Can inbound links really hurt you?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by inertia

Am I the only one who doesn't have a bloody clue what all this "inverted matrix" and "recursive equation system" jargon means?!

Am I woefully under qualified as an SEO? Up until now I thought English (or your countries equivalent) was the most important core skill for SEO, after all a lot of what we do is keyword and copywriting based. Now I need to know advanced mathematics as well.... bloody hell! Anyone got a website where I can start?

No you don't.

Write and code for people. Make it simple, as simple as possible, but no simpler. Content is King. Refactoring to better markup and cleaner code is Queen.

[williamc]

Kfun: As usual you try to push something as fact which has already been disproven many times by many actual SEO's.

Better markup does nothing for rankings in google. It is not only NOT Queen, it does not even rate Jester as far as Google is concerned. And seeing as this is a Google discussion topic, that is what matters.

Again, you appear to be trolling as you are pushing something that has already (and you know it) been beaten to death and disproved.

[crankydave]

As far link buying... even though it has been discussed elsewhere, for the purpose of the discussion taking place in this thread you can't simply rule them out. They are an IBL.

What if that "link pattern" A, B, C, D, E, etc all links to Z but Z does not link back. Then what?

Zeroed out = deletion from index? Now you have me confused.

Given my first line above... what happens to all those pages... A-Z?

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by williamc

Kfun:

Better markup does nothing for rankings in google. It is not only NOT Queen, it does not even rate Jester as far as Google is concerned. And seeing as this is a Google discussion topic, that is what matters.

Did I say that? This is about: Can inbound links really hurt you?

Call me Kfun and I will call you:

1. Astrologer
2. WilliamC
3. With WilliamC logic.

Dave it would be very funny if you gave WilliamC 24 hours timeout for starting this tiny flame so he can think before he produces more astrology and WilliamC logic.

[crankydave]

c'mon guys... will... enough pls

Dave

[williamc]

Hmm last I checked G and F were right next to each other kjell. typos happen

But on the real topic: yes, we are talking about links, and you spout markup. last I checked markup had nothing to do with links other than the <a href= and > parts and anything in between them. I am not the one spitting out inaccuracies to attempt to manipulate already proven facts.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

What if that "link pattern" A, B, C, D, E, etc all links to Z but Z does not link back. Then what?

It complicates things, but as I told above automatic generated pages and complicated link patterns has not to my knowledge been a success. If they have, IBL's that is part of that scheme has perhaps to the contrary been successful.

Originally Posted by crankydave

Zeroed out = deletion from index? Now you have me confused.

Ok look back.

What are we now discussing that has not been discussed elsewhere in this thread?

[crankydave]

How do you "ban" a link from the index?

Dave

[craftscn]

back link from good website with high pagerank and traffic will benefit your website, if back link from bad site, i think it have addverse effect.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by crankydave

How do you "ban" a link from the index?

Please don't confuse him Dave

[PaulSymonds]

Yes, in general there certainly is such things as bad links ans sites such as Bad Neighbourhood can test that. Sites of an aduly nature can for sure trigger certain filters for example.

Compeititors could abuse this but in reality it would take more work to use links negaively than it would be to do positive stuff on yoru own site.

[williamc]

On the lighter side:

I can just imagine any search engine that kgun might develop.

I can see the search results being very near to:

"I'm sorry, there are no results for 'SEXY'. Are you sure you didn't mean X+Y=Z-Q(R*B) ?"

and it will probably have explanatory content consisting of

"You did not define the variables therefore verification of the validity of your search result can not be done."

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

How do you "ban" a link from the index?

1. Where did I say ban a link?
2. Who has raised the question of bad (egregious) link patterns?

To make it absolutely clear if there is any doubt:

By completely zeroed out, I mean that the site is removed from the index.

Personally I doubt that it will happen because of a link pattern.

Now, it is about link patterns since you agree that a single IBL can not hurt a site.

