Can inbound links really hurt you?

[inertia]

Originally Posted by janeth

That was not a minute detail. You made a stamen that incoming links can hurt you and showed an example of them not helping.

Someone not paying attention could have left thinking you had proven that incoming links hurt. What you see has a minute thing I see as bad information.

Anyone paying attention would have understood my post and the point i was trying to make.

[jawn_tech]

I will agree that Google does put out just a hint of ambiguity in their answers and statements. The word "generally" came up again: here.

And I do have to agree with Janeth. I think whether or not something isn't helping or if something isn't hurting isn't just a minor detail, it's the crux of the matter.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by inertia

From first impressions it sounds like your links were discounted or had their PR dropped. This is an example of how in-bound links can hurt you.

And it's not. It is not an example of how inbound links can hurt.

Originally Posted by inertia

Anyone paying attention would have understood my post and the point i was trying to make.

Kind of like saying that gas is bad for your car because when it runs out the car stops running.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

I will agree that Google does put out just a hint of ambiguity in their answers and statements. The word "generally" came up again: here.

And I do have to agree with Janeth. I think whether or not something isn't helping or if something isn't hurting isn't just a minor detail, it's the crux of the matter.

In general, you don't have to worry about bad links like that which point to your site that aren't under your control.

Leaves a lot of room for thought. I guess we could buy a name and see if we could get it banned with incoming links.

Although hurting does not mean that it has to get banned.

[Mel]

IMO trying to insure that you can be absolutely certain of anything when doing SEO is fruitless.

Each of us has to study the hints that Google and other search engines give us, conduct experiments with a realization that the circumstances are generally beyond our control (in fact we may not be aware of most of them), read patents and white papers and engage in discussions with our peers, then put your conclusions in action and see if they work.

If someone wants to believe that inbound links can hurt a site then he is free to forgo incoming links (and probably rankings too) while others like myself who do not believe that can continue to work hard at getting good relevant links.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

I will agree that Google does put out just a hint of ambiguity in their answers and statements. The word "generally" came up again: here.

It's called "maintaining plausible deniability."

[jawn_tech]

More like covering their tails legally in case someone figures out how to do it. If they answered with a flat 'no', and someone finds a loophole, they've made a promise they can't keep. If they said a flat 'yes', people would freak out to no end.

[deepsand]

Such cover is an intended goal of "plausible deniability."

[jawn_tech]

Definitely a more highbrow approach than saying "covering their a__..."

[deepsand]

In "polite" conversation it goes by the acronym CYA.

[OpticBurst.com]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

Definitely a more highbrow approach than saying "covering their a__..."

LOL

[shilpamg]

I think no. If you have the most relevant incoming link for your website then it may increase the PR of your website.

[UTOPIA]

I was always of the opinion that inbound links can't hurt your site, as it would leave open the possibility of sabotage towards your competitors. But saying that, who really knows for certain?!

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by UTOPIA

I was always of the opinion that inbound links can't hurt your site, as it would leave open the possibility of sabotage towards your competitors. But saying that, who really knows for certain?!

Ummm... I strongly urge you read the update to the Google Webmaster Guidelines. Pay special attention to the part discussing what could happen by buying links. Understand that there is no way for Google to know who actually bought the link, only that a paid link points at a site. So... If I really want to screw with you I find a bunch of directories selling PR by the pound and sign your site up on them. This is becoming known as Negative SEO and yes IBLs can hurt you by adding tociity to your link profile.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Ummm... I strongly urge you read the update to the Google Webmaster Guidelines. Pay special attention to the part discussing what could happen by buying links. Understand that there is no way for Google to know who actually bought the link, only that a paid link points at a site. So... If I really want to screw with you I find a bunch of directories selling PR by the pound and sign your site up on them. This is becoming known as Negative SEO and yes IBLs can hurt you by adding tociity to your link profile.

I simply want to point out what has been echoed throughout this thread and you just reinforced Terry...

1. Build and maintain a good link profile from the very start. Doesn't matter how you choose to do it, just be prudent in the links you build and how you choose to do it.

2. Perception is everything. If someone gets a call from Google, or any other SE for that matter, that starts out with... "Hey... this is Google, just wanted to know if you bought this link or not..." or... " Hi this is Google, is this link your doing?" please let me know. In the end, doesn't matter if you did it, hire someone who "did it" or someone "did it to you", again, perception is everything.

