Can inbound links really hurt you?

[galide]

I take your comments on board Jawn, and agree in principle. And I am certainly not arguing here about whether or not inbound links can damage a site, which is very unfortunate since the thread is about that! I have got a strong opinion on the matter, but would welcome any proof that I am wrong.

The only positive statements we have in this thread come from Dave or Janeth, who apparently know something that we don't, but cannot be asked to share with us the actual details.

Now I believe that providing positive statements without proof is also called spreading rumours. And that's the reason I challenge anyone here who carries out such practice. Specially dave who as a moderator, should be very aware about the impact false statement can have on people unfamiliar with the topic and who could be tempted to trust whatever the moderator says.

And I find it worrying that a second moderator such as yourself be ready to give credit to such practice, reinforcing the potential damage false statements are already causing.

Unless we all agree that such practice should be discredited, and that since no proofs have been provided, we should stick to opinions rather than "facts (until someone comes actually with examples and facts)", I don't see how the debate can be healthy.

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by galide

I take your comments on board Jawn, and agree in principle. And I am certainly not arguing here about whether or not inbound links can damage a site, which is very unfortunate since the thread is about that!

You're right, the thread is exactly about that, and it is a shame the last few comments are going off-topic. That's priority one as far as I'm concerned. This thread is not going to be steered into pitting one mod against another because they disagree with you. Or, getting personal. That matter is closed.

Let the on-topic discussion continue please.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

So far it sounds like their position is the damage is the exception rather than the rule, and the conditions have to be just right in order for it to happen.

Not merely the exception, but, more importantly, anecdotal.

Absent proof, I myself do not accept the claim that "bad" IBLs are catgorically "penalized." But, I do have an open mind.

If someone can and will provide substantive proof of such, I will change my position. In the mean, for anyone to claim that we should just "take their word for it" is to not understand the concept of rationality.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

Just throwing in a question here so I can better understand...

For those of you on the "yes it can" side... Are you talking about an anomaly, where conditions have to be just right, or there's a sure-fire way to knock a site down every time. For instance, (purely hypothetical!) could John Doe bring down giants like Adobe, Amazon, or even MSN? (Hacking doesn't count, IBL's only)

To use a metaphor, what I think I'm seeing is you're saying, yes it's possible to hit a baseball out of the park. But whether or not such a hit would beat the other team depends on what inning it is and how many points they have already. Whereas, this would be the equivalent of pattern... So if a pattern were favorable, it would work. No?

Just trying to put my finger on it, and not discrediting what you're saying.

jawn...

When a "linking pattern" that Google doesn't like, doesn't approve of, "egregious", however you'd like to word it, is detected and meets whatever threshold they have established, the target site can/will suffer in the rankings either automatically by the algo or by a "hand job".

For anyone to think, that they can engage in any kind of external link building they wish and the worse thing that can happen is nothing, is being naive.

Dave

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by crankydave

jawn...

When a "linking pattern" that Google doesn't like, doesn't approve of, "egregious", however you'd like to word it, is detected and meets whatever threshold they have established, the target site can/will suffer in the rankings either automatically by the algo or by a "hand job".

For anyone to think, that they can engage in any kind of external link building they wish and the worse thing that can happen is nothing, is being naive.

Dave

But, ones "engaging in ... external link building" is not the issue here.

There is a difference between actively acquiring links and passively receiving such.

One cannot logically conflate the two, and thereby conclude that the consequences of the latter are presumed to be those of the former.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

But, ones "engaging in ... external link building" is not the issue here.

There is a difference between actively acquiring links and passively receiving such.

One cannot logically conflate the two, and thereby conclude that the consequences of the latter are presumed to be those of the former.

They can't tell which is which.

The issue here is the original question.

Dave

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by crankydave

They can't tell which is which.

That's an assumption, one which might hold true in some instances, but not necessarily in all, or even a majority of all instances.