Hasn't this been discussed before Dave?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

kgun... no disrespect but this is not an answer you'll find in a program or programming theory.

Common sense says when Google adds a page to the guidelines and says in that new document that buying links will result in negative repercussion ie: this can possibly hurt you. Then paid IBL's can hurt you. No one at anytime, other than those who shall remain nameless to protect the... said anything about negative PR. So where you are going with this discussion is well... not relevant to the question! Just keep in mind that what in theory should work often doesn't. All we are saying and have said along is there is a potential for an inbound link to hurt a site. I ask that you read the Google guidelines with the following scenario in mind. Especially the new section on paid links.

You are promoting a site and you spot all these wonderful candidates... you don't bother to check for nofollow (most advertising people don't have a clue what that is) you buy 100's of links across a wide variety of sites.

Then say Mr. Blackhat gets a contract to promote a competing site. While looking through your link profile Mr. Blackhat notices you bought all these advertising links that he knows are dodgy. Do you think Mr. Blackhat spends months and lots of dough building a better site or does he get the same dough for buying those links he knows will sink the site. This is not a fantasy example they are everywhere... If you did SEO for a living and know what some SEOs are capable of then... you stop the negative PR FUD and let people walk away knowing it's a possibility.

For the nth time this thread is not about buying and selling links. And it is already well discussed and answered.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Several things..

I PMd Intertia in private with a little more info than has been given in this thread.. He is welcome to consider that as he will..

Actually, we can reproduce it.. The given circumstances are not that hard to locate and take advantage of.. We simply refuse to do it in public because I am not a fan of divulging these types of things in public.. Similar to the exploit people in the OS community, I would prefer to keep this information as restricted as possible..

If you are interested Tubby, I will PM you the information as well because I trust you enough to not be stupid with the information..

65 more to go!!

What do you call this? Don't produce rumors on a professional forum, please.

That strategy may work on another forum. Hopefully not here.

[crankydave]

kgun... your proposal is noted.

I guess you and I are not connecting today in regards to whether or not IBL's can harm a site.

T=total links
G=Good links (as deemed by Google)
B=Bad links (as deemed by Google... link farms, paid links, spam links, etc.)

T=G+B

As B/T approaches 1, what do you think could happen and what do you think should happen in the case of newer site.

Same questions... if B/T for a newer site had been steady at 0.05 then all of a sudden jumps to 0.85

Dave

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by kgun

What do you call this? Don't produce rumors on a professional forum, please.

That strategy may work on another forum. Hopefully not here.

If this were truly a "professional" forum a lot of you wouldn't be allowed in.. This is a public forum that happens to have a fair number of professionals on it..

I think Tubby explained the current situation perfectly a few posts ago.. I see no real reason to keep trying to discuss this with you.. You are convinced that the only thing happening in the algo is pure math, and I'm not.. I know that it is a series of equations, thresholds, filters, and hand manipulation but the owner of the search engine..

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

You are convinced that the only thing happening in the algo is pure math, and I'm not..

No, that is why I have called it the adaptive inverted link matrix model of the web.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I know that it is a series of equations, thresholds, filters, and hand manipulation but the owner of the search engine..

There we agree.

When doing the test on one semantic search engine I was really shocked how easy it is to get good positions (ranks).

Could the problem be how easy it is to fool the SE by inbound link(s) (patterns)?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

I guess you and I are not connecting today in regards to whether or not IBL's can harm a site.

T=total links
G=Good links (as deemed by Google)
B=Bad links (as deemed by Google... link farms, paid links, spam links, etc.)

T=G+B

As B/T approaches 1, what do you think could happen and what do you think should happen in the case of newer site.

1. Zero out the bad links.
2. Potentially zero out other query variables as explained above.

Originally Posted by crankydave

Same questions... if B/T for a newer site had been steady at 0.05 then all of a sudden jumps to 0.85

1. Same as 1 above.
2. Same as 2 above.
3. Raise a red flag for further inquiry. In the last instance call the company or email them about the IBL' pattern.
4. Manual adjustment / intervention may be required. The adaptive part of the whole algorithm system.