3. Negative SEO is nothing new. Negative "anything" is nothing new. When's the last time an election contained no negative attacts? Look at Comcast and Dish. I'll be willing to bet they spend as much, if not more, money on bashing each other than they do promoting themselves. It's certainly not on "customer service".

There's not a single SE out there (that weights links) that is going to come out and definitively say that "links beyond your control can't ever hurt you. Talk about an open invitation.

Dave

[janeth]

I've not heard of anyone getting their site banned for buying links.

However, from time to time things affect a site that Google themselves are unaware of.

[GooglePlex]

Originally Posted by janeth

I've not heard of anyone getting their site banned for buying links.

However, from time to time things affect a site that Google themselves are unaware of.

It is very possible to get your site banned for buying links if Google somehow finds out... The only time your site gets banned/penalized is for content on your site (hidden text/links, etc) because Google can actually attribute the blackhat/againstTOS methods as being from your site...

This is why inbound links very rarely hurt a site.... That is, because others can link to you without your knowledge, so google doesn't want to hold you accountable.

That being said, for very new sites with very questionable backlink profiles, Google can mark them as spam and penalize/ban them... However this can be avoided extremely easily by not creating new pages with spammy/directory/link exchage/forum/blogger links and letting a link profile get created organically by actually provided a service with your website that will promote backlinks, but thats seo 101...

[janeth]

Originally Posted by GooglePlex

It is very possible to get your site banned for buying links if Google somehow finds out...

I've never seen it happen.

Originally Posted by GooglePlex

The only time your site gets banned/penalized is for content on your site (hidden text/links, etc) because Google can actually attribute the blackhat/againstTOS methods as being from your site...

LOL, are you debating yourself?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

LOL, are you debating yourself?

I was about to ask the same question, but decided that it was most likely a waste of time.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by GooglePlex

LOL
Um, you've never seen it happen doesn't mean its never happened.

You’re not being able to show proof to back up what you’re saying says a lot. Stating something as if it is fact does not make it so.

Originally Posted by GooglePlex

The point i was trying to make was that inboud links to a new site can have a negative effect, but not with a well established site..

Once again, where is your proof or is this just another opinion?

Originally Posted by GooglePlex

The goal of google is to provide organic results,

The goal of Google is to make money.

Originally Posted by GooglePlex

the purchasing of links is completely contrary to this result...

No it’s not.

Most people that are willing to spend money on a site and purchase links that will drive traffic to a site are going to be the same people that are going to make sure that the landing pages are set up to convert the traffic that lands on the site.

Google wants to give the end user good results to keep them coming back for more.

That would be a good result.

Originally Posted by GooglePlex

Anyways, LOL, thanks for being a total douche... I appreciate it.
LOL

Douche:

a jet or current of water, sometimes with a dissolved medicating or cleansing agent, applied to a body part, organ, or cavity for medicinal or hygienic purposes.

I guess you’re trying to say that I'm the medication for your brain and it is like a jet stream of knowledge.

Glad I could be of help.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by GooglePlex

Um, you've never seen it happen doesn't mean its never happened.
Thanks for being an a$$hole.

Editing may seem undo your original words, but they are indelibly captured in subscription e-mail alerts.

Now, how about addressing your earlier self-contradiction, when you said

"It is very possible to get your site banned for buying links if Google somehow finds out"

and

"The only time your site gets banned/penalized is for content on your site."

[janeth]

Originally Posted by GooglePlex

The only time your site gets banned/penalized is for content on your site (hidden text/links, etc) because Google can actually attribute the blackhat/againstTOS methods as being from your site...

I'm just glad to know that

1. Multiple Copies Of Similar Content

2. 1 x 1 Pixel Images

3. Cloaking

4. Linking to link farms and other suspicious/low-quality sites

5. Building one site for the search engines and another for the site visitor

6. Making the site appear to be for one thing when it is really for another.

Will not get my site banned.

Thanks for that information.

[full house]

thanks for sharing! how did you know all that?any source?

3. Cloaking

4. Linking to link farms and other suspicious/low-quality sites

those 2 are very common that google hates and definitely a spam.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by full house

thanks for sharing! how did you know all that?any source?

How did who know what?

Originally Posted by full house

those 2 are very common that google hates and definitely a spam.

Spam is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to indiscriminately send unsolicited bulk messages not sure how either of those would be spam.

However, GooglePlex has assured us that neither will harm our sites.

