Can inbound links really hurt you?

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by williamc

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.

ok my definition of "hurt a site" would mean

"to affect a site's rankings and therefore it's SE traffic / income in a negative way"

whats everyone else taking it to mean?

[cz]

I think the thread question was this (yes I've read every post):

Can inbound links really hurt you

The consensus seems to be that no one can answer this question because it's too subjective, open to everyones personal experiences and involves search engine algorithms that we don't understand with certainty.

[williamc]

Kevsta: That would be my definition as well. Let's see what kgun feels.

[inertia]

So this is what happens when I go away for the weekend! I miss all this! Anyway...

Originally Posted by Kgun

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

Originally Posted by Me

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...

Well it was an open question really, hence the "any thoughts please". The actual example I gave related to unrelated links, i.e. will a shed load of links from unrelated sources flood the link profile with out of context back links which will then cause a drop in rankings? I was thinking about the Google rankings and algo primarily which is why i posted the question in the Google forum.

But I think its obvious that the thread has developed to be quite a general discussion which simply means "can inbound links affect a site's SE rankings and therefore it's SE traffic in a negative way?"

[williamc]

Thanks Matt, appreciate the clarification. You already have seen the test data, far more of it than many in this thread have seen, so I really think you know enough to answer your own question now.

But let me ask this simple question: from those results, are you seeing inbounds slightly differently now?

[Terry Van Horne]

So who had williamc in the who posts 1000 pool? You knew at 900 this was going to a 1000 whether it deserved it or not!

[weegillis]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

So who had williamc in the who posts 1000 pool?

1000 posts this year, no less.

[williamc]

Terry, you just now noticed who posted #1000 here?

[Terry Van Horne]

Yeup I'm addicted to that dang twitter thing! Had to comment when I saw you won the pool!

[Terry Van Horne]

So 21 pages of a great thread reduced to this best info on the subject looks like a quarrel in the schoolyard.... like I said... those who chose to reopen and start a p#$%^&g contest really need to take a look at that and see the results of their decision...

[cz]

So 21 pages of a great thread reduced to this best info on the subject looks like a quarrel in the schoolyard.... like I said... those who chose to reopen and start a p#$%^&g contest really need to take a look at that and see the results of their decision...

What do you mean Terry? Sorry,I missed the point that your post and link is referring to. It was a lively and whacky debate.

Do you mean we look like jerks to the rest of the webmaster community? I've seen far more idiotic discussions at other places (no forum names mentioned)

I don't give a hoot what they think, we all had a good time with this thread right? I did.

BTW, look how good all of these inbound links did for a focused search term. Lot's of the posters have links to crap sites and probably bad neighborhoods too!

[weegillis]

I believe he means this thread should have been closed when it ran its course, while the ratio of good info to spatter was high. Now with so many posts, it's seen a reduction in that ratio.

[Feydakin]

Or maybe its the fact that that search brings up a warning about discussing ... ... rather than the subject of the thread..

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Or maybe its the fact that that search brings up a warning about discussing ... ... rather than the subject of the thread..

A warning not sure about that but it doesn't reflect the value nor is it very "clickable" some of those below in the results are the usual FUD and covering of a$$es

[Terry Van Horne]

And to be clear it's not a comment about the moderators... or the forum management it's about the participants... I assume the Mods were amused and pi$$ed at the same time. Discussions should be left open we should know when to stop posting and let it run it's course. This stuff is just so subjective sometimes you agree to disagree FWIW, not a big deal... move on. I'm just as responsible as the next guy for that SERP so... time to break and think about what I was doing and accomplishing.

[kgun]

Forbes Magazine is a relatively reliable source.

"Scott offers what he and some other search marketers call "negative search engine optimization" or "negative SEO," a harmless-sounding term that amounts to sabotaging a Web site's ranking in search engine results. Sometimes negative SEO is performed for reputation management, tweaking online content so that it floats to the top of Google or Yahoo"

.....................

Matt Cutts, a senior software engineer for Google, says that piling links onto a competitor's site to reduce its search rank isn't impossible, but it's extremely difficult. "We try to be mindful of when a technique can be abused and make our algorithm robust against it," he says. "I won't go out on a limb and say it's impossible. But Google bowling is much more inviting as an idea than it is in practice."

Cutts also points out that any potential for sabotage exists across all search engines. "It really should be called 'search engine bowling,' " he says.

Source: The Saboteurs Of Search - Forbes.com

...but it's extremely difficult.

Another speculative google/support/forum/post

Question: Does Google actively filter content and does Google bowling really exist? You need to read this!

that got this:

"In my time at Google, I have never seen:

- Googlers changing crawling, indexing or ranking of content they don't agree with. As a data point, check the search results for jew - Google Search as well as the explanation at Google: An explanation of our search results .