And, to conclude that the default response from any SE is to deem any and all "suspicious" IBLs as being the product of an active effort to acquire such, and therefore subject all to a like "penalty," is likewise an assumption.

Finally, there remains the issue of the form of the "penalty," as previously addressed by several; i.e., "zero value" vs "negative value."

[AVC]

Yes, many have been stung by hiring "directory submission firms" (master link farm promoters) for SEO purposes.

You all remember, send us $49.00 and we will submit your site to 2,000 directories !!!!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Yes, many have been stung by hiring "directory submission firms" (master link farm promoters) for SEO purposes.

You all remember, send us $49.00 and we will submit your site to 2,000 directories !!!!

That, though, is not here under dispute; everyone here agrees that such links, which are knowingly & deliberately acquired are bad for ones site.

The matter under discussion here is links which are passively acquired, by way of others making a unilateral decision to include an OBL pointing to you on their site.

[AVC]

I thought the title of the thread was "Can inbound links really hurt you"?

The answer is yes, for sure, they can hurt you, especially if you have 2,000 links with the same anchor text and they are all coming from link farm directories, guest books and other seedy pages.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

That's an assumption, one which might hold true in some instances, but not necessarily in all, or even a majority of all instances.

And, to conclude that the default response from any SE is to deem any and all "suspicious" IBLs as being the product of an active effort to acquire such, and therefore subject all to a like "penalty," is likewise an assumption.

Finally, there remains the issue of the form of the "penalty," as previously addressed by several; i.e., "zero value" vs "negative value."

What? Google can't know if a webmaster is aquiring links themself, hired someone to do it for them , or if it's being done by a third party. The algo can't know. What do you think they do? Call every site owner everytime they see a pattern they don't like and ask "Hey, you do this? and believe the answer they'd get. Cmon.

All it see's is a pattern. The form of the penalty? I already posted what Google says they do in this thread so there is no issue there.

Any SE? Cmon deepsand. All SE's do their own thing.

The original question remains the same... Can inbound links really hurt you? My answer remains the same. Yes they can. No more, no less. I don't know why you want to spin this into something it's not.

Dave

[AVC]

Google is smarter than you think, they have thought out all scenarios here, they see patterns in linking via sophisticated link mapping technologies that webmasters do not have, they can catch all reciprocal and triangular linking schemes easy, that is their business and they score sites depending on how many rules a webmaster breaks.

They know that in many cases webmasters reciprocate back to directories they used automated submission services with and this is how they can determine you purchased the service from a link farm or link broker or an "SEO professional".

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Google is smarter than you think, they have thought out all scenarios here, they see patterns in linking via sophisticated link mapping technologies that webmasters do not have, they can catch all reciprocal and triangular linking schemes easy, that is their business and they score sites depending on how many rules a webmaster breaks.

They know that in many cases webmasters reciprocate back to directories they used automated submission services with and this is how they can determine you purchased the service from a link farm or link broker or an "SEO professional".

Smarter than "who" thinks?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by crankydave

What? Google can't know if a webmaster is aquiring links themself, hired someone to do it for them , or if it's being done by a third party. The algo can't know. What do you think they do? Call every site owner everytime they see a pattern they don't like and ask "Hey, you do this? and believe the answer they'd get. Cmon.

All it see's is a pattern. The form of the penalty? I already posted what Google says they do in this thread so there is no issue there.

Any SE? Cmon deepsand. All SE's do their own thing.

The original question remains the same... Can inbound links really hurt you? My answer remains the same. Yes they can. No more, no less. I don't know why you want to spin this into something it's not.

Dave

So, you're saying that Google follows the dictum of "Shoot first and ask questions later? Guilty until proven innocent?"

Were this the case, why has the net not yet erupted in total chaos, as everyone rushes to spam the sites of others, so as to cause them to be discredited?

And, no, the OP's question was not about all IBLs in general, as indicated by himself both in his original post and several he later made.

