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

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by crankydave

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

From that link...

Dave

Sorry; nice try, but, no cigar. Were this a Philosophy 101 class, I'm afraid that wouldn't pass.

Final Exam question: In 25 words words or less, answer the Question "Why?"

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's interesting, and seems to indicate that PR is worked into the historical data algorithms. (which makes sense because PR is the base of all algorithms at Google.)

For sure it would have reappeared after some time.

[kgun]

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.

Please reread the thread.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

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.)

Please explain this before you produce more noise.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

That's interesting, and seems to indicate that PR is worked into the historical data algorithms. (which makes sense because PR is the base of all algorithms at Google.)

For sure it would have reappeared after some time.

And most likely higher and stronger than ever. Not sure what affect it had on the other keywords though nor how the link was set up.

If the guy was buying the link for a month then I can understand removing it but if it was going to be long term like a couple years they should have let it ride. But trying to explain to a customer how come he is no longer ranking at all might be a little tough.

Guess if we had a pr7 or higher site and a site that was a couple years old with low pr and they were set up in different names on on different host we could do some testing.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by kgun

Please explain this before you produce more noise.

Finaly somebody that responds to that post,. and be nice kgun.

Though I think I made it clear using the "talking to 1 criminal" example, I'll try again.

The whole idea of link analysis is about determining the quality and popularity of a page in relation to a certain keyword phrase. Most here are looking at determining if a link is good or bad by looking at the page that contains the link. But the idea of a link analysis is more about all the links and the commonalities (or patterns) that exist in the link profile. One link alone doesn't say that much.


Look at it like this:

If your car website (site B) has 200 links from all kinds of sites that aren't even closely related to cars, and just 5 links from related websites, then that link profile is no good. Suppose that one of those unrelated sites is about horses. And in that site (site A) there is a link to a farm that breeds horses. Now that link is beneficial to the farm website (site C). But to the car website the link is considered bad, even if it is not a paid link or something like that, but simply a link that the owner put in his blog in a personal post.

It's not about that 1 link. It's about the general patterns in the link profile.

Unless you look at backlinks the way I just described, you´re going to end up in the previous mentioned loop,... , where there is proof that a link is bad in some cases and good in other cases.

Link analysis is not about the pages that contain the links, but about the links them selves.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Finaly somebody that responds to that post,. and be nice kgun.

Though I think I made it clear using the "talking to 1 criminial" example, I'll try again.

The whole idea of link analysis is about determining the quality and popularity of a page in relation to a certain keyword phrase. Most here are looking at determining if a link is good or bad by looking at the page that contains the link. But the idea of a link analysis is more about all the links and the commonalities (or patterns) that exist in the link profile. One link alone doesn't say that much.


Look at it like this:

If your car website (site B) has 200 links from all kinds of sites that aren't even closely related to cars, and just 5 links from related websites, then that link profile is no good. Suppose that one of those unrelated sites is about horses. And in that site (site A) there is a link to a farm that breeds horses. Now that link is beneficial to the farm website (site C). But to the car website the link is considered bad, even if it is not a paid link or something like that, but simply a link that the owner put in his blog in a personal post.

It's not about that 1 link. It's about the general patterns in the link profile.

Unless you look at backlinks the way I just described, you´re going to end up in the previous mentioned loop,... , where there is proof that a link is bad in some cases and good in other cases.

Link analysis is not about the pages that contain the links, but about the links them selves.

But it would need to be done by the page and not by the website.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by janeth

And most likely higher and stronger than ever. Not sure what affect it had on the other keywords though nor how the link was set up.

If the guy was buying the link for a month then I can understand removing it but if it was going to be long term like a couple years they should have let it ride. But trying to explain to a customer how come he is no longer ranking at all might be a little tough.

Guess if we had a pr7 or higher site and a site that was a couple years old with low pr and they were set up in different names on on different host we could do some testing.

Yes, a lot of things are way too complex to explain to most clients. We usually even don't go there when doing SEO for a client. Also, it's pretty much never necessary as links only are really important for very few sites.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by janeth

But it would need to be done by the page and not by the website.