[crankydave]

You said zero out means delete... how do you delete a link?

If all you're doing is zeroing out, then the spammers would run rampant knowing that that can't hurt themselves.

Call the company? Google call a company? And it's not 1 company or 1 page it's millions.

How about program the algo to detect such behavior and react accordingly by dampening the target site?

Dave

[williamc]

It does not matter in the first place. Numerous Real SEO's who see things on a daily basis across numerous client sites rankings are always going to know what google is doing. People who 'conjecture' what google 'should' do, knowing they have no idea what google is actually doing, are adding nothing more than a cloud of noise interupting the real signal. Plain and simple. Besides, kfun has already lost just by his own math.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

You said zero out means delete... how do you delete a link?

1. Completely zeroed out: Removed from the index. As I said I doubt that a site will be removed from the index because of a bad link pattern.
2. Delete the effect of a link in the algorithmic structure. That is no problem in an input / output system.

[williamc]

kgun: So you are assuming your system will catch and delete 100% of all bad links? Or is 99% good enough?

4. Manual adjustment / intervention may be required.

So, you are finally admitting that the perfect algo is not a reality, and that you have to trust people to do some of the work, even tho people are fallible?

You just told everyone all they needed to know.

[Tubby]

Kgun said
4. Manual adjustment / intervention may be required.

Lol.
Dave should know why the lol.. . But I am now well out of my depth . . . lol anyway..

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Call the company? Google call a company? And it's not 1 company or 1 page it's millions.

Agree. Very unlikely.

Originally Posted by crankydave

How about program the algo to detect such behavior and react accordingly by dampening the target site?

Agree. There are damping factors in the system.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by kgun

Agree. There are damping factors in the system.

But but but, would that not mean that the target site may well lose rankings? Thus the inbound links 'hurting' it.

Thanks Kgun, play again sometime!

[kgun]

Originally Posted by williamc

But but but, would that not mean that the target site may well lose rankings? Thus the inbound links 'hurting' it.

Thanks Kgun, play again sometime!

We may define hurt differently. Go to the start of the thread and read please. Time = Money for me too.

Originally Posted by williamc

So, you are finally admitting that the perfect algo is not a reality, and that you have to trust people to do some of the work, even tho people are fallible?

You just told everyone all they needed to know.

Google:

adaptive inverse OR inverted kgun site:webproworld.com

Results 1 - 10 of about 45 from webproworld.com for adaptive inverse OR inverted kgun.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

1. Completely zeroed out: Removed from the index. As I said I doubt that a site will be removed from the index because of a bad link pattern.
2. Delete the effect of a link in the algorithmic structure. That is no problem in an input / output system.

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

Let me toss out another possibility...

Do you suppose Google keeps sites in their index (flagged) that have been known to be participating in link schemes, selling links, etc. in order to find out other sites that "participate"?

If so... what happens when sites get end up getting links from them?

Dave

[kgun]

For those that need a deeper explanation.

The (adaptive) Kalman filter is used in control systems. It is among other things based on an estimated covariance matrix.

Assume that is is used in economics to predict the future state of an economic variable. You have new external information from the market. You can incorporate that in the system by manually disturbing / pertubating one or more elements in the covariance matrix. That is why it is called adaptive.

The Kalman Filter is an empirical Bayesian filter.

Bayesian filtering is used in SE algorithms as far as I know.

A few relevant Google queries should answer that question.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by kgun

We may define hurt differently. Go to the start of the thread and read please.

The topic of the thread is 'Can inbound links really hurt you?'

That question is pretty damn clear to me and everyone else. Being that the thread is all about search engine results, Hurt is your site getting hammered with a penalty or losing rankings. Nobody else has questioned that aspect. If your definition of hurt when it comes to search engine results is different, than you already lost the battle before you even got started.