As jawn_tech asked at Can inbound links really hurt you? , are you talking about said "penalties" being the rule or the exception?

If you mean the exception, then there is no disagreement.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

So, you're saying that Google follows the dictum of "Shoot first and ask questions later? Guilty until proven innocent?"

Were this the case, why has the net not yet erupted in total chaos, as everyone rushes to spam the sites of others, so as to cause them to be discredited?

And, no, the OP's question was not about all IBLs in general, as indicated by himself both in his original post and several he later made.

As jawn_tech asked at Can inbound links really hurt you? , are you talking about said "penalties" being the rule or the exception?

If you mean the exception, then there is no disagreement.

lol

I don't how else I can put it deepsand. I've said it a few times now.

When a "linking pattern" that Google doesn't like, doesn't approve of, "egregious", however you'd like to word it, is detected and meets whatever threshold they have established, the target site can/will suffer in the rankings either automatically by the algo or by a "hand job".

Dave

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Not merely the exception, but, more importantly, anecdotal.

Absent proof, I myself do not accept the claim that "bad" IBLs are catgorically "penalized." But, I do have an open mind.

If someone can and will provide substantive proof of such, I will change my position. In the mean, for anyone to claim that we should just "take their word for it" is to not understand the concept of rationality.

Trying to proof any type of behaviour of an advanced search engine like Google is like trying to proof that the weather works the way it works.

Can you proof that it doesn't rain when the sun shines?

Link paterns are like weather paterns. Based on a weather pattern you can say certain things, but it doesn't hold up every time.

Link patern analysis is the same. There is no definite good link - bad link analysis any more. (except for some specific cases.). It's the pattern (behaviour if you like that word better) that is analized and based on that the Algorithms decide what to do.

So it can happen that a link from site A to site B can have a negative result, while a link from site A to site C is fine. It's not about the links them selves, it's about the link patterns (or link profile.)

If you had a talk in the train with a criminal, the police could think you´re a criminal too. But if it's just that one random talk with that one criminial because you happened to be in the same train, then you will not be investigated. However, if 80% of the people you talk with are criminals (including that one in the train) then the police will be investigating you.

It's not about the individual incidents. It's about your general behaviour.

[galide]

I have got my own little theory on the topic - it's called the "infinite loop" lol

[kevsta]

lol @ the drawing ..Galide I think this is pretty widely known about, and there several of the "black cat" sites that explain in detail. ..try a search for Google Bowling on Google.com and check out the top few threads, and tell us you'd be happy to let those boys try and get your sites taken down?

the #2 post in that search are actually hiring their services to do it, albeit maybe tongue in cheek for publicity purposes, but am sure he'd have a crack at it for us if you really want to test it out?

I know I wouldnt invite them to try on my sites...

[galide]

Sometimes it only takes a little picture to get things moving Thanks Kevsta, we have now a coined "expression", and an article on Forbes talking about it
The Saboteurs Of Search - Forbes.com

Which after reading stills looks pretty much like the picture!

When Scott has stooped to direct sabotage, he says he's signed nondisclosure agreements that prevent him from revealing details of the deal. Such secrecy means that claims of using Google bowling are difficult to verify. Jason Duke, another practitioner of negative SEO based in London, is similarly tight-lipped about his deals, as well as the specific methods he uses for reducing a site's ranking in search results. "We don't talk loudly about our clients," he says. "Especially the ones we do morally questionable things for."

.. from the guys who know but cannot say...

But Google bowling is much more inviting as an idea than it is in practice.

From Google..

You end up in the same loop, with some SEO companies enjoying new ways to scam their clients with unprovable tactics. In the old days it was "we will submit your site to 1000s directories and website for a mere £3000".

I am really swinging between the idea of taking the piss out of the scam, and playing along, the same way they do it on this forum, which at least is funny, or get out of the infinite loop and stop trying to fight a scam which even google find it hard to fight, or carry on arguing in this thread and break the record of the longest thread in history, never ending!