- Large companies being able to encourage Google to change crawling, indexing or ranking of a site they don't like. Yes, they contact us, but no, they don't get any results.

- A site being damaged with regards to crawling, indexing or ranking, by someone else on the outside. I've seen sites run into troubles for getting hacked, but I've never seen them run into trouble because of something someone other than the owner did outside of the site.

- A spam report being taken seriously if the site itself was abiding our Webmaster Guidelines. 42,000 spam reports wouldn't change a thing, regardless of who filed them, if the site is compliant.

Obviously, any of these things could theoretically happen, but I haven't seen it happen, and I don't believe it's something a webmaster has to worry about. If it ever became obvious to Googlers that one of these things happened, it would be resolved immediately -- so if you feel that it has happened, please take the time to submit a spamreport with the details. We take these reports very seriously.

Again, I believe that these are not things webmasters have to worry about.

John"

answer by Google Employee John Mueller

Again, I believe that these are not things webmasters have to worry about.

Perhaps the closest we can come.

And note the dates of publication. Much can have happened since then.

In a sense (at least regarding PageRank and the webs link matrix) this subject continues here:

Matt Cutts June 15, 2009 about PageRank sculpting

[crankydave]

kgun... the Forbes link was posted on page 4 and page 5 of this thread.

Dave

[Terry Van Horne]

Not to mention it was written in 2007 before the paid link page was added to the guidelines. which is 1 of the keys... ie: it's the only way links can be used to hurt a site as I understand it. If I'm wrong someone please correct me.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

kgun... the Forbes link was posted on page 4 and page 5 of this thread.

Dave

Ok, I do not remember all the posts in this monster thread

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Not to mention it was written in 2007 before the paid link page was added to the guidelines. which is 1 of the keys... ie: it's the only way links can be used to hurt a site as I understand it. If I'm wrong someone please correct me.

I personally ruled out link manipulation. It is obvious that link manipulation can hurt a site in that sense that the acquired position can be reduced, nulled out and even penalized.

As explained above, I ruled out link manipulation. Inertia has clearified this and make the topic extremely wide with:

Originally Posted by inertia

Well it was an open question really, hence the "any thoughts please".

[ogletreeseo]

Another practice is link removing. I knew somebody that did a reverse backlink campaign. You start with a list of websites that link to a competitor instead of a list of websites without links. You then send well-written custom emails to each trying to get them to remove that url instead of trying to get a url added.

The sites also had lots of free counter links and badge links.

I know I’m a little late to this thread but I have seen websites hit with a -50 penalty because of link building. It involved distributing free wp themes all over the place. The bottom had kw rich links to the persons websites. Both sites in that footer were hit with a -50 penalty. A competitor was doing the same thing and was hit with the same penalty. After lot of work removing as many of the themes from being distributed and asking people to not use the theme or remove the links and begging the spam team for forgiveness we got the penalty removed.

[Terry Van Horne]

OgletreeSEO, Thanks I stand corrected... ultra manipulative linking ie: only gave away the Wp themes to get links. That also has happened with page counters and a few widgets. Forgot about that! mt bad

[kgun]

Originally Posted by ogletreeseo

Another practice is link removing.

That would have had a direct effect. Personally I

1. Delete a lot of links in my link collection.
2. Move links in the same collection.

I ruled out that too,

but is should be included in an "any thoughts, please" set.

My primary issue was existing links beyond your control.

Scroll down my social bookmark list (6 pages if 100 is viewed on each page) and you will see that link manipulation had already been thoroughly discussed at WPW. Also see the related links at the bottom of this page.

[inertia]

But let me ask this simple question: from those results, are you seeing inbounds slightly differently now?

I've learnt an awful lot since I started this thread and my opinion on a lot of SEO things has changed several times! As far as inbound link "hurting" your rankings goes I've come to this conclusion... It IS possible but damned hard! And IF you are penalised because of your own or a competitors link building spamming actions then it is possible to reverse the effect with some work and dialogue with Google. But in the grand scheme of things it's not something we should worry about.

Is that the common conclusion?

For the "any other thoughts" section...

How about dropping a link (301 it later on) to a virus in a competitors comments and then reporting the site?!

Originally Posted by ogletreeseo

Another practice is link removing. I knew somebody that did a reverse backlink campaign. You start with a list of websites that link to a competitor instead of a list of websites without links. You then send well-written custom emails to each trying to get them to remove that url instead of trying to get a url added.

