Can inbound links really hurt you?

[risk]

Originally Posted by kgun

If it can really hurt you it would be to easy for an competitor to destroy your site. In my view, a sensible programmed SeBOT should only give non negative weight to IBL's. That means that a link can carry zero weight as a lower limit.

I haven't read the rest of the posts but must take issue with this way of thinking.

The bots dont assign the weighting, they just define the structure.

The algo assigns weight to the node or webpage - many nodes hold negative values for many of their 120+ major variables that are used to assign serp values to the rules of google.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by risk

I haven't read the rest of the posts but must take issue with this way of thinking.

There is a risk scanning an old large (what I call circle squaring) thread drawing a fast conclusion.

Originally Posted by risk

The bots dont assign the weighting, they just define the structure.

That is cosmetics. How it is done programatically is not the issue here. Algorithms are not perfect and they may have side effects. Aside from that do you really believe in Google bowling (more precisely here, hurt a competitor by linking to his site. I have seen the opposite. Spammers / scammers with their picture on the internet with spammer written across their forehead)?

Originally Posted by risk

The algo assigns weight to the node or webpage - many nodes hold negative values for many of their 120+ major variables that are used to assign serp values to the rules of google.

I am very used to high dimensional dynamic systems. Some of them are easy programming (especially if you can combine your own coding with second and third party libraries).

This is still cosmetics. In theory you can not hurt a site by throwing negative SEO at it. If the theory don't fit the facts, change the facts, your algorithm.

Can inbound links really hurt you? In theory not.

Can outbound links really hurt you? Yes they can hurt you and hurt you bad.

Links::: Life or death of your eBusiness.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by risk

The bots dont assign the weighting, they just define the structure.

The algo assigns weight to the node or webpage

Well, if you are going to insist on accurate specificity:

1) The bot/crawler/spider's sole function is to gather data; it does nothing more.

2) It is the indexing engine which performs all functions relative to the processing of such data.

Originally Posted by risk

- many nodes hold negative values for many of their 120+ major variables

Whether or not such is the case is wholly irrelevant to the issue of the weight assigned to a particular variable. In the case of IBL weight, there is no evidence to support the contention that such is ever assigned a negative value.

Originally Posted by risk

... that are used to assign serp values to the rules of google.

Unless you mean the transient value assigned to each result at search time & used to rank the results for display, there is no such thing as a SERP value.

[ronwits]

Originally Posted by inertia

If during my years of link building i happened to have established links on "bad URLs" will this have an adverse effect on my site?

I have just changed my signature to include a couple of friends sites but I'm conscious that 300 links have just appeared on the WPW forum. Will this have an adverse effect? I cant see how this can possibly be the case as my competitors could cause me serious damage by such methods?

Any thoughts please...

No, it wont. Just dont reciprocate links with what you called "bad URLs"

[full house]

reciprocate with those "bad urls"? Is this also know as bad links? I see what you mean about not to reciprocate but what are those url that is consider as bad url?

[ronwits]

Originally Posted by full house

reciprocate with those "bad urls"? Is this also know as bad links? I see what you mean about not to reciprocate but what are those url that is consider as bad url?

Like Free For All links or those URL's or sites not related to your site.

[2fk]

Originally Posted by ronwits

Like Free For All links or those URL's or sites not related to your site.

i guess you mean those sites which serves as link farms...

URL's or sites not related to your site

how did this become bad links? i think it doesn't necessary to say that having a link to a non related site will be consider as a bad link...

[ronwits]

Originally Posted by 2fk

i guess you mean those sites which serves as link farms... how did this become bad links? i think it doesn't necessary to say that having a link to a non related site will be consider as a bad link...

Yes, i mean link farms

Hmmm, you got a point there, let me re phrase what i have just said, "links from a non related site is considered, low quality links".

Sounds more good?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by full house

I see what you mean about not to reciprocate ...

Are you saying that reciprocal links should be unconditionally avoided?

[risk]

IBL's can most certainly hurt your SERPS.

When they are from authority sites and they are removed.