[kevsta]

you know, i see what you're saying, but isn't it rather like saying that since most hitmen will not discuss their crimes in detail, names, dates, places etc, the crimes more than likely dont happen, and assassinating people probably doesnt work anyway?

im also not reading that forum thread you linked as taking the pi$$? they sound like people who know what to do and how to do it, trying to resist the temptation to me..

[galide]

[kevsta]

lol are you just going to cartoon us into submission now? i suppose it depends who you choose to believe.

they (Google) are hardly going to say:

"well, yea actually this does work if you know what youre doing, its a bit of an issue we're working on constantly, so in the meantime if you could all not do it to each other we'd be very grateful"

..are they?

[activeco]

Originally Posted by galide

The Saboteurs Of Search - Forbes.com


.. from the guys who know but cannot say...
"But Google bowling is much more inviting as an idea than it is in practice."

From Google..

Selective quoting. You forgot a lot of Cutts words from that article:

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.

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

Ouch.
Of course, Matt can't prove it.

[galide]

i suppose it depends who you choose to believe.

It doesn't, that is the point.

Take the example of Google bombing. Getting a website to rank for a keyword which is not even included in the actual page. This is possible, and very easy to verify. And whoever is sceptical about it can be pointed to
Step 1: the methodology, such as Word Spy - Google bombing
Step 2: an actual example (Google Kills Bush's Miserable Failure Search & Other Google Bombs)
Step 3: Google does a public annoucement (Algorithm to reduce Googlebomb impact).

We have not even reached step 1 for google bowling, which means that Google bowling is still at speculation stage. And until we have completed step 2, I don't see any point in trying to push positive statements forward.

We could have the same debate about ghosts, UFOs, objective WPW moderators, etc .. you can try to prove that they exist, you can have your own opinion about the matter, but whoever says "I know that ghosts exist, you have to trust me" without providing any proof of what they are saying can be considered as a scammer. And the fact that scientists cannot answer the question about whether or not ghosts exist cannot be used as an argument really to prove their existence.

Where are we now in the picture.. mmmh .. back to square one. I think we should get a post about "whatever you say is your own optinion, but as I said many times previously, inbound links CAN have a negative impact on websites, trust me I know" very soon...

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by galide

It doesn't, that is the point.

Take the example of Google bombing. Getting a website to rank for a keyword which is not even included in the actual page. This is possible, and very easy to verify. And whoever is sceptical about it can be pointed to
Step 1: the methodology, such as Word Spy - Google bombing
Step 2: an actual example (Google Kills Bush's Miserable Failure Search & Other Google Bombs)
Step 3: Google does a public annoucement (Algorithm to reduce Googlebomb impact).

agreed but im not following the connection really. i bet you couldn't googlebomb anyone using links from spammy and bad areas and domains, one would think that more likely works because it's fairly trusted bloggers with reasonable PRs etc on the whole that do it?

Originally Posted by galide

We have not even reached step 1 for google bowling, which means that Google bowling is still at speculation stage. And until we have completed step 2, I don't see any point in trying to push positive statements forward.

I dont follow, what is "step 1" for Google bombing?

Originally Posted by galide

We could have the same debate about ghosts, UFOs, objective WPW moderators, etc .. you can try to prove that they exist, you can have your own opinion about the matter, but whoever says "I know that ghosts exist, you have to trust me" without providing any proof of what they are saying can be considered as a scammer. And the fact that scientists cannot answer the question about whether or not ghosts exist cannot be used as an argument really to prove their existence.

agreed, and I would be taking the side you are on this except for the bold

Originally Posted by galide

Where are we now in the picture.. mmmh .. back to square one. I think we should get a post about "whatever you say is your own optinion, but as I said many times previously, inbound links CAN have a negative impact on websites, trust me I know" very soon...

