Can inbound links really hurt you?

[inertia]

The company that i used to work for out-sourced all their link campaigns from a company on the other side of the world. The links that they would establish for us were all PR3+, they were on pages with plenty of other links and the pages were totally irrelevant. We used to make sure that they built the links at a steady rate which wasn't to quick and if the PR dropped we asked them to replace the link.

Did it work? Yep! Worked every time! Generally speaking, for the level of site we used to work with, 100 links would usually see the site in the top 10 SERPs for the anchor text used.

Now, i know this is bad practice. I knew it wasn't something that the SEO world would agree with and i knew it was a linking practice that was judging link quality just on tool bar page rank. But, the boss told me to start the campaigns and within 3 months they were (usually) successful!?

I saw this happen with 100s of sites and id say the success rate of these link campaigns was 95%. From what people are saying here that would be a great way to attack a competitors site???

Thoughts please...

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Precisely the point. They can't. They can't "know" whether or not a link is paid. They "guess" and act upon that "guess", based upon a pattern.

As I said earlier, algorithms, bots, filters, etc. are not intuitive. They can't "know". They don't consider what "makes sense". They don't "think" (not yet anyway). They can't assign "no value" to a paid link, they need webmasters to do that, what makes you, or anyone else for that matter, think they can assign "no value" to any other link "automatically"?

A pattern is a pattern. When that criteria is met, it is acted upon automatically. Doesn't matter why the pattern exists. "Why" cannot be automatically discerned.

Have your ever programmed? Some patterns are identified better by statistical / mathematical algorithms (Bots) than by human observation. But identifying bad IBL's is not an exact science. There will never be a "perfect" world.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

I completely agree with Dave. It is possible to get your competitor's site drop in rankings by doing really bad link building for their website. Everybody agrees that doing link building the wrong way can hurt your rankings, and I think everybody would agree also that Google can not know who's responsible for the backlinks that a site has.

Natural question:
Drop in rankings because a prior positive effect is zeroed out (neutralized) for one reason or another?

What would the implication be if you could destroy a competitor's business by establishing bad IBL's links to that site? Wouldn't that be the start of the end of the internet (some companies with deep pockets taking over the internet). IMO that would also be the start of the end for that Se. Zero (neutral) weight of IBL's (votes) is IMO the only viable option.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

Have your ever programmed? Some patterns are identified better by statistical / mathematical algorithms (Bots) than by human observation. But identifying bad IBL's is not an exact science. There will never be a "perfect" world.

No kgun. I am not a programmer, nor would I claim to be. I don't dispute that bots can do a better job identifying patterns. That's not what's at issue here. What they cannot identify is "why" the pattern exists. No, it's certainly not a "perfect world". Mistakes get made.

Originally Posted by kgun

Natural question:
Drop in rankings because a prior positive effect is zeroed out (neutralized) for one reason or another?

First, one would have to "assume" there was some positive influence to begin with. Then, one would have to speculate as to precisely which rankings were influenced by that assumption. All of the rankings? Some of them?

Hypothetical kgun...

A reasonably established site with a reasonably established small link profile. Ranks well for several terms. Receives an influx of a large number of sitewide links from elsewhere. All the rankings fall. Links are removed, rankings return. Repeat.

Loss of "prior positive effect"?

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

Zero (neutral) weight of IBL's (votes) is IMO the only viable option.

Then why can't they do this with paid links they can identify? Why do they need webmasters to "assign zero (neutral) weight" to them?

Dave

[kgun]

1. Do you see an argument for paid links not passing pagerank?
2. Do you see an argument for links from social networks getting reduced pagerank passing power?
3. Do you think a computer program (bot) can identify patterns related to 1 and 2 and neutralize the effect?

Originally Posted by crankydave

Then why can't they do this with paid links they can identify? Why do they need webmasters to "assign zero (neutral) weight" to them?

Do you build that statment on old statements by Matt Cutts or Google resource pages?

Marketing is a type of drama.