[2fk]

Originally Posted by janeth

I'm just glad to know that

1. Multiple Copies Of Similar Content

2. 1 x 1 Pixel Images

3. Cloaking

4. Linking to link farms and other suspicious/low-quality sites

5. Building one site for the search engines and another for the site visitor

6. Making the site appear to be for one thing when it is really for another.

Will not get my site banned.

Thanks for that information.

This kind of techniques will definitely get you banned from google.. i'm wondering why such 1x1 pixel images is included.. i mean there are sites that use this image in order to track traffic...how does this thing is being used as a spam?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by 2fk

This kind of techniques will definitely get you banned from google.. i'm wondering why such 1x1 pixel images is included.. i mean there are sites that use this image in order to track traffic...how does this thing is being used as a spam?

It should have been a 1 x 1 Pixel Image with a link.

[full house]

It should have been a 1 x 1 Pixel Image with a link.

really? image with that size can help you boost your SERP?

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by full house

really? image with that size can help you boost your SERP?

Google will ban you for doing it, so the answer to that would be "no", it won't boost your SERP.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by full house

really? image with that size can help you boost your SERP?

I was trying to show GooglePlex how wrong he was.

Sorry

[mgk]

I think relevancy is an important factor here. But sites pointing to your site are like votes. The more votes you can obtain, the better chance you have in winning the election, or in this case, top of Google.

[full house]

Originally Posted by janeth

I was trying to show GooglePlex how wrong he was.

Sorry

thanks for the clarification. . . I was really shock after reading that!

[JUSTADDMUSCLE.COM]

Can inbound links hurt the PR of the website?

[cz]

Welcome to WPW JAM! Please read the entire thread to gain more clarity on your question. There's no hard answer to your question - so many variables that you need to understand. You must sift through the replies and find if/when IBL's harm your site's PR.

[deepsand]

As has been repeatedly pointed out, both in this and other threads, there is no evidence of harm.

One needs to make the distinction between "doing harm" and "not helping."

"Harm" would be manifested by way of a "negative" factor; "not helping," the absence of a "positive" one.

"Bad" IBLs are simply discounted. I.e., they count less than do "good" IBLs; or, not at all. They are not given a negative value.

[Webnauts]

If you have a page on your web site which for some reason you don't want it to be indexed, and you disallowed it in your robots.txt, google will still index that page if it is linked from another web site.

That is the only thing you might would possibly need to worry about. Otherwise the is no reason to worry about IBLs.

So to make things more clear here, if a adult site is linking to your site, and your site has nothing to do with adult stuff, Google will not define your site of being related or relevant to that.

Are you things more clear now?

[full house]

just a question, recently one of my site got in 3rd position from 250. then after 2 weeks or so it went down to top 800 and haven't get back. . . Is this because of links or something?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by full house

just a question, recently one of my site got in 3rd position from 250. then after 2 weeks or so it went down to top 800 and haven't get back. . . Is this because of links or something?

Off-topic.

Try Site no longer appear in results for top keywords

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by xuchunfeng1984

i dont think so, my friend.

You don't think so about what?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by xuchunfeng1984

i dont think so, my friend.

What don't you think so?

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

If you have a page on your web site which for some reason you don't want it to be indexed, and you disallowed it in your robots.txt, google will still index that page if it is linked from another web site.

Hmmm... that would be contrary to what it should do, since the Googlebot does follow the commands in the robots.txt. How do you know that it is ignoring it? If that is the case then why even bother to check for it?

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by deepsand

As has been repeatedly pointed out, both in this and other threads, there is no evidence of harm.

Google mentions explicitly in the guidelines that a paid IBL can have negative affects that can harm a site so... how can you need any more proof than that? Read the Google webmaster blog discussion on paid links. Matt actually admits that is the case, but, waffles by adding they are careful when investigating. If IBL's can't harm how is Negative SEO possible?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Hmmm... that would be contrary to what it should do, since the Googlebot does follow the commands in the robots.txt. How do you know that it is ignoring it? If that is the case then why even bother to check for it?

What is the new robots.txt directive "noindex" for, supported only by Google? Or what about the implementation of X-Robots?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Google mentions explicitly in the guidelines that a paid IBL can have negative affects that can harm a site so... how can you need any more proof than that? Read the Google webmaster blog discussion on paid links. Matt actually admits that is the case, but, waffles by adding they are careful when investigating. If IBL's can't harm how is Negative SEO possible?

Come on Terry. Lets get back to the ground.
Are you telling here that if I would pay for links to link to you, and then for example I would report that to Google, you will get hurt? If that is what you are claiming, good to know!