You have already FINALLY stated that links can indeed hurt your site above.

Once again, thanks for playing, you lost, but thats how it goes when you argue search engines with people who do it every single day.

And after admitting the above, after all the debate about 'How google SHOULD do it', and the subsequent loss, any new theories you try to now add in at this point is simply proving my point about trolling.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Let me toss out another possibility...

Do you suppose Google keeps sites in their index (flagged) that have been known to be participating in link schemes, selling links, etc. in order to find out other sites that "participate"?

Only Google can answer that question. Would you rule out the bolded part of your question?

Originally Posted by crankydave

If so... what happens when sites get end up getting links from them?

Do you mean, the (effect of the) OBL's form the flagged sites are zeroed out?

Will you then conclude that the sites with the IBL's from those sites are hurt?

1. Were these links natural from the beginning?
2. Are they semantic?

Let us say that you destroy a criminal network with implications for the merchant on the corner that get less sales. Is he hurt?

Sites, pages and links are daily removed from the internet. I don't think that was the OP's question.

I read the OP's question:

Can the addition of IBL's hurt your site? Can they hurt your site when the link structure is established?

Can one? We agreed that it can not.

Can two?

Can n?

Isn't this answered now if you read the thread from the beginning?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by williamc

The topic of the thread is 'Can inbound links really hurt you?'

So you read from the beginning?

Originally Posted by williamc

You have already FINALLY stated that links can indeed hurt your site above.

Your logic WilliamC.

I have talked about an adaptive filter where manual intervention can be required to filter out all the undeserved effects.

I agree with Dave that manual intervention is probably small from the major part of internet sites.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by kgun

I agree with Dave that manual intervention is probably small from the major part of internet sites.

That would explain the extremely high numbers of people used in googles 'eval' project which became its manual review section. Once again, Kjell, your ignorance of the facts astounds me.

I realize that you are grasping at any straw you can fabricate right now kjell. But the end result will not change. You admitted flat out that inbound links can harm a website in the form of penalty or ranking loss.

That is the entire answer to this topic, which is the exact opposite you hoped to achieve. Point. Score. Match.

[Mel]

I am sure that you are a good programmer Kgun, but do you think that you have all the facts concerning the Google Algorithm and the internal policies that Google applies to change that algo almost daily?

I am going to assume that your answer is going to be no, and in this case it would be apparent to me that real world experience has to play a big part in answering such questions as the one under discussion.

So who has the most real world experience? IMO that is going to be both enlightend end users and Professional SEOs (and I include myself in this category) who work with the system daily and by necessity monitor the results of that work and form conclusions based on such monitoring.

I am not going to engage you in endless theoretical discussions as frankly you seem to have mathematical knowledge transcends mine,(I only have a masters degree in engineering) but I do have a fair amount of real world experience which leads me to these conclusions:

1. Inbound links can hurt you in some situations but not all, and IMO it seems to have to do with the link profile of the site in question.

2. Google has literally hundreds of patents issued and pending, but real world experience leads me to believe that the great majority of these are not implemented in the present Google algo or if they are, that they are give little weight in the final results. Thus I do not feel that theoretical and mathematical discussion is going to benefit the majority of the members of this forum

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by kgun

For the nth time this thread is not about buying and selling links. And it is already well discussed and answered.

Links are links so they are germain to the discussion and in fact are an important facet of how IBLs can hurt a site. Which shows your complete and utter misunderstanding of this whole thread! You dismissed my post because it makes the point clearly and concisely! So you dismiss it as irrelevant?

Transacted links are more relevant to this discussion then all this BS about zeroing links and matrix which just seems like you trying to feed your own ego. So your smart in Math! Take it to a Math forum perhaps some others there will join you in this totally irrelevant discussion!

Personally I think you're just pissing all over the thread because it shows your complete ignorance of the problem!!