I come from a skeptics position myself and understand all too well the arguments you give. however if I personally had seen done, or done something I didnt want to talk about with details, I would know I was correct and your arguments however "logical" would be wrong.

this is a possibility you should always consider too.

personally i think you should drop the personal crusade on here and on your blog regarding WPW moderators, youre making yourself look a bit silly to be honest.

The mods here may not be the world's most highly paid cutting edge SEO consultants (or they may be for all I know) but to the man they are solid, dependable, helpful, and very experienced guys, with the patience of saints. (i know i've tested it from time to time ) and they have helped me greatly in the past.

just think how much they see of it all, week in week out on here for years and years. the crap they have to put up with at times is hilarious really, considering they likely do it for no financial recompense (again speculation, but is usually the way) to help people.

should we stick to the subject and stop having little digs at people?

[galide]

Nothing wrong with challenging people kevsta, mods or not. Provided that we are all now trapped in the infinite loop of nonsense, maybe worth having just a little fun.

[kevsta]

lol. no youre right nothing wrong with challenging at all. ..its knowing exactly where a challenge turns into a crusade

..so what did you mean by "were not at step 1 with google bombing" ?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

It's been a while since first having learned of the various fallacies and their names, but, I believe that what we continue to witness here re. claims that "bad" IBLs are categorically harmful is properly defined as argumentum ad ignorantiam, a most commonly employed sophistic reasoning.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I missed this earlier...

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is only false because it has not been proven true.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

Both arguments commonly share this structure: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true. The types of fallacies discussed in this article should not be confused with the reductio ad absurdum method of argument, in which a valid logical contradiction of the form "A and not A" is used to disprove a premise.

My bolding

Here's an infinite loop for you galide...



Dave

[galide]

We have not even reached step 1 for google bowling

Google bowling (as you pointed out), not google bombing. We have not even a methodology describing how to start an inbound links campaigns against someone.

We know the impact of Google bombing. by using the same keyword(s) again and again in your anchor text, you convince the search engines that the site should rank for these keywords. And if the competition is not very high, anchor text will be enough to get you to the top.

We still don't even know what the impact of Google bowling would be. Loss of Pagerank power? disqualified for the keywords used in the anchor text? removal of the site from the Index? The actual theory is not even complete, nobody has put together a methodology to test it. And we are already talking about facts???

If someone finds the methodology, they will publish it on their blog, or site, or forum. This is what SEO is all about really. And this is why people like randfish are considered as great SEO - they manage to get huge visibility for themselves. And once you have got this exposure, all your clients can benefit from it. In short, if such methodology existed (not even an actual example), we would know about it, because people who have found it would see there a great opportunity to drive the spotlights on themselves.

Until you have actually found a sound methodology and tested it, nothing prevents you form grabbing the spotlights though, raise awareness about the subject and start writing about it (you have provided the coin term, and a search for the term google bowling shows that a lot has been written about it). Even if it turns out to be not true, it was an opportunity to get something exciting to talk about it.

It is probably a lot of time wasted trying to go against this stream, but I find it quite amazing that when you try to explain what is going on with simple words, you get a lot of resistance, and see people jumping on the wagon and throw out positive statements, just to bridge the gap between their own perceived value and their actual knowledge.

[galide]

Here's an infinite loop for you galide...

I don't know whether inbound links can or cannot really hurt a site. I am afraid your picture looks good (), but is not actually very useful.

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

I will try again to understand what you are saying Dave.

1) Do you agree with me that as long as you cannot prove something, you cannot provide a positive statement about its existence, unless it is an act of faith.

If not, you are wasting your time, and the time of others really

2) I believe that you don't want to waste your time here (and the time of others obviously), and that the reason why you provide a positive statement is because you have got the proof that inbound links can hurt a site.

Am I correct? If I am, we can then stop all the crap and simply challenge you on what this proof is. Because if you cannot provide the proof we are back to square 1, which mean that you cannot provide a positive statement in the first place.