Thats why it doesn''t pay to pay in the long term. Unless you can afford it!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by risk

IBL's can most certainly hurt your SERPS.

When they are from authority sites and they are removed.

Thats why it doesn''t pay to pay in the long term. Unless you can afford it!

Specifically how can IBLs HARM - as opposed to doing nothing for - you?

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Specifically how can IBLs HARM - as opposed to doing nothing for - you?

Ummm buy links on a ratted out directory or one that Google deems to be selling paid links. Will it be negative PR passed... likely not... but for a rat program to work there is always something in it for the rat, and PR isn't the only way to harm a site. IMO, the rats are usually people who think every site above them in the SERPs is spam.

IBLs definitely can affect a site negatively because Google says so in its' webmaster guidelines, see the added guidelines on paid links. Matt Cutts even admitted the "IBLs Can't hurt" genie is out of the bottle... but the SEs are "being careful" that helps me rest assured... Not! Sorry this is bad and it's exacerabated by people believing and propagating the "IBLs Can't hurt" myth!

The specifics of how IBLs can hurt me... I don't need to know .... that it can happen is all the specifics I need. I will only pay for links that I'm confident will pass the Google mustard. I know a gunshot to the head hurts... so... but... no need to ignore safety warnings to find out what the specifics of the injury will be.

[deepsand]

Absent negative PR, there is no harm, only the absence of help. This is a distinction with an important difference, one that has been addressed numerous times.

The phrase "negatively impact a site's ranking,"as set forth at Paid links - Webmasters/Site owners Help , does not necessarily mean that SERP rank will decrease below that due in the absence of paid IBLs; merely having such IBLs discounted results in a "negative," in that the SERP rank falls.

This is, however, not harm. True harm requires that, following the discounting of offending IBLs, the SERP rank falls below that which would be due had such IBLs never existed. It is this specific action that has yet to be confirmed.

[risk]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Specifically how can IBLs HARM - as opposed to doing nothing for - you?

What I mean't by this, is that if you go on a campaign of purchasing IBLs and then stop, for whatever reason, the removal of those IBLs will certainly damage your SERPs.

If your pockets are not deep enough don't go on campaigns of purchasing IBLs even from Googly loved sites, in fact especially not from these sites as the removal slap will be harder..

As for all the other comments Terry Van Hornes post above says it all!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by risk

What I mean't by this, is that if you go on a campaign of purchasing IBLs and then stop, for whatever reason, the removal of those IBLs will certainly damage your SERPs.

Only if the resulting drop in SERP rank is greater than the rise in rank that was derived from the use of paid IBLs.

By way of analogy, consider the case where you are the 20th person in a waiting line; unhappy with the pace at which the line is advancing, you jump ahead, cutting in at the 3rd spot. If management spots your move, pulls you from the line, and places you at the end, where you are now the 25th person, such would be a true penalty, or harm. However, if you are simply returned to the 20th position, there is no loss to you; i.e., no penalty, no harm.

[Terry Van Horne]

deepsand, how will you feel when some newbie believes what you say and decides there is no "harm"... just no gain or loss, They go out and blow all their promotion money buying links... because they do no "harm". Google ignores the links and the guys business goes in the shitter... is there still no "harm" to this person?...he just lost his business partly due to your sage advice. I don't want to argue but... this makes 0 sense to me.

[Niche]

I should hope a newbie is smart enough to do sonme research before spending their money

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

deepsand, how will you feel when some newbie believes what you say and decides there is no "harm"... just no gain or loss, They go out and blow all their promotion money buying links... because they do no "harm". Google ignores the links and the guys business goes in the shitter... is there still no "harm" to this person?...he just lost his business partly due to your sage advice. I don't want to argue but... this makes 0 sense to me.

Where did I advise the use of paid IBLs?

And, wasting ones money & being "harmed" by IBLs are two quite different matters.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

deepsand, how will you feel when some newbie believes what you say and decides there is no "harm"... just no gain or loss, They go out and blow all their promotion money buying links... because they do no "harm". Google ignores the links and the guys business goes in the shitter... is there still no "harm" to this person?...he just lost his business partly due to your sage advice. I don't want to argue but... this makes 0 sense to me.