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Mel

So who has the most real world experience? IMO that is going to be both enlightend end users and Professional SEOs (and I include myself in this category) who work with the system daily and by necessity monitor the results of that work and form conclusions based on such monitoring.

That is of course important and can lead to a theory that can be tested. I have through my life seen a lot of such tests based on charts and spurious correlation that did not stand a stringent mathematical test. One being a common trend. There may be a correlation between DJIA and many stock prices without any causal relation. They follow a common market trend.

Originally Posted by Mel

I am not going to engage you in endless theoretical discussions as frankly you seem to have mathematical knowledge transcends mine,(I only have a masters degree in engineering) but I do have a fair amount of real world experience which leads me to these conclusions:

1. Inbound links can hurt you in some situations but not all, and IMO it seems to have to do with the link profile of the site in question.

2. Google has literally hundreds of patents issued and pending, but real world experience leads me to believe that the great majority of these are not implemented in the present Google algo or if they are, that they are give little weight in the final results. Thus I do not feel that theoretical and mathematical discussion is going to benefit the majority of the members of this forum

Originally Posted by Mel

I am not going to engage you in endless theoretical discussions as frankly you seem to have mathematical knowledge transcends mine,

There is one advantage with a mathematical model:

1. It does not lie as far as the assumptions and the calculus is correct.
2. You have to formalize your mental model.

Originally Posted by Mel

(I only have a masters degree in engineering) but I do have a fair amount of real world experience which leads me to these conclusions:

1. Inbound links can hurt you in some situations but not all, and IMO it seems to have to do with the link profile of the site in question.

2. Google has literally hundreds of patents issued and pending, but real world experience leads me to believe that the great majority of these are not implemented in the present Google algo or if they are, that they are give little weight in the final results.

Again observation without proof. So you are by eye able to isolate the effect of the different inputs in Google's algorithm. With due respect for the original poster,

Originally Posted by inertia

I have missed some of this enormous thread in the last year so (apologies if you've already provided what im about to ask for) can someone please give me an example (preferably with some evidence not just a "my site dropped because of crap links") of bad links hurting a site?

please

1. Don't jump into this thread without reading from the beginning. Sorry if I am wrong.
2. Produce evidence and proof that can stand a scientific test.

Originally Posted by Mel

Thus I do not feel that theoretical and mathematical discussion is going to benefit the majority of the members of this forum

I think a site admin from another forum should be careful with what is needed on another forum.

WebProNews - a fountain of (mis)information??

Not more than you and your moderators have produced on this forum.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Links are links so they are germain to the discussion and in fact are an important facet of how IBLs can hurt a site. Which shows your complete and utter misunderstanding of this whole thread! You dismissed my post because it makes the point clearly and concisely! So you dismiss it as irrelevant?

No link buying and selling is ruled out. Go to the start of the tread and read.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Transacted links are more relevant to this discussion then all this BS about zeroing links and matrix which just seems like you trying to feed your own ego. So your smart in Math! Take it to a Math forum perhaps some others there will join you in this totally irrelevant discussion!

Personally I think you're just pissing all over the thread because it shows your complete ignorance of the problem!!

Not very constructive. Your astrology talks for itself.

[crankydave]

Only Google can answer that question. Would you rule out the bolded part of your question?

No, I would not rule that out. I'm relatively confident that happens. A "sting" operation for lack of a better way to put it.

Do you mean, the (effect of the) OBL's form the flagged sites are zeroed out?

Will you then conclude that the sites with the IBL's from those sites are hurt?

1. Were these links natural from the beginning?
2. Are they semantic?

Individually, they could very well pass no value. But if the majority of links that point to a site are of this nature, harm could be caused.

Whether a link is "natural" or "semantic" doesn't change whether or not it's an IBL or not.

Let us say that you destroy a criminal network with implications for the merchant on the corner that get less sales. Is he hurt?