[kevsta]

see that was a good post apart from the last paragraph so i'll just ignore that. edit - am referring to the post 2 above this one

with regards to google bowling these are obviously black hat activities? how many black hat seos are open and honest about what, where and how they do things?

about as many as spies i should think.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

If someone finds the methodology, they will publish it on their blog, or site, or forum. This is what SEO is all about really. And this is why people like randfish are considered as great SEO - they manage to get huge visibility for themselves. And once you have got this exposure, all your clients can benefit from it. In short, if such methodology existed (not even an actual example), we would know about it, because people who have found it would see there a great opportunity to drive the spotlights on themselves.

This is simply not true. How long did the 302 redirect bug or proxy hacking problems remain out of the spotlight? SEO is not about rushing out as soon as something is "discovered" and publish it. Especially in the case of potential exploits. No, it's not all about driving the spotlight on yourself. You don't really think everything that is "known", tested, and/or discovered gets "published" do you?

Folks are constantly looking for, testing, experimenting, for the next thing that "works". The next thing they can "exploit". The next thing they can "take advantage of". I can assure you, when they find it, they don't run out and tell everybody they can just to get "in the "spotlight".

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

I don't know whether inbound links can or cannot really hurt a site. I am afraid your picture looks good (), but is not actually very useful.

Glad you like the picture. I'd say it's just about as "useful" as the one you originally posted.

Originally Posted by galide

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

Which is, as I quoted above, an... argumentum ad ignorantiam

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is only false because it has not been proven true.

Dave

[galide]

see that was a good post apart from the last paragraph so i'll just ignore that.

Pity, because that's the exact reason why such scams are so powerful. People read them, then think that they are in the know and can impress others with their knowledge. But once they get challenged, they then cannot afford to say that they actually don't have any proof of what they are saying wihout taking the risk of loosing their credibility.

If you don't take this factor on board, which is a human factor, you miss one of the main reason why scams such as this one can spread so easily. I remember 4 years ago having this exact same conversation about keywords density... and wasted a lot of time trying to convince people on the board (it was on SEOchat at the time) that it was nonsense. Keywords density scam was the exact same think. I should have learnt you will tell me, since I am falling in the same trap today , and wasting a lot of time trying to get the point across.

with regards to google bowling these are obviously black hat activities

Black hat activities doesn't mean unknown SEO tricks. This is an other myth which helps these scams spreading. If you take for example the 301 hijacking tactic: It was known for a while before people started talking about it. But as soon as someone posted about it, you had thousands of example of applications, methodology, etc ... posted by people who wanted the credit for it. If inbound links damage was not a scam, we would have 100s of examples available by now. This is my opinion anyway, which is well documented though and based on facts. And the only way to challenge this opinion is to post an example on this forum, or link to one.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kevsta

see that was a good post apart from the last paragraph so i'll just ignore that. edit - am referring to the post 2 above this one

with regards to google bowling these are obviously black hat activities? how many black hat seos are open and honest about what, where and how they do things?

about as many as spies i should think.

Not neccessarily any kind of "hat". I happen to prefer "ballcap SEO" but that's just me.

While the expression is often used to describe an attempt to do something that can be perceived as "negative" (ie miserable failure), the same type of "idea" can be used to simply "bludgeon" yourself up in the rankings.

Dave

[galide]

Funny, I typed "301 hijacking" in google and posted the first link available in google. Turns out to be an article spreading rumours about "Spammy Link Buying" as they call it as well as explaining what 301 hijacking.

Let's give them the credit for that and keep the link, they fooled the fool, but here is an other link a bit more "reliable", in case some jump on the opportunity to justify their statement by quoting the page about "Spammy Link Buying": Revisiting Hijacking & Redirects: Moving To A Solution [SearchEngineWatch]

[crankydave]

Not sure what point you're trying to make galide.

The discussions on whether or not IBL's can hurt you is certainly not an new one. Here's some other opinions...