And the guy should not build a website or start a business either. There is always a chance that it want work.

[Mike-H]

Originally Posted by janeth

And the guy should not build a website or start a business either. There is always a chance that it want work.

So in short do not do anything and you will not get into trouble

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Mike-H

So in short do not do anything and you will not get into trouble

Oh my God. That sounds scary.

[ronwits]

Originally Posted by Mike-H

So in short do not do anything and you will not get into trouble

Doing nothing wont get you in trouble, also, wont give you your needed improvement either. So take the risk.

[ukhotels]

I am new to search engine issues. If a site receives some penalties and drops in SERP but not banned. For how long does the penalty lasts. Is it for ever or for sometime. Assuming through some bad link which you don't have control over google punishes you, what can you do about it? Your competitor without your knowledge can link your site to a linkfarm without you knowing.

I think search results were better when google was not using the number of links a site have in displaying search results. Sites with better contents may be at page 10 while sites with diluted contents may be occupying 1st position. It's about time google discard this idea of link building and go back to the way it used to in the past to display search results. I feel the on-page optimization gives better search results than this business of link bulding.

I am very sure that, there may come a time that google will discard the idea of links

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by ukhotels

I am new to search engine issues. If a site receives some penalties and drops in SERP but not banned. For how long does the penalty lasts. Is it for ever or for sometime.

A drop in SERP rank alone does not signal a penalty; and, there are many reasons why such could be beyond your immediate control, such as a revision of their SERP algorithm. A true penalty generally results in your site being de-indexed, or, at the least, having its PR reset to 0. For some advice re. how to determine whether or not you've suffered a penalty, what to do if so, and how to ask Google for a review, see

Google Penalty Advice for Webmasters

Google Penalty

Originally Posted by ukhotels

Assuming through some bad link which you don't have control over google punishes you, what can you do about it? Your competitor without your knowledge can link your site to a linkfarm without you knowing.

Not a concern; Google's response to such is to devalue such links, which mere removes the inflow of PR that you might have been getting from them. I.e., they just don't count; nothing more.

[kbeus21]

From my understanding and of course I could be wrong, inbound links can have some affect on the postition in the serps as well as if you site is new and the majority of your links comes from link farms you can be banned from the googles index.

[ukhotels]

I am about to submit an article to Article directoris with links in the resouce box or in the body of my article. I am going to use Article submitter. I would like to know if I can get pinalised if about 150 of the directories publish my article with the inbound links, is google going to penalize my for having that number of inbound links from the article publications within a short time?

Also how many inbound links (maximum) will you suggest in an article including the body and the resource box.
Thanks in advance for you assistance

[kbeus21]

Originally Posted by ukhotels

I am about to submit an article to Article directoris with links in the resouce box or in the body of my article. I am going to use Article submitter. I would like to know if I can get pinalised if about 150 of the directories publish my article with the inbound links, is google going to penalize my for having that number of inbound links from the article publications within a short time?

Also how many inbound links (maximum) will you suggest in an article including the body and the resource box.
Thanks in advance for you assistance

From my understanding google will consider this duplicate content and only count one of the links to your site.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by kbeus21

From my understanding and of course I could be wrong, inbound links can have some affect on the postition in the serps as well as if you site is new and the majority of your links comes from link farms you can be banned from the googles index.

The metrics re. age of site & IBLs are wholly independent; IBLs from link farms will, if do identified by Google, be discounted, i.e. devalued, no matter how young or old your site.

Devaluation means that such IBLs will not serve to increase PR of the page(s) on your site; it does not mean that such links carry a negative value.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by ukhotels

I am about to submit an article to Article directoris with links in the resouce box or in the body of my article. I am going to use Article submitter. I would like to know if I can get pinalised if about 150 of the directories publish my article with the inbound links, is google going to penalize my for having that number of inbound links from the article publications within a short time?

Originally Posted by kbeus21

From my understanding google will consider this duplicate content and only count one of the links to your site.