My experience goes back to the date of the punched cards (FORTRAN programs). Microsoft is the computer company that IMO has understood offline marketing and branding best. They love to get focus around their new technologies. Is there any difference with the best online marketing and branding company, Google?

Nofollow on OBL's (IBL's to another site) give an exact solution. Pattern reckognition algorithms give an approximate solution. If you prefer an exact solution, put nofollow on links that shall not pass pagerank.

That will make the world more perfect.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

Do you build that statment on old statements by Matt Cutts or Google resource pages?

It's not a statement, it's a question.

Why does Google "require" webmasters to "reduce the value" of any links if they can do it themselves?

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

It's not a statement, it's a question.

Why does Google "require" webmasters to "reduce the value" of any links if they can do it themselves?

Dave

Agree

[galide]

Sorry to interrupt the conversation between you two guys, but still didn't see anywhere the proof that inbound links can get your site penalised?

.. and in the absence of proof, I personally tend to base my judgement on what Google has to say about it officially, which is that links cannot have a "negative impact" on ranking.

How to report paid links
"We’ve always tried very hard to prevent site A from hurting site B. That’s why these reports aren’t being fed directly into algorithms, and are being used as the starting point rather than being used directly. You might also want to review the policy mentioned in my 2005 post (individual links can be discounted and sellers can lose their ability to pass on PageRank/anchortext/etc., which doesn’t allow site A to hurt site B)."

And I will stand by it until someone can prove otherwise, or at least provide some clues about how to set up a benchmark to prove that inbound links can damage a site.

Manu
<please add your link to your signature CD>

[activeco]

Originally Posted by inertia

I saw this happen with 100s of sites and id say the success rate of these link campaigns was 95%.

Now that is what I would call a valid statement for this forum, without a lot of philosophy.

Originally Posted by galide

.. and in the absence of proof, I personally tend to base my judgement on what Google has to say about it officially, which is that links cannot have a "negative impact" on ranking.

How to report paid links
"We’ve always tried very hard to prevent site A from hurting site B. That’s why these reports aren’t being fed directly into algorithms, and are being used as the starting point rather than being used directly. You might also want to review the policy mentioned in my 2005 post (individual links can be discounted and sellers can lose their ability to pass on PageRank/anchortext/etc., which doesn’t allow site A to hurt site B)."

Good one, too.

Now, I am ready to sacrifice one domain for testing purposes around this question. It has PR2, bringing some $100 a month, which translates into pretty good extra spending holiday money.
If anyone wants to set up testing conditions he can send a PM.
Once the conditions set, anyone can do anything he wants to the domain.
If enough interest, I will open a separate thread.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

"We’ve always tried very hard to prevent site A from hurting site B."

I don't think anyone doubts that. Doesn't say "can't" though.

Originally Posted by galide

That’s why these reports aren’t being fed directly into algorithms, and are being used as the starting point rather than being used directly."

Pretty good indication that if they were fed directly into the algo they could "hurt site B" don't you think?

Now, what about the things that are fed directly into the algo?

Dave

[crankydave]

Just a couple of other things to add to the discussion...

Two Search Interviews

Andy, yes: we can manually remove or otherwise penalize sites on incidents that we consider to be webspam.

Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: An update on spam reporting

So, the next time you can't help thinking that the ranking of a search result was not earned by virtue of its content and legitimate SEO, then it is the perfect moment for a spam report.

A complete exclusion from Google´s SERPs is only one possible consequence of a spam report. Google might also choose to give a site a "yellow card" so that the site can not be found in the index for a short time. However, if a webmaster ignores this signal, then a "red card" with a longer-lasting effect might follow.

Can a particular IBL pattern be considered "webspam"?

Can it be detected and penalized "automatically" as well as manually?

Dave

[inertia]

Originally Posted by activeco

Now, I am ready to sacrifice one domain for testing purposes around this question. It has PR2, bringing some $100 a month, which translates into pretty good extra spending holiday money.
If anyone wants to set up testing conditions he can send a PM.
Once the conditions set, anyone can do anything he wants to the domain.
If enough interest, I will open a separate thread.