Outsource Link Building? - Search Engine Watch Forums

A couple of quotes from there...

People who say you can't be harmed for who is linking to you are dead wrong. I'll stake my entire 13+ years linking career and my dog on it. One link or a few wont hurt you, however what the engines are looking for is a pattern, or what I call a link signature or link imprint that shows a pattern of bad links.

You are dead right about that. I've never known a search engine say that IBLs can't hurt you - because they can. People often misquote Google on that, but what Google has always said is that IBLs can't usually hurt you.

Dave

[crankydave]

And for the sake of discussion, let's throw this into the mix as well...

Trusted vs Untrusted Links : SEO Book.com

From there...

I was thinking... it is quite easy for people to build up a huge quantity of low-quality links.
Don't you think that it could be used as a "tactic" to lower the position of competitors ?

The reply from Aaron...

I have seen it done. And I have seen it both work and not work, on a case by case basis.

The newer and less established a site is the easier it is to blow them out of the SERPs...but older established sites pick up many automated scraper links just by ranking well, so Google wouldn't want to nuke those sites for something that is a direct result of being authoritative and ranking well.

More people "making stuff up galide?

Dave

[galide]

Please Dave, I am reading all your post in details before I dare challenging you. May I ask you to do the same, in order to avoid having to repeat myself.

Until you have actually found a sound methodology and tested it, nothing prevents you form grabbing the spotlights though, raise awareness about the subject and start writing about it (you have provided the coin term, and a search for the term google bowling shows that a lot has been written about it).

Sorry for the tone, but if everytime you only grab a piece of the post and question it without reading the rest, we will not go very far.

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

[galide]

More people "making stuff up galide?

I think the term "bowling" has been chosen very well! hat down guys, that's exactely what we have got here, a bowling effect. We get someone writing about it, an other one reading about it and then writing about it, and this keeps going until the amount of posts about the topic is actually used as an argument to prove that the "stuff" exists.

[galide]

Check out how many posts are available about keywords density Dave btw

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

I think the term "bowling" has been chosen very well! hat down guys, that's exactely what we have got here, a bowling effect. We get someone writing about it, an other one reading about it and then writing about it, and this keeps going until the amount of posts about the topic is actually used as an argument to prove that the "stuff" exists.

There have been 3 people in this thread saying they have seen it done and/or tested it. Aaron Wall has said he's seen it done. Eric Ward definitively states you can be harmed for who links to you.

You call it "bowling"? lol

Dave

[galide]

lol, yes I do.

Worth the read How bloggers game Google, before you take these guys too seriously and state things true only based in the trust you have got in your "peers".

Eric Ward is obviously more credible, and quoting him

I'll stake my entire 13+ years linking career and my dog on it

. He is giving an opinion here, but no proof (staking on it, which explicitely means that it is a speculation). I respect his opinion, and he is maybe right.

Nothing prevents you from relying on someone else's opinion to take a position yourself, and relying on what Eric Ward says is a good bet. But even him, who is as you pointed out a "links expert" would not take the risk to say something like:

Can inbound links really hurt you? My answer remains the same. Yes they can. No more, no less.

The difference is not that big, and everyone has made the same mistake, but would be great if at least you could recognise the fact that the statements you have provided were solely based on what you have read, which are opinions, not facts. Which then would prove my point. Difficult, I know

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by galide

Pity, because that's the exact reason why such scams are so powerful. People read them, then think that they are in the know and can impress others with their knowledge. But once they get challenged, they then cannot afford to say that they actually don't have any proof of what they are saying wihout taking the risk of loosing their credibility.

sorry i hoped this wouldnt happen, i didnt mean this paragraph, I meant the last one from the post before, but we've moved on now anyway so lets leave it.