Duplicate content isn't really as big a problem as many think it to be. See

Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Deftly dealing with duplicate content

Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Google, duplicate content caused by URL parameters, and you

Duplicate content - Webmasters/Site owners Help

[LinksAndTraffic]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Originally Posted by deepsand View Post
IBLs can be positive or neutral, but not negative.

Originally Posted by crankydave

Prove it.

Dave

Dave,

They cannot prove their view, because they are wrong...

I am not saying this to be mean to anyone, but IBLs can hurt one's rankings... I have seen it too.

There is one website where I used to send articles... Until I realized that some of the people for whom I distributed articles were being hurt by the placement of their articles in that particular website.

Three of my customers received a 90-day Google penalty because of their links (from articles) in that website. I won't say which website it was, but I will say what the problem was. The website was customizing the article presentation for different markets, and as such, they were loading the same article on several pages of their website.

I attempted a negotiation with the website owner to achieve a more favorable position... When that failed, I stopped sending articles to that website.

The site generated good traffic to our article marketing clients, but using it was hurting people in the search rankings, so I had to stop sending them articles.

The bottom line is that IBLs can hurt, and when they do, it can be painful.

[deepsand]

PR is a probability. All probabilities range from 0 to 1; there is no "negative" probability.

To postulate the existence of a metric relating to IBLs that can carry a negative value is one thing; proof of its existence is quite another.

[jordy3738]

Yes, if they are paid inbound links.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by jordy3738

Yes, if they are paid inbound links.

How, precisely?

[Webnauts]

I am following silently the thread and I thought of taking a minute to post a question.

I am sure you all know Googles related: operator. Can you please explain me how does Google handle that?

I think it would be a good idea to take the discussion from there, to figure out if IBLs can be harmful or not. Not necessarily being penalized or filtered.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

PR is a probability. All probabilities range from 0 to 1; there is no "negative" probability.

To postulate the existence of a metric relating to IBLs that can carry a negative value is one thing; proof of its existence is quite another.

Think broader rather than granular.

It's not about assigning a value to a single link, rather, the "signal" that is sent by links in their aggregate.

Dave

[deepsand]

An aggregate would still be a metric, one that requires that it have both a variable value and a fixed weight in order to be included in any algorithmic based application.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I am following silently the thread and I thought of taking a minute to post a question.

I am sure you all know Googles related: operator. Can you please explain me how does Google handle that?

I think it would be a good idea to take the discussion from there, to figure out if IBLs can be harmful or not. Not necessarily being penalized or filtered.

Presumably, given your wording, you mean to explore possible harm of a nature not involving SERP rank.

Within that context, the 1st question that comes to mind is the number of end-users who actually use said operator. Base on personal observations, I would venture to say that that number is vanishingly small.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

An aggregate would still be a metric, one that requires that it have both a variable value and a fixed weight in order to be included in any algorithmic based application.

Like a dampening factor?

Dave

[deepsand]

The so-called damping factor acquired such name, not because of its defined meaning, but rather owing to the fact that its presence causes the value of the recursive PR function to converge to a definite terminal value.

It is actually a probability factor, one that is taken as a measure of the likelihood that a visitor to a give page will click on a link on that page, as opposed to proceeding to a random URL. And, as a probability factor, its value is constrained to the range of 0 to 1.

As the PR algorithm deals strictly with probability values, i.e. values 0 to 1, the proposed dampening factor, one allowing of being assigned a negative value, would need to be part of the SERP algorithm, rather than the PR one.

Given that a sufficiently negative value could do more than simply "dampen," but actually "sink," a site's SERP Rank, perhaps a more appropriate name for such metric would be "torpedo."

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Presumably, given your wording, you mean to explore possible harm of a nature not involving SERP rank.

Within that context, the 1st question that comes to mind is the number of end-users who actually use said operator. Base on personal observations, I would venture to say that that number is vanishingly small.

Rand explains very well what I tried to say: SEOmoz | Whiteboard Friday - Dude, Your Links Kinda Suck

Thanks Rand.