This is an interesting idea. But the only way we could really conduct this experiment is by spending a lot of time and money building links for your site - which i cant afford. By my reckoning these will only have a neutral or positive effect on the sites performance!

From what i have seen with my previous employer. A few hundred links on dodgy link selling sites with high PR will continue to improve your rankings regardless of the perceived quality.

[galide]

You raise good points Dave, and I think that all the questions you are asking are valid ones. One can speculate a lot on what is happening on a daily basis in the SERP, on the official posts google is releasing or on the patents they are filing. And speculations are healthy, when they lead to actions though:

1) trying to formulate a theory about what impact onsite and offsite triggers have in the Google ranking algorithm.
2) set up a benchmark in order to demonstrate the theory.
3) provide solid data proving that the theory is sound, and that particular conditions lead to consistent and predictable results.

Once step1-3 are complete, one can then put the theory forward with confidence and advise other people to follow it. But without a proven theory, I believe that it is always safer to play by Google's rules, as described on their (un)official blogs.

One thing is for sure, people such as Activeco can benefit greatly from this type of speculations - my blog is also open for testing: http://galide.jazar.co.uk. Please throw as many links as you want at it and see if we can to take it down

Manu

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by subhzash

Inbound links are really danger when those are from irrelevant sites or irrelevant pages.

IBLs from an "irrelevant" site are not only never of positive value, but are "dangerous?"

Is not the purpose of the PR algorithm to incorporate the preferences of web participants as to what is of interest and value?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by activeco

Tell it to all those sites went to Hell.

Might it not be that said sites went to hell because, absent meaningless IBLs, they'd nothing of import to the SEs in question going for them?

[activeco]

Originally Posted by galide

One thing is for sure, people such as Activeco can benefit greatly from this type of speculations

Hey, I am risking losing a few mad nights somewhere on the beach.
Besides it's only for scientific cause.

- my blog is also open for testing: http://galide.jazar.co.uk. Please throw as many links as you want at it and see if we can to take it down

What does the blog currently ranks for?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Can a particular IBL pattern be considered "webspam"?

Can it be detected and penalized "automatically" as well as manually?

Of course.

But that does not imply that site A hurts site B in the sense of producing a net negative effect.

IMO it can produce a net zero effect.

Algorithms are not perfect of course.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by galide

One thing is for sure, people such as Activeco can benefit greatly from this type of speculations - my blog is also open for testing: http://galide.jazar.co.uk. Please throw as

You have to past in the link and not click it.

[galide]

Hey, I am risking losing a few mad nights somewhere on the beach.
Besides it's only for scientific cause.

Ahah, agree, who doesn't take risk cannot expect rewards!

What does the blog currently ranks for?

mmh doesn't rank for anything to be honest, it was more a joke than anything else. Most of keywords are geek's stuff such as "advanced xsl". Do we want to target non competitive keywords and low traffic site such as my blog, or more competitive websites and more competitive keywords?

I have got an other candidate for you in this case: Getbiz - B2B Lead Generation Directory - UK, with the keywords "leads generation" or Discover China, learn Chinese - Chinese-Tools.com with the keywords "learn chinese".

I am offering all of them as test sites! Please hit me.

[galide]

The link is wrong.

Sorry, my mistake: Galide

Manu

[kgun]

Originally Posted by galide

Ahah, agree, who doesn't take risk cannot expect rewards!


mmh doesn't rank for anything to be honest, it was more a joke than anything else. Most of keywords are geek's stuff such as "advanced xsl". Do we want to target non competitive keywords and low traffic site such as my blog, or more competitive websites and more competitive keywords?

What is advanced XSL(T)?

[galide]

What is advanced XSL(T)?

I let you read the post on my blog, it's all in there

[kgun]

Originally Posted by galide

I let you read the post on my blog, it's all in there

Page search (CTRL + F) +

XSL

gives no hit. The same when I search the source.