Side Note: Live chat Q&A, Googlers Matt Cutts and Maile Ohye, among others:

Do backlinks from bad sites negatively affect my PageRank?
Those links might be positively affecting your PageRank (PageRank does not go down from "bad" links like those from adult sites). In general, you don't have to worry about bad links like that which point to your site that aren't under your control.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Google mentions explicitly in the guidelines that a paid IBL can have negative affects that can harm a site so... how can you need any more proof than that? Read the Google webmaster blog discussion on paid links. Matt actually admits that is the case, but, waffles by adding they are careful when investigating.

To repeat, it is necessary to make the distinction between "doing harm" and "not helping."

Paid IBLs that are discounted are "not helping." There is no evidence that such links are assigned a negative value, which would be necessary in order for them to "do harm."

As for Matt's statements, the greatest problem is that he speaks in a manner most imprecise, such that he frequently contradicts both observed facts and himself.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

If IBL's can't harm how is Negative SEO possible?

Proof, please.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Come on Terry. Lets get back to the ground.
Are you telling here that if I would pay for links to link to you, and then for example I would report that to Google, you will get hurt? If that is what you are claiming, good to know!

Read the Google webmaster guidelines, in particular the info on paid links. Then tell me that what I've posted is not true and easily done because people selling links generally don't review sites because they are selling PR by the kilo. It might be that you also have to toxify my link profile before it works that simply but yes I do believe that it is at least possible. If it's possible... then count on Blackhats to figure out how, develop lists to buy links from and toxify the link profile. That's better than cloaking since it's virtually impossible to catch. I wouldn't even know which links to cleanup unless I went outside my own records.

To insist the old premise that "IBLs can't hurt" when it's plain as day in the Google webmaster Guidelines... and acknowledged by Matt in the Google webmaster blog that there is at least the possibility of harm to both buyers and sellers of links is IMO, Professionally irresponsible. It is not very prudent to ignore the possibility when Google is going out of their way to inform everyone that the possibility now exists. Tell bloggers that selling links won't hurt you and see how long it takes for them to tell you otherwise.

[SIA]

Ok all, I have heard all sides of this. The plate is hot, the plate isn't hot, and the plate may be hot.

It's time for me to grab the plate.

I have registered a domain for obvious reasons (google spies, I'm talking to you ) I am not going to say the domain just yet. But I am going to nothing for the site but black hat SEO it. The domain has been registered through someone other than the company I normally use. The hosting is on a server we have that is off site and so for all intents and purposes, this confession is the only evidence that anyone will have that I am about to find out if paid links and spam back links really can hurt a website.

I will use nothing but link services that are notorious for black hat SEO and the primary search term has over 11 million results with the top five all having PR4+.

I will be using standard search engine submission and no ppc or adsense on the site.

If anyone can think of anything I am forgetting let me know. But for the purposes of this test, I am grabbing the plate and will let everyone know what kind of blisters, if any, I end up with.

Wish me luck, good or bad, just wish it, lol.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

To insist the old premise that "IBLs can't hurt" when it's plain as day in the Google webmaster Guidelines... and acknowledged by Matt in the Google webmaster blog that there is at least the possibility of harm to both buyers and sellers of links is IMO, Professionally irresponsible. It is not very prudent to ignore the possibility when Google is going out of their way to inform everyone that the possibility now exists.

To repeat, one must make the distinction between "not helping" and "doing harm."

Can inbound links really hurt you?

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Tell bloggers that selling links won't hurt you and see how long it takes for them to tell you otherwise.

The effects on the seller of OBLs is not the issue.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Hmmm... that would be contrary to what it should do, since the Googlebot does follow the commands in the robots.txt. How do you know that it is ignoring it? If that is the case then why even bother to check for it?

One must make the distinctions between:

1) The indexing of the name of a URI and that of its contents; and,

2) The physical store of data kept by any SE and the logical store available for public viewing.

For example, Matt Cutts has stated that, for a page bearing the meta tag "nocrawl," the URL itself is still indexed by Google.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

For example, Matt Cutts has stated that, for a page bearing the meta tag "nocrawl," the URL itself is still indexed by Google.

Again, the is no meta tag "nocrawl". You mean the "noindex" attribute I assume.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Again, the is no meta tag "nocrawl". You mean the "noindex" attribute I assume.

Actually, I meant the "nocrawl" parameter.


Pain blurs my focus.