Originally Posted by galide

Black hat activities doesn't mean unknown SEO tricks. This is an other myth which helps these scams spreading. If you take for example the 301 hijacking tactic: It was known for a while before people started talking about it. But as soon as someone posted about it, you had thousands of example of applications, methodology, etc ... posted by people who wanted the credit for it. If inbound links damage was not a scam, we would have 100s of examples available by now. This is my opinion anyway, which is well documented though and based on facts. And the only way to challenge this opinion is to post an example on this forum, or link to one.

disagree. the best "dark cap" tactics only work until they become well known by all. once that happens they have a very limited lifecycle and you then have to write ebooks to milk every last drop until its algorithmised out of existence.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Not neccessarily any kind of "hat". I happen to prefer "ballcap SEO" but that's just me.

While the expression is often used to describe an attempt to do something that can be perceived as "negative" (ie miserable failure), the same type of "idea" can be used to simply "bludgeon" yourself up in the rankings.

Dave

lol "bludgeon", ..now there's a good word. ..so dave presumably the kind of link patterns youre talking about would need to be from untrusted or bad domains known linkfarms etc? you would think as kgun and others have said that a massive acquisition of dubious links would just be given a nil value though really.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

The difference is not that big, and everyone has made the same mistake, but would be great if at least you could recognise the fact that the statements you have provided were solely based on what you have read, which are opinions, not facts. Which then would prove my point. Difficult, I know

Not difficult at all.

Based solely on what I've read? I have already posted I know "first hand". I simply offered up some others who have either seen it done (Aaron), or "know it can happen" (Eric). You've already called me and another member of this community "liars".

Is Aaron a liar too? Just making it up as well? How about Eric? Making stuff up?

AFAIC you've been, and continue to be, way out of bounds on this galide. You want to disagree... fine. You want to insist it can't happen... also fine. You want to not believe a single word or take it with grain of salt... fine too.

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kevsta

lol "bludgeon", ..now there's a good word. ..so dave presumably the kind of link patterns youre talking about would need to be from untrusted or bad domains known linkfarms etc? you would think as kgun and others have said that a massive acquisition of dubious links would just be given a nil value though really.

Again, not neccessarily. Attempting to game or otherwise manipulate the rankings doesn't have to happen only through those particular elements although it seems easier that way for those intent on doing so. Also remember that Google wants folks not to employ these kind of "tactics". Simply "ignoring" them or giving them no value when they discover them and decide/determine that it's an "ergregious" pattern, isn't much of a deterent IMO.

Dave

[janeth]

Originally Posted by galide

You cannot use this argument Janeth, this is Dave's one - One person alone using this type of arguments confuses already a lot of people, but if everyone starts saying crap and justifies it by saying "you can take my word for it or not I could really careless" it will make it a completely useless thread.

And when did you start making the forum rules?

[janeth]

Here is what I know about first hand.

A site was ranking in the top ten for a certain keyword (the site is not mine nor a client of mine, I can not list the site because I was told in confidence about the site) the site owner wanted to be higher up on the page. The page was optimized for the search engines as far as it could go. They put a very high pr link to the site and the site dropped out of the search engines for that keyword.

They removed the link and the site reappeared. They posted about it in a private discussion and then replaced the link and once again the site disappeared then they removed the link and it reappeared. It was a very long thread and I am not going to go back and read through it but from what I remember the site had a low pr and the site linking to it had a pr higher than 6.

Had the link been left there maybe it would have eventually reappeared. But most people would rather not do testing on a clients site.

I also read on some other forums where some people where testing the Google bowling thing and was having a lot of fun knocking sites out of the search engines. But none of them were high pr sites. I think it would only work on a low pr site.

My two cents.

[kgun]

Should the topic of this thread be changed to:

"The infinite loop of noise without proof around kgun's theory of IBL's."

P.S. For those of you that still do not understand the difference between:

1. Zeroed out a priori undeserved positive effect of IBL's.
2. Negative net effect.
3. Other effects.

please reread the thread before you continue with your noise, so future misunderstandings (confusion) can be prevented.