But is it more than XSL(T) transformations / programming?

Originally Posted by galide

Sorry, my mistake: Galide

Manu

Interesting title:

"SEO should get in bed with PR".

[galide]

Page search (CTRL + F) +

XSL

gives no hit.

But is it more than XSL(T) transformations / programming?

You should trust google a bit more - if you search for "advanced xsl", you'll find the post on first page. The point is not what "advanced xsl" is about really, but the number of people who wonder what the heck "advanced xsl" is all about. Get about 30 hits a day for this phrase.

but this is a bit off topic, isn't it?

Manu

[kgun]

So these

1. galide dot jazar dot co dot uk
2. galide dot jazar dot co dot uk dot

are different sites.

On which do you write about XSL?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by galide

You should trust google a bit more - if you search for "advanced xsl", you'll find the post on first page. The point is not what "advanced xsl" is about really, but the number of people who wonder what the heck "advanced xsl" is all about. Get about 30 hits a day for this phrase.

but this is a bit off topic, isn't it?

Manu

My bolding. Do you mean first hit

Advanced XSL Transformations With ASP.NET

Originally Posted by galide

The point is not what "advanced xsl" is about really, but the number of people who wonder what the heck "advanced xsl" is all about. Get about 30 hits a day for this phrase.

but this is a bit off topic, isn't it?

Still my bolding.

Sounds like spam to me.

If it is discovered by Google, you may get zero hits from them a day

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

Of course.

But that does not imply that site A hurts site B in the sense of producing a net negative effect.

IMO it can produce a net zero effect.

Algorithms are not perfect of course.

Since you believe that an IBL pattern can be considered "webspam" and since Google can/does "penalize" webspam by "removal" or not "allowing it to be found", doesn't this in itself answer the original question?

Can inbound links really hurt you?

Isn't it only a matter of where the threshold is?

Dave

[galide]

Still my bolding.

Sounds like spam to me.

If it is discovered by Google, you may get zero hits from them a day

I think we can carry on this conversation on a thread dedicated to this (link here) kgun, and refocus on the actual topic of this thread? What do you think?

Manu

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by activeco

Hey, I am risking losing a few mad nights somewhere on the beach.
Besides it's only for scientific cause.

Sound like an eminently equitable deal to me, particularly if the days between the nights are included.

I'd also look into taking a charitable deduction re. lost revenue on your tax returns.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by kgun

Nofollow on OBL's (IBL's to another site) give an exact solution. Pattern reckognition algorithms give an approximate solution. If you prefer an exact solution, put nofollow on links that shall not pass pagerank.

That will make the world more perfect.

Originally Posted by crankydave

Since you believe that an IBL pattern can be considered "webspam" and since Google can/does "penalize" webspam by "removal" or not "allowing it to be found", doesn't this in itself answer the original question?

Isn't it only a matter of where the threshold is?

Dave

My bolding.

As I have written above, only zero out an undeserved positive effect.

Conclusion:

1. Links from site A to site B can not in theory hurt site B. If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
2. Links from site A to site B can hurt site A. (You are who you link to).

[kgun]

For those of you that will study a similar subject, here

Pareto efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SFB 504 glossary: Competitive market equilibrium


are two articles

[kgun]

Originally Posted by galide

I think we can carry on this conversation on a thread dedicated to this (link here) kgun, and refocus on the actual topic of this thread? What do you think?

Manu

Ok, but I can not guarantee any participation in that thread.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

My bolding.

As I have written above, only zero out an undeserved positive effect.

Conclusion:

1. Links from site A to site B can not in theory hurt site B. If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
2. Links from site A to site B can hurt site A. (You are who you link to).

My bolding.

Guess here's where you and I can agree to disagree.

"Penalties" effected for what is considered "webspam" are not "zeroing out" an undeserved positive effect.

Dave

[activeco]

Originally Posted by galide

I have got an other candidate for you in this case: Getbiz - B2B Lead Generation Directory - UK, with the keywords "leads generation" or Discover China, learn Chinese - Chinese-Tools.com with the keywords "learn chinese".

