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 tra