[Mel]

A few thoughts if you don't mind.

First off I am seeing lots of posts which are discussing the PR of links and IMO this is such a minor factor that it should be left out of the discussion for clarity's sake.

Next if you read carefully all the Google Webmaster pages you will note that Big G is not saying that buying and selling links is verboten, only the buying and selling of Links that pass PR is frowned on. I do not find anything that says if someone links to you from say a porn site or even a link farm that you can expect a penalty. Now you may get zero credit for that link but that's not a penalty, just a lack of credit.

I guess everyone here would agree that anchor text links have been a feature of Google since day one. But the way that such links are analyzed and weighted by Google's algo can and does change regularly.

Intuitively it would seem to be a very poor ranking algo which would penalize a site for things beyond their control. But as Dave mentioned, SEs do not operate on single factors but on patterns, so IMO while a reasonable ratio of bad inbound links to good inbound links might not hurt, you would really not expect your rankings for used cars sales to push right up there if all your links are from say Gambling Sites would you?

Sure that's extreme, but IMO somewhere in the middle ground there is a point where the algo says, OK this is too much I am going to devalue all these Gambling links and that would result in a drop in your rankings. Is that drop a penalty or just a rightful adjustment?

IMO you are not penalized for inbound links per se, but I can't prove it one way or another.

If someone has had a site ranking well based on "safe' inbound links, and then added a batch of questionable inbound links which did not result in an increase in rankings, but a decrease (which could be attributed only to the bad links) then I would be very interested to learn more about it.

In the meantime I intend to keep on building links from related sites, its worked so far.

So on to the Big Question - can inbound links hurt you?

IMO no but they might not help at all.

[crankydave]

Nice post Mel.

My contention remains the same. And as Fathom mentioned earlier in this thread to me saying yes... it depends.

Granted, not getting value is not a "penalty".

In their aggregate, can links (a link profile if you will) affect how a site is viewed from a "confidence", "trust", "authority" standpoint? I'd argue yes, it can.

If so, then can a loss of "confidence", "trust", "authority", due to a linking pattern deemed to be egregious, have a negative affect on rankings? Again, I'd argue yes, it can.

Dave

[Mel]

I think we are saying more or less the same thing Dave, but how the aggregate link profile is viewed is open to question, IMO.

Would a sensible algo say in effect that this is a lousy link profile so I am going to drop the pages rankings below what it would have been had the bad links not been there, in effect negating the good links because they are mixed in with some bad?

Sure a reduction of one of those elusive factors "confidence" or "trust" or "authority" (though this one IMO is a different shade of gray) can negatively affect rankings, but lets say you have a site which you have worked hard and diligently on and gained the "Trust" of Big G, with the result that you end up on page one for your preferred term.

Then a nefarious black hat spammer (read competitor) pays for a batch of links to your site from Nells Porno Parlor - is that going to kick you off the first page?

Sounds dangerous and ill advised if the algo works that way IMO.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Nice post Mel.

My contention remains the same. And as Fathom mentioned earlier in this thread to me saying yes... it depends.

Granted, not getting value is not a "penalty".

In their aggregate, can links (a link profile if you will) affect how a site is viewed from a "confidence", "trust", "authority" standpoint? I'd argue yes, it can.

If so, then can a loss of "confidence", "trust", "authority", due to a linking pattern deemed to be egregious, have a negative affect on rankings? Again, I'd argue yes, it can.

Dave

I am glad to see that we agree! Excellent post Dave.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Mel

I think we are saying more or less the same thing Dave, but how the aggregate link profile is viewed is open to question, IMO.

Would a sensible algo say in effect that this is a lousy link profile so I am going to drop the pages rankings below what it would have been had the bad links not been there, in effect negating the good links because they are mixed in with some bad?

The "good" links wouldn't neccessarily be affected but rather, other factors that are considered when ranking a site. If for example the confidence or trust in a site are considered for ranking then a negative impact on those metrics (if indeed they are metrics) would result in a negative impact in ranking. To me, that seems sensible.