I am offering all of them as test sites! Please hit me.

Uhm...getbiz is an uk domain with hidden owner, chinese tools registrant is somewhere in France and your blog says you're located in London, UK.
You don't like that French guy?

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by kgun

Natural question:
Drop in rankings because a prior positive effect is zeroed out (neutralized) for one reason or another?

What would the implication be if you could destroy a competitor's business by establishing bad IBL's links to that site? Wouldn't that be the start of the end of the internet (some companies with deep pockets taking over the internet). IMO that would also be the start of the end for that Se. Zero (neutral) weight of IBL's (votes) is IMO the only viable option.

A drop in ranking because of a prior positive effect is zeroed out is not a penalty... Though often mistaken for it.

It is possible to destroy a competitors business by establishing bad backlinks for that site. But more in theory than in practice of course. First of all,.. it's not much use to do that because if you did that, you don't gain much with it your self. At most you'll gain some personal satisfaction, but money you won't gain. Just because a competitor fell out of the SERP's doesn't mean you sell more.

Besides that, another site that's most likely also a competitor will gain that position. So you don't win much with it.

I'm sure there are examples where people did this to other sites. But I sincerely doubt it was for financial reasons and because there is so little financial gain, very very few people will actually go for these kind of tactics.

Also keep in mind that it is an extremely risky thing to do. Because if you don't do it right, you´re actually paying for your competitors success in the search engines.

[galide]

You don't like that French guy?

I am involved with both sites, and yes, I am a Frenchy expat in the UK - since I believe that bad links are like bad publicity (i.e there is no such things as bad links), happy to get our sites hit by as many bad links as possible!

It is possible to destroy a competitors business by establishing bad backlinks for that site. But more in theory than in practice of course.

Yes, agree, this is a theory worth any other theories. First sentence is misleading though, taken out of context... sounds like a positive statement.

I'm sure there are examples where people did this to other sites.

No so sure - still waiting to see that in practice.

Also keep in mind that it is an extremely risky thing to do. Because if you don't do it right, you´re actually paying for your competitors success in the search engines.

Sounds like the most sensible statement I have read in this thread so far

Manu

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

I am involved with both sites, and yes, I am a Frenchy expat in the UK - since I believe that bad links are like bad publicity (i.e there is no such things as bad links), happy to get our sites hit by as many bad links as possible!

<snip>

No so sure - still waiting to see that in practice.

Manu

It's not difficult to find folks who will spam your link on as many forums and blogs as they get to. Thousands. You don't mind "bad links" and you have sites.

Practice away.

Dave

[galide]

Not sure about the point you are trying to make here crankydave, but I am sure there must be some wisdom in there

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

Not sure about the point you are trying to make here crankydave, but I am sure there must be some wisdom in there

Nope. No point.

You don't believe IBL's can harm a site. You want to see it in practice. You don't care if you have bad links pointed at your site(s). You don't think there's such thing as a "bad link".

I simply pointed out that you could put that into "practice" with your sites if you wish. The choice is yours.

Dave

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Nope. No point.

You don't believe IBL's can harm a site. You want to see it in practice.

On the other hand, you would have us simply accept your position as an article of faith?

Which is the more rational; fact or faith?

[cw1865]

I can just see the advertisement now. 'Pay $10 for a bad neighborhood link to your competitor and watch them plummet in the SERPS'

[inertia]

So what do we class as a bad link? One from a totally irrelevant site with masses of other random outward bound links.....? I would class these as a bad link but as i have seen first hand, over and over again, Google doesn't.

[galide]

Which is the more rational; fact or faith?

that's the point. Let's stick to the fact! and... there is no fact in the first place hinting that a website could be hurt because of bad links neighbourhood, so no room for arguments really...until someone can raise a hand and provide with solid facts.

So what do we class as a bad link?

