bet if the wealth of SEO experience says bidding directories' negative values will overpower all other links positive values... it only makes sense to use that... Negative SEO insight [much like Googlebowling did] if for no better reason than the competitor not knowing you did and Google indifferent [according to your talk with Matt that is his suggested stance... I would be "helping the competitor" if Google doesn't detect... or is that merely deceptive dialog so I wouldn't attempt it?

These definitions IMHO cover all eventualities, any possible event or occurrence or result... of Paid or Hurt and if yours is something less... maybe that's what's important to convey to the membership.

IMHO defining "precisely" what is "paid" and what is "hurt" are the #1 & #2 reasons this remains unresolved.

[AVC]

Google knows they are paid links (if they are coming out of known link seller sites) or "fake links" (in the case of blog spamming free blogs), they also know you are buying links if 90% of your links have similar anchor text.

That is how incoming links can hurt you, because G knows who is selling links (directory promoters and link brokers), they have taken down entire link broker built networks many times already and all the sites the link broker controlled or created.

[crankydave]

Fathom...

Matt Cutts said...
"Now every bad guy out there can kill the competition with a well targetted link campaign."

Hey Terry. We do work hard (and I'm sure the other search engines do too) to try to prevent one site from hurting another site like this.

December 5, 2007 10:40 AM

Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Information about buying and selling links that pass PageRank

Pretty direct suggestion that it *can* happen no?

Dave

BTW... An interesting read for those who haven't seen it.

[inertia]

Wow! You guys are still here?!

Is this becomes the biggest thread in the forum should i feel proud or embarrassed?

[AVC]

Originally Posted by crankydave

BTW... An interesting read for those who haven't seen it.

Yes indeed Dave, Matt Cutts pretty much busted an interlinked directory operation, this guy was one of the main promoters on Digital Point who pretty much purchased everyone's signature links there, spamming the forum to sell links and that lead to the directory crash. This same operator partnered with John Scott and set up the contextual link selling network, so Cutt's busted the right guy for sure.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Fathom...



Pretty direct suggestion that it *can* happen no?

Dave

BTW... An interesting read for those who haven't seen it.

Are you sure you got your "suggestion correct"? I'm absolutely positive you're wrong... Matt never said the word "CAN" ...and IMHO you read what you wanted to see in the comment.

I'm sure mistakes happen... there are always side-effects - things they never intended to do... but to say anyone can point bad links at another domain to negate all their good ones... "isn't what Matt Said"...

In fact; the first line was a snippet quote from someone else and not a quote from Matt - [the guy who posed the question]... Matt's only reply was:

Hey Terry. We do work hard (and I'm sure the other search engines do too) to try to prevent one site from hurting another site like this.

To me that rings the reverse of what you think it says...

But keeping an open mind it sure sounded more like "avoiding the question" not answering it.... don't you think - We [Google] - huh well all search engines try hard to prevent "1 SITE" from hurting another "SITE"... that vague affirmation on all search engines isn't a strong metphor for "this is it boys - I'm confirming your worse fears... suck it up boys!" Does MSN & Yahoo penalize in this way [or is his meaning more about common knowldge stuff]

But to me that sounds familiar... it sound like what I'll been saying - a link can't USUALLY harm... we try hard to only prevent link value from passing... rather than forcing penalties down the river.

He was talking about sites not owners of sites... domains that get penalized don't easily pass their penalties on... [which is true - isn't it?]

[fathom]

I don't have a clue what Matt actually meant... but if you rephrased the question to far better specifics I think you'll get a different answer.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by fathom

Are you sure you got your "suggestion correct"? I'm absolutely positive you're wrong... Matt never said the word "CAN" ...and IMHO you read what you wanted to see in the comment.

I'm sure mistakes happen... there are always side-effects - things they never intended to do... but to say anyone can point bad links at another domain to negate all their good ones... "isn't what Matt Said"...

In fact; the first line was a snippet quote from someone else and not a quote from Matt - [the guy who posed the question]... Matt's only reply was:

Hey Terry. We do work hard (and I'm sure the other search engines do too) to try to prevent one site from hurting another site like this.

To me that rings the reverse of what you think it says...

But keeping an open mind it sure sounded more like "avoiding the question" not answering it.... don't you think - We [Google] - huh well all search engines try hard to prevent "1 SITE" from hurting another "SITE"... that vague affirmation on all search engines isn't a strong metphor for "this is it boys - I'm confirming your worse fears... suck it up boys!" Does MSN & Yahoo penalize in this way [or is his meaning more about common knowldge stuff]

But to me that sounds familiar... it sound like what I'll been saying - a link can't USUALLY harm... we try hard to only prevent link value from passing... rather than forcing penalties down the river.

He was talking about sites not owners of sites... domains that get penalized don't easily pass their penalties on... [which is true - isn't it?]

I believe I have the "suggestion" correct. Google has never said CAN'T either. They have always been consistant with "Try hard to prevent..." Why put preventative measures in place if it can't happen?

I realize the first snippet is a quote. A direct statement made that MC chose to respond to.