Originally Posted by Mel

Sure a reduction of one of those elusive factors "confidence" or "trust" or "authority" (though this one IMO is a different shade of gray) can negatively affect rankings, but lets say you have a site which you have worked hard and diligently on and gained the "Trust" of Big G, with the result that you end up on page one for your preferred term.

Then a nefarious black hat spammer (read competitor) pays for a batch of links to your site from Nells Porno Parlor - is that going to kick you off the first page?

Sounds dangerous and ill advised if the algo works that way IMO.

In a case like this, a result on page one for a preferred term is usually accompanied by a strong link profile, especially if the term is at all competitive. The stronger the link profile, the more difficult it becomes to affect it in the aggregate.

Dave

[Feydakin]

I just wanted to say that I think that it is amazing that Dave has been able to hang with this discussion after what he and I were saying a "year" ago about manipulating websites with weak and questionable link profiles..

[kgun]

1. Some stepping in here and commenting without reading from the beginning of the thread.
2. This thread is not about link buying / selling. That has been discussed extensively before / elsewhere (see the may 9th 2009 top links on my social bookmarks.) on WPW.
3. Do you still believe that you can hurt a site by throwing a bad link (pattern) at a site / company?
4. If yes, there is definitely an urgent need for a better search engine.

Originally Posted by kgun

This is still cosmetics. In theory you can not hurt a site by throwing negative SEO at it. If the theory don't fit the facts, change the facts, your algorithm.

Can inbound links really hurt you? In theory not.

Can outbound links really hurt you? Yes they can hurt you and hurt you bad.

Links::: Life or death of your eBusiness.

You should not worry about IBL's. Use your time to find bad outbound links. They can really hurt you.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

1. Do you still believe that you can hurt a site by throwing a bad link (pattern) at a site / company?
2. If yes, there is definitely an urgent need for a better search engine.

Why? Why should a search engine simply ignore a signal or pattern they deem to be egregious and/or manipulative?

How many rotten apples must a vendor send you before you lose confidence in that vendor?

Consequences as a result of things beyond your control happen all the time, everyday. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. That's life.

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Can IBL's hurt you? The short answer is yes. I've see it happen first hand. This is why it's important to build and establish a solid link profile from the very beginning. Don't look at the individual links and don't worry about them. Remember, it's the effect of the aggregate.

Dave

Prove it.

Originally Posted by deepsand

SEs recognize that one cannot control all IBLs, and do not therefore penalize you for such. IBLs can be positive or neutral, but not negative.

Originally Posted by crankydave

Prove it.

Dave

Originally Posted by crankydave

Why? Why should a search engine simply ignore a signal or pattern they deem to be egregious and/or manipulative?

How many rotten apples must a vendor send you before you lose confidence in that vendor?

Consequences as a result of things beyond your control happen all the time, everyday. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. That's life.

Dave

Is this speculation or facts? So long I have not seen a proof.

And please, don't PM me. I don't read your private messages.

Private copy to me since you have edited too many of my posts where you disagree.

It is too late to buy me with green rep points.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

Is this speculation or facts? So long I have not seen a proof.

What? I asked a few questions and then stated that consequences (both good and bad) because of things beyond your control happen all the time. That is fact.

Is the weather beyond your control? Is "Mr Market" beyond your control? Is the economy beyond your control?

You've seen all kinds of proof in your life kgun.

Originally Posted by kgun

And please, don't PM me. I don't read your private messages.

I will PM you when and if I feel it to be neccessary. Whether or not you read them is up to you.

Originally Posted by kgun

Private copy to me since you have edited too many of my posts where you disagree.

That is complete and utter bullsh**!!!!!

I cannot edit a post without showing up as me editing it.

Originally Posted by kgun

It is too late to buy me with green rep points.

I give green rep when and where I want for reasons of my own choosing and it is NEVER, NEVER EVER, an attempt to "buy" anything.

I have never given red rep... until now.

Your post is totally and completely out of line and insulting making you the proud recipient of the first red rep I've given.

Hope you're proud.

Dave