As Matt Cutt points it out in his post about the topic, it is quite straighforward for a "human being" to spot a bad link (paid link in the context) when he/she sees it. But it is much more difficult to spot them with an algorithm - that's why they try to put some human factors in, asking webmasters to report them, so they can be verified manually.

I guess that they "feed" the algorythm in charge of recognising the patterns with real life example, in order to get it to learn itself how to recognise bad links itself.

In short, we all know what a bad link is: hidden links, paid links, links acquired through a links farm or ring scheme, etc .. And according Google, if these sites are spotted, the penalty will be applied to the sites hosting these links (loosing basically their "pagerank power", not the actual linked sites.
Hidden links

Manu
getBiz, UK business directory

[inertia]

Originally Posted by galide

And according Google, if these sites are spotted, the penalty will be applied to the sites hosting these links (loosing basically their "pagerank power", not the actual linked sites.

...and therein lies the punishment! IF you buy loads of dodgy links then your SERPs are balancing on a knife edge. You risk all those sites loosing their page rank (which we've all seen in the last 12 months). All those links become crap and your SERPs drop!

So, with regards to the "sabotage" aspect which we've been discussing. It would be possible to give your competitors some great SERPs which all of a sudden disappear and they don't know why!?

[galide]

So, with regards to the "sabotage" aspect which we've been discussing. It would be possible to give your competitors some great SERPs which all of a sudden disappear and they don't know why!?

I really like your way of thinking. Should we try to sabotage my sites? I am ready to take the risk of getting free traffic for a while, and then loosing it without knowing why.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by galide

I am ready to take the risk of getting free traffic for a while, and then loosing it without knowing why.

There is a Jewish curse that goes something like this: "Let he have a lot and then lose"!

[inertia]

Originally Posted by galide

I really like your way of thinking. Should we try to sabotage my sites? I am ready to take the risk of getting free traffic for a while, and then loosing it without knowing why.

Yep! I am more than happy for people to build links for me! Should any of you feel the urge to do this then please use "hip hop" in the link text!

[galide]

There is a Jewish curse that goes something like this: "Let he have a lot and then lose"!

I wish sometimes people were cursing more...

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

On the other hand, you would have us simply accept your position as an article of faith?

Which is the more rational; fact or faith?

I don't recall you or anyone pointing to any "facts" that clearly state IBL's cannot hurt a site. "Makes sense" does not constitute fact in my book. And "tries very hard" certainly does not indicate it can't, won't, and doesn't happen. Quite the contrary. "Tries very hard to prevent site A from hurting site B" is a pretty clear indication that it certainly can happen otherwise there would be nothing to "try hard to prevent" now would there.

I on the other hand, have provided "facts" that Google "penalizes" webspam. That they will "prevent a site from being found" in the SERP's. You don't consider "egregious linking" webspam?

As I pointed out to galide, you can easily "test" your "faith" that IBL's cannot hurt you. Discover for yourself.

Dave

[galide]

I really don't know what to say crankydave, except that however hard I try, I cannot understand your logic.

"I try very hard to prevent anyone muggling my house, by installing very secure alarm systems all around": does it prove that I have been muggled in the past? Some people may think that I must have been, otherwise I would not be so paranoiac about it. But nothing proves it.

Same applies to Google. They don't control 100% of what their algorythm, which is programmed to take decisions by itself, and they try very hard to avoid getting sites penalised for inbound links according their post. But this doesn't mean that the algorythm has ever actually penalised websites because of inbound links?? Not denying that it may happen, but again, until someone can provide facts, I don't see any arguable case here.

Secondly, to serve the community, we both offered our sites as benchmark with activeco, and if someone is interested in finding out whether the theory is true or not, they can try to hit our site. I am not interested to be honest, since I am not interested in getting other sites penalised in the first place. But I can understand that some people might be interested in finding out whether websites can or cannot damage the ranking of sites they are linking to (since this thread will not give them any answers), and happy to sacrifice a couple of sites for this noble cause.

Note: please don't take offence crankydave, but you have inspired me for a blog post: Galide: SEO: top 5 list of sophisms