Sure. Could be. Bad things happen to good people.

I read the OP's question:

Can the addition of IBL's hurt your site? Can they hurt your site when the link structure is established?

Can one? We agreed that it can not.

Can two?

Can n?

Isn't this answered now if you read the thread from the beginning?

Depends upon how strong that structure is.

In my mind yes, the question has ben answered. But not in everyones. If it were, then there wouldn't be subsequent posts since the time it was answered. There wouldn't subsequent posts requesting "proof" for a position.

Dave

[crankydave]

No link buying and selling is ruled out.

To be honest kgun, I'm not sure why you keep saying this. Perhaps you could clarify.

How does what kind of link rule out whether or not it's an IBL?

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Individually, they could very well pass no value. But if the majority of links that point to a site are of this nature, harm could be caused.

Whether a link is "natural" or "semantic" doesn't change whether or not it's an IBL or not.

Dave, did we agree in the beginning of this thread what is meant by hurt? Semantic and natural links are ceteris paribus stronger.

Originally Posted by crankydave

In my mind yes, the question has ben answered. But not in everyones. If it were, then there wouldn't be subsequent posts since the time it was answered. There wouldn't subsequent posts requesting "proof" for a position.

Agree.

Personally I could have lived without Terry Van Horne's last post

[williamc]

Originally Posted by kgun

No link buying and selling is ruled out. Go to the start of the tread and read.

Actually No, YOU decided to not use those links in your already broken hypothesis because you quickly realized they would do far more damage to it. The fact is, paid links are an issue to google, they can not find them all, nor could your already disproved system.

Stop telling other people they are wrong or do not have proof, when the system you put so much stock in and argued for so long in this thread was already proven to do what? Yes, exactly what this thread was about, allow inbound links to 'harm' a site. You failed, your math failed, you utopic theoretical search engine failed. You simply wish not to see it. But it is still there, and by the comments, green reps, and hysterical PM's, so does everyone else.

My logic? Apparently everyone elses logic as well, all but your own flawed and disproven logic.

Your inane, inexperienced arguements after the fact appear to be nothing more than a childish fit IMO.

It is not this memberships fault that your thinking falls within a very narrow corridor and you are not allowed to venture outside it.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by williamc

Actually No, YOU decided to not use those links in your already broken hypothesis because you quickly realized they would do far more damage to it. The fact is, paid links are an issue to google, they can not find them all, nor could your already disproved system.

Last comment.

Go to the start of the thread and try to break out of your infinite loop.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by kgun

Last comment.

Go to the start of the thread and try to break out of your infinite loop.

No need kgun. The thread, as asked by the OP, which you obviously can not read, asked a very simple question. A basic answer to that question is what you seem to call an infinite loop.

That question was: Can inbound links really hurt you?

You tried pretending you knew how googles search engine worked and created your own hypothetical model of it which you stated could NOT harm a website from inbound links.

That theoretical search engine was ripped apart and proven that it WOULD in fact hurt a websites rankings due to inbound links. You admitted as much.

You can call showing your failure an endless loop all you like. It is still there for everyone to see no matter how you try to cloud the issue again. It is not my fault that you failed. Numerous others and I merely helped the progression of facts along. It happens, Grow up and move on. Stop beating a dead horse.

Go to a discussion on something like economics, that apparently is where you have some experience. You admittedly have none in this topic and have already been beaten down.

Infinite loop? Maybe. But only in the fact that you refuse to see that you have failed in what you set out to do which was to cause confusion and spread misleading unsubstatiated information as fact, and keep going at it repeatedly hoping the posters who got it right will simply go away and allow you some modicum of 'win' by default.

Sorry, kjell, but the facts speak for themselves.

[crankydave]

Semantic and natural links are ceteris paribus stronger.

Yes they are, but IMO you cannot rule out other types of IBL's. They are still IBL's and contribute regardless.