This is more a case of the removal of links "hurting" your rankings rather than the acquisition of links hurting your rankings. Practices like these are plentiful... One of the easiest ways to spam links is by setting up link pages, listing all the best industry websites, contacting them for links, waiting for a bit and then removing your links page.

[kgun]

My final conclusion:

1. I will not worry about IBL's beyond your control.
2. Don't involve in link manipulation.
3. Don't try to be smart. Advanced algorithms can be smarter (at least tomorrow) and you get the penalty you deserve or worse.

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by inertia

I've learnt an awful lot since I started this thread and my opinion on a lot of SEO things has changed several times! As far as inbound link "hurting" your rankings goes I've come to this conclusion... It IS possible but damned hard! And IF you are penalised because of your own or a competitors link building spamming actions then it is possible to reverse the effect with some work and dialogue with Google. But in the grand scheme of things it's not something we should worry about.

Ding ding ding.. We have a winner!!!

BTW, bolding is mine

[Tubby]

Originally Posted by inertia

" One of the easiest ways to spam links is by setting up link pages, listing all the best industry websites, contacting them for links, waiting for a bit and then removing your links page.

I get good traffic from search engines to my link pages. I keep telling myself to grow them but I keep getting side tracked. a good number of them get top 10 results for the keywords. I have integrated outgoing links into my sites navigation, on my sites it works well.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by inertia

Is that the common conclusion?

That would be a resounding Yes.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by inertia

... It IS possible but damned hard!

But in the grand scheme of things it's not something we should worry about.

Is that the common conclusion?

Mine as well, inertia. My opinion is, technically, yes, but not to a great degree.


So.....I guess this means we won't be having a pool to see who makes post #2000?

[williamc]

Personally, I was ecstatic that it only took 1000+ to make Kgun realize he was dead wrong.

[kgun]

WilliamC:

You have not understood what I have written.

If you read through my posts, you will see that I have been consistent and my above conclusion is implicit in my former posts.

Go on with your comments to post 2000. To me the problem was answered on page 1 even if inertia opened for an extremely general interpretation.

Can you answer these questions please:

1. What is an interpretation of a problem?
2. What is a reasonable interpretation of a problem?
3. What is a precision of the same problem.

I gave a precision of the problem. (Reasonable) interpretations are more or less uninteresting, at least to one poster / reader of this thread.

It does not surprise me that you have not understood what I have written.

This (post #4) sums up my conclusion in other words.

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.

Read here
How Google Finds Your Needle in the Web's Haystack

and tell me if my above statement was wrong.

[williamc]

I do not need to even look at what you have written above. It is not related to the question the OP asked because in the end it all quite simply meant what your answer said that is quoted below.

This is a simple yes/no answer with reasoning. That said:

Originally Posted by kgun

It is obvious that link manipulation can hurt a site in that sense that the acquired position can be reduced, nulled out and even penalized.

Not all link manipulation is paid links. You admit that link manipulation (inbound links) can hurt rankings.

That answers the OPs question entirely

So as I said above, it took you 1000+ posts to finally admit that you were wrong in saying it could not hurt a sites rankings the entire thread.

All of your conjecture, all of your math, all of your hypothesis, and the end resulting fact is, they can.

Should a webmaster worry about it that hard, No.

But, is it obvious? Apparently not, as you are STILL trying to argue against your own conclusion, which is the antithesis of intellect.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by williamc

Not all link manipulation is paid links. You admit that link manipulation (inbound links) can hurt rankings.

Again that is WilliamC logic. Please, read from where Dave started to talk about egregious link patterns.

Erasmus Montanus logic is well know in Scandinavia so don't try that on me WilliamC.

Erasmus Montanus: A stone can not fly. Mor Nille can not fly => Mor Nille is a stone.

Mor Nille crying.

Originally Posted by williamc

So as I said above, it took you 1000+ posts to finally admit that you were wrong in saying it could not hurt a sites rankings the entire thread.

It does "not hurt" (quotes exclusively for WilliamC) your site if you involve in link manipulation. You only get what you deserve. Difficult to understand?

That is why my precision of the problem is about the effect of inbound links beyond your control.

You have been a sleeping WPW member and suddenly jumps into a thread and draw your own conclusions using your own logic.

I started this

The ability to pass pagerank. Can it be lost?

thread. Can you read it and tell what it says to you.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by kgun

I does not hurt your site if you involves in link manipulation. You only get what you deserve. Difficult to understand?

Not difficult at all. Its garbage. Link manipulation is not always of your own doing. So you are saying you get what you deserve because someone else attacked your rankings using link manipulation against you? That is beyond stupid.

