Can inbound links really hurt you?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

Should the topic of this tread 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 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 can be prevented.

If you want a thread with this topic... start one. Do not attempt to change this one.

Thank you

Dave

[galide]

Should the topic of this tread be changed to:
"The infinite loop of noise without proof around kgun's theory of IBL's."

Not so sure about "around kgun's theory of IBL's.", but the infinite loop of noise without proof seems a good candidate.

I must admit that Janeth is close to give some actual proof. Dave is trailing a bit behind, since he has not actually described any example. But I must say that I am impressed.

Someone like Eric Ward, who is credible, and has quite a fair amount of credentials didn't go as far as stating that he had seen it in action. Just that he strongly believe (very strongly) that inbound links could have an effect on a site (and maybe testing the theory, or networking hard to find someone who can put it in action). So having not 1, but two people here who have actually seen in action is quite amazing.

[kgun]

I page searh for liar and find these from page 1 to here:

Page 3:

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Wow, calling me a liar?? Cool..

I don't really care if you believe more or not.. It's the main reason I avoid these types of discussions.. People get so convinced of their beliefs, without actually testing them, that they fail to see other possibilities..

I said what I wanted to say.. Believe it or not, entirely up to you..

Page 4:

Originally Posted by galide

unfamiliar

Page 4:

Originally Posted by crankydave

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?

Is this your facts? I am not impressed.

[galide]

I think the 4 of us are the only ones left now ranting at each other. I am now running out of arguments, with the same nonsense coming back all the time. I am done.

Dave please say hello to mister Ward when you meet him, Janeth good luck with Dave and your lasting relationship, and Kgun good luck with your scientific theories.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by galide

I think the 4 of us are the only ones left now ranting at each other. I am now running out of arguments, with the same nonsense coming back all the time. I am done.

Dave please say hello to mister Ward when you meet him, Janeth good luck with Dave and your lasting relationship, and Kgun good luck with your scientific theories.

"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).

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

I think the 4 of us are the only ones left now ranting at each other. I am now running out of arguments, with the same nonsense coming back all the time. I am done.

Dave please say hello to mister Ward when you meet him, Janeth good luck with Dave and your lasting relationship, and Kgun good luck with your scientific theories.

It's the weekend. Always slow.

Sorry to hear you're done. I know it can be difficult, but being able to "man up" demonstrates character especially when one is wrong or mistaken. My opinion.

Too bad you simply are going to leave your disparaging accusations on the table.

Dave

[activeco]

Originally Posted by kgun

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).

, I like them too, but raising Google's proprietary, internal, dynamic and often childlish rules to the level of academic research must be the highest compliment they ever received.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by crankydave

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

No, it's called anecdotal evidence, the same kind of evidence that UFO enthusiasts rely on to support their claims

[AVC]

It seems that some of you guys just want to have fun and "win an argument for the Gipper" without using logic, I think some of you are grasping for straws and should focus on putting up posts that actually make sense.

Yes, links from link broker networks when Google took out the networks and all the the sites within the link brokers network that were put up specifically to sell links hurt those who purchased links from the link broker.

All of you who say this is not true have not been around very long.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

And when did you start making the forum rules?

Not a "forum rule," but a basic essential of rationality.

The "take my word for it" argument is the fallacy of "argument from authority."

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Not a "forum rule," but a basic essential of rationality.

The "take my word for it" argument is the fallacy of "argument from authority."

So is "you don't offer proof" therefore it can't be true.

Dave

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

It seems that some of you guys just want to have fun and "win an argument for the Gipper" without using logic, I think some of you are grasping for straws and should focus on putting up posts that actually make sense.

Yes, links from link broker networks when Google took out the networks and all the the sites within the link brokers network that were put up specifically to sell links hurt those who purchased links from the link broker.

All of you who say this is not true have not been around very long.

Again, that is not the particular subject of contention here.

The "great debate" here is over whether or not IBLs that are "pushed" at a site, rather than being "pulled" to it, can negatively affect it, as opposed to having no effect.

[activeco]

I have just created an essay which should prove the stuff. Please let me know if I excluded some of the worthwhile contributors to the solution.

Algorithms on Cyberinformatics

P.S. Don't abuse the paper.

[crankydave]

"Good" people have what may be believed by others to be incorrect ideas, assumptions, opinions, beliefs. It happens.

"Attacking" the idea, opinion, assumption, belief, is one one thing. "Attacking" the person/people is quite another.

Dave

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by crankydave

So is "you don't offer proof" therefore it can't be true.

Dave

A misrepresentation of that stated by those who oppose you.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

A misrepresentation of that stated by those who oppose you.

No. A direct and accurate representation from the link/definition you posted...

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

From that link...

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.

Dave