How does looking at only natural and semantic links IBL's help to answer the question?

Unless you're trying to suggest that natural and semantic links cannot harm. The algorithm is not intuitive. It cannot think. It cannot know whether a link is natural, semantic, or paid. It cannot know who placed the link and why.

Dave

[williamc]

$eb=1;$jb=1;$x=1;if(($eb-$x)&&($jb-$x)){$e=1;c=0;}else{$c=1;$e=0;}

or put another way

$eb=1;$jb=1;$x=1;$c=1;$e=0;if(($eb-$x)&&($jb-$x)){$e=1;c=0;}

where in both e equals enlightenment and c equals cloudy

Kgun: are you elwood or jake btw?

Oh, and 6

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by kgun

Some final question since I see that this subject will continue without end.

1. In 2009, do you think that you can destroy a competitors site / page by throwing bad link(s) (patterns) at it?

yes in some cases. here we have an extremely active pro seo, moderator of one of the most serious webmaster forums out there, who sees all kinds of these scenarios daily, and has almost everybody who has hurt their site one way or another pass through there when they get no direct help from any of the other forums, and who also reads lots of patents saying:

I don't think on-page changes can trigger the yo-yo. I think it's always backlink related, and I apologize if I gave any other impression.

It's extremely unlikely for on-page changes to generate a ranking spike on a major keyword - it takes backlinks to do that, in my view.

now I'm staying out of all this bickering, but I am saying that my answer to this:

Originally Posted by kgun

2. If yes, what is your programming background?

is "Roger" - Roger Irrelevant, as is your question IMO.

this person is convinced that there is a strong possibility that you cannot end up in the dreaded Yo Yo without messing up your backlinks somehow. If youre not familiar with "The Yo Yo", its a nasty and difficult filter to get yourself out of once G has put you in there, fortunately it's quite rare, (Ive only seen it a couple of times in 2 years pro seo work) but it could definitely be defined as "hurting your site"

so apologies, even if I hadnt seen peculiar goings on myself (not evidence of course) when it comes to day to day SEO goings on, I would take his opinion over that of someone who understands higher level maths anyday.

we are back to my fighter plane pilot analogy once again, I don't have to know how you built it, or even any of the science or maths behind how it actually works to fly it.

[williamc]

Nice post kevsta, and one I might add that has far more credibility based on actual experience than anything that kgun has shown in this thread to date.

[kgun]

This was the original post.

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...

And the heading: Can inbound links really hurt you?

The first and second members that answered (look back) interpreted the question like me. So what did the original poster mean?:

1. Can link manipulation hurt my site?. Buying links is part of that equation, as is different link schemes like triangular linking etc.
2. Can IBL's beyond my control hurt my site? More precisely can a competitor hurt my site by throwing links at it (or in the OP's posters own words can my competitors cause me serious damage by such methods)?

I think 1. was ruled out as the relevant question already in the first and second answer. And it is not about deleting links. It is about existing links. But the discussion took off, and my final answer was:

In theory not, but algorithms are not perfect so in practice it may happen. Look back for the discussion that lead to that conclusion before you produce new posts.

Inertia, what did you mean? What did you mean by hurt and serious damage? Please, clearify before I continue this discussion.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by kgun

What did you mean by hurt and serious damage? Please, clearify before I continue this discussion.

I think we can agree on this aspect. The term should be quantified rather than any of us presuming the meaning We each find the most likely. As our reasons are likely to be very different due to the fact that you are NOT an SEO, and I (and others) are.

[kgun]

And don't bring the thread further off topic, but respect the original poster:

Originally Posted by inertia

I have missed some of this enormous thread in the last year so (apologies if you've already provided what im about to ask for) can someone please give me an example (preferably with some evidence not just a "my site dropped because of crap links") of bad links hurting a site?

[williamc]

I wouldn't worry much about Matt Kjell. He has already seen the information and made his decision in an intelligent way.