You can argue all you like. The OP got the proper answer correctly deduced from what was discussed. Inbound links can, and DO at times, hurt a sites rankings. Should he be overly worried about it, No.

Being pedantic about the fact that everyone else has it right does not miraculously change their minds to draw an incorrect conclusion.

Originally Posted by kgun

You have been a sleeping WPW member and suddenly jumps into a thread and draw your own conclusions using your own logic.

Yes, I only come at night when vultures are circling passing out bad information and pure conjecture as fact, when indeed they posses no such monster. I can not help that when I finally had more time for the forums again, was right when you were posting incorrect data.

Here is a revelation Kgun:

Matt (inertia) the person who asked the question, has already stated he got the answer he needed. It was not the answer you had hoped to instill in him, so here you are trying yet again, to cloud the issue.

The OP was answered, this thread serves no further purpose.

And yes kgun, everyone knows that you like spamming other threads you started that have not yet been disseminated to make you look silly. I'll have to check to see if there are any support groups that can help with that.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by williamc

Not difficult at all. Its garbage.

That is link manipulation that you are involved in. In other words link manipulation that you are participating in with open eyes. Again you do not take my precision of the problem. WilliamC interpretations are not interesting to me.

Originally Posted by williamc

Link manipulation is not always of your own doing. So you are saying you get what you deserve because someone else attcked your rankings using link manipulation against you? That is beyond stupid.

Finally, you grasped it. It is about the effect of IBL's beyond your control. Hopefully we can concentrate on this if you need further explanation. I can not guarantee that I will follow you to post 2000.

My answer written n times in this thread.

In theory they can not hurt you. In practice they may since algorithms are not perfect.

Is that so very different from what two Google employees say (post#1016)?
Can inbound links really hurt you?

Matt Cutts: ...but it's extremely difficult.

John Mueller: Again, I believe that these are not things webmasters have to worry about.

[crankydave]

kgun... you stated the following in this thread...

Originally Posted by kgun

"I am done".

I wish you good luck with your webbusiness too. You are definitely one of the more knowledgeable posters I have seen on this forum.

"My opinion is that in the absence of proof, the argument stating that inbound links can hurt a site doesn't stand".

That is a statement that can be formulated as a scientific (null) hypothesis.

H0: "Inbound links can not hurt a site".

I should like to see that hypothesis rejected with scientific data (that has to be published together with the result as a true scientific analysis require).

It appears, based on your last few posts, that you have changed your mind and now agree that IBL's can hurt you... albeit a very narrow window.

Dave

[williamc]

Kgun: very simply so anyone could understand it: You did not say you were speaking only of link manipulation that you were involved in You stated (verbatim):

Originally Posted by kgun

It is obvious that link manipulation can hurt a site in that sense that the acquired position can be reduced, nulled out and even penalized.

I do not see anywhere there stating that only links that are in your control can hurt your sites position. I see a verbatim quote stating only link manipulation can.

I see you have changed some above posts to reflect precision after the fact. Great, more attempts at clouding. Fail.

But thanks again for reiterating that they can harm you. Nobody here said it was not 'difficult' as Matt said. Anything else you post after admitting that we were correct in that it can be done is pointless and only serves to attempt to confuse people.

But thanks for playing.

Originally Posted by kgun

I am done

You seem to even argue with your own words.

Here, let me show you how it's done... yet again...

This thread serves no further purpose, I am done.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

kgun... you stated the following in this thread...

It appears, based on your last few posts, that you have changed your mind and now agree that IBL's can hurt you... albeit a very narrow window.

Dave

Dave,

H0: "Inbound links can not hurt a site".

That is a null hypothesis, not my conclusion or statement.

Read about that subject and type 1 and type 2 errors elsewhere.

The Type 1 error is what you need to have control over. If your are a doctor and want to test a medicine, your null hypothesis is:

H0: The medicine has no effect.

That is the hypothesis you have to reject.

Similar with IBL's.

You choose significance level, let us say 2.5 % (that implies that there is a 2.5 % probability that your conclusion is wrong). So to have the control of type 1 errors, you formulate this statement.

H0: IBL's do not hurt your site.

It is your task as a researcher to reject this hypothesis and conclude that they can hurt you.

1. What would you formulate as the null hypothesis if a person should be sentenced to death if guilty?
2. What significance level would you use?

[crankydave]

kgun... the null hypothesis you suggested was (repeatedly) rejected. Just not to your level of satisfaction.

However...you reject your own null hypothesis by posting links, one of which was to Forbes. That link was was posted prior to you even proffering your null hypothesis.

Timeline...

1. Forbes link posted page 4
2. kgun proffers null hypothesis page 5
3. kgun rejects null hypothesis page 21 by citing same link that was posted back on page 4

Dave

[kgun]

WilliamC.

Dave took this joke. Hopefully you do.

Train a parrot about your logic and talk to it daily about IBL's. You will get more understandable answers from that bird. I am about to give up.

So you read this

The ability to pass pagerank. Can it be lost?

thread?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

kgun... the null hypothesis you suggested was (repeatedly) rejected. Just not to your level of satisfaction.

However...you reject your own null hypothesis by posting links, one of which was to Forbes. That link was was posted prior to you even proffering your null hypothesis.

Timeline...

1. Forbes link posted page 4
2. kgun proffers null hypothesis page 5
3. kgun rejects null hypothesis page 21 by citing same link that was posted back on page 4

And you took the thread into outer space by starting to discuss link patterns. Look through your first posts and read.

kgun proffers

What is that?

So you will conclude that it was me that kept this thread going?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

And you took the thread into outer space by starting to discuss link patterns. Look through your first posts and read.

kgun proffers

What is that?

Outer space? Don't agree at all. IBL's most certainly involve link patterns and their recognition.

proffers=put forth, offer up

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

It appears, based on your last few posts, that you have changed your mind and now agree that IBL's can hurt you... albeit a very narrow window.

Yes, that window regarding IBL's beyond your control is so narrow that I will not worry about it. That window can even have been closed by Google in august 2009.

Originally Posted by crankydave

Outer space? Don't agree at all. IBL's most certainly involve link patterns and their recognition.

Ok, link patterns (manipulation) that you participate in can hurt you but can it hurt you beyond that you got what you deserved?

Can you imagine that more people have made money on link manipulation than those taken and penalized as deserved?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

Ok, link patterns (manipulation) that you participate in can hurt you.

How does a search engine... an algorithm... know who places a link and why? How does a search engine... algorithm... know who created the link pattern and why?

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

How does a search engine... an algorithm... know who places a link and why? How does a search engine... algorithm... know who created the link pattern and why?

Don't ask me about the special implementation.

Generally.

Most probably through a battery of filters, coupling, alerts, red flags (and pop ups if the algorithm's are adaptive - that is - can be combined with human intervention).

I have never been in the control room of an oil platform and I have never been in the inner rooms at Google.

In the any thoughts please category:

Semantic engines - nothing difficult, at all...

Difficult to know this for one that has not been involved in link manipulation beyond reciprocal linking some years ago.

Do you think there are link selling behind the scenes that is not and never will be discovered?

My own solution:

1. Use the rel="nofollow" attribute if I ever sell links.
2. Use the nofollow meta tag on all outbound links (pages).
3. All outbound links are treated equally and no better than sold links and my own links (why should they) (I know about dangling nodes)
4. I may change that to follow internal links to my own pages and outbound links to sites in my own network (see first link in my signature). How? Either by splitting up pages in navigation pages and link pages or rel="nofollow" all external links to third party sites whether they are sold or not.
5. Pay per static brand link a better solution for professional publishers.
6. Use the advertising sites in the lower right corner of my mini network.

Deeper explanation here: Directing bots. Block, disallow and nofollow.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

Don't ask me about the special implementation.

Generally.

Most probably through a battery of filters, coupling, alerts, red flags (and pop ups if the algorithm's are adaptive - that is - can be combined with human intervention).

I have never been in the control room of an oil platform and I have never been in the inner rooms at Google.

There is nothing special about it at all kgun.

A search engine... an algorithm... cannot know who places a link or creates a link pattern and why.

A search engine... an algorithm... cannot know if it is a site owner that does it, a shady SEO who does it for the site owner unbeknownst to the site owner, or some random person/company because they want to.

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

There is nothing special about it at all kgun.

A search engine... an algorithm... cannot know who places a link or creates a link pattern and why.

A search engine... an algorithm... cannot know if it is a site owner that does it, a shady SEO who does it for the site owner unbeknownst to the site owner, or some random person/company because they want to.

Mainly agree, but do not underestimate the potential to identify coupled links and link patterns. And competitors may identify it and send a spam report to Google.

Most probably advanced link manipulation is very profitable. We may hear about a few that is taken and complain that they were unfairly punished and hurt. It is not my business, though.

In the any thoughts please category:

See my edited post below how I personally will adapt to Google's guidelines. In FaceBook, a member can edit his own rotating banner Ad, pay and place it in a restricted priced area / square inch.

Now Twitter will make their own PPC competing with Google AdWords. They are big enough to compete with Google. I highly doubt Twitter and Facebook will have a better model and higher ROI per similar ad.