Worse,.... it needs to be done for every query for all the pages that are selected and then site factors are also taken into account.

I'm sure they have some smart logic at work that reduces the amount of redundant calculations.

[AVC]

Originally Posted by kgun

Please reread the thread.


Please explain this before you produce more noise.

You and DeepSand need to "read the thread" and quit trying to dodge reality and facts, you guys keep asking for "proof", just keep reading my posts over and over, that is all the "proof" you need.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

That's interesting, and seems to indicate that PR is worked into the historical data algorithms. (which makes sense because PR is the base of all algorithms at Google.)

For sure it would have reappeared after some time.

Quite possible even probabale as the site aged further and more work was done. However, if the site where the links originated was not at all on topic, it's also quite possible it not reappear until the pattern is overcome. If the pattern remains, and is still considered "egregious", then it may not.

I seem to remember reading somewhere, Rand I think, that in some instances it was neccessary to change the URL in instances that the links could not be removed.

Dave

[crankydave]

A new thread has been started for the side discussion.

Can PR Be Negative?

Dave

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Worse,.... it needs to be done for every query for all the pages that are selected and then site factors are also taken into account.

I'm sure they have some smart logic at work that reduces the amount of redundant calculations.

The reason I said by the page is because I was thinking about wikipeida.

There site seems to rank well in Google even though they have something on every topic you can think of.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

A new thread has been started for the side discussion.

Can PR Be Negative?

Dave

Did I start that thread? There is enough people left to agree with you to continue your agreement. I quit this thread. In the democratic nature of the web let this comment stay.

Private copy: kgun

[kgun]

Ok, I shall, because of your response in that thread continue.

Can inbound links really hurt you?

Are you able to give

1. Reasonable interpretations of that question?
2. One or more precision?

[AVC]

Google can see patterns of reciprocal or triangular linking, so they know for sure if you have participated in the linking scheme this way.

If you have had 10,000 one way links pointed at your site by a competitor using automated reciprocal link networks (Google Bowling) you are less likely to get hurt because Google knows some unethical SEO's are doing this to knock out competitors for their clients, in addition a smart webmaster will report this sort of activity to Google when they see it.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by AVC

Google can see patterns of reciprocal or triangular linking, so they know for sure if you have participated in the linking scheme this way.

If you have had 10,000 one way links pointed at your site by a competitor using automated reciprocal link networks (Google Bowling) you are less likely to get hurt because Google knows some unethical SEO's are doing this to knock out competitors for their clients, in addition a smart webmaster will report this sort of activity to Google when they see it.

Google Bowling is old and so is the other stuff that we saw happening. I am not sure what affect it would have on the rankings if it was done today.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

Google Bowling is old and so is the other stuff that we saw happening. I am not sure what affect it would have on the rankings if it was done today.

Quite true. Past is not necessarily prologue.

And, given that Google does in fact respond to new circumstances and conditions as they arise, there is no basis for arguing otherwise.

[crankydave]

I remember reading a "recent" blog post/article about the "bowling". Can't for the life of me remember where. Anyway, it was about a group who "bowled" a site and ranked it for a phrase/term that appeared nowhere on the site.

So the "issue" was not completely resolved if this wasn't an anomaly.

As far as whether or not it applies "right now". I personally would be surprised if it did not. They are still going to be looking at patterns. They are still going to react "unkindly" to those patterns they don't like when they discover them. Actually, if I were to hazzard a guess, I'd say that it could likely be easier because of their stance on paid links. I don't think there's a whole lot of argument that they are being very aggressive when it comes to links they "believe" to be paid.

Dave

[galide]

You may want to search for "google bombing" dave, not "google bowling", and you are probably talking about this article.

Just passing by, I see you are still wasting a lot of time talking nonsense - BFN

Emmanuel

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

You may want to search for "google bombing" dave, not "google bowling", and you are probably talking about this article.

Just passing by, I see you are still wasting a lot of time talking nonsense - BFN

Emmanuel

No, not the article I read but it was about that I believe.

The two terms have been used synonomously. Search "google bowling".

Matt Cutts has even referred to it as bowling...

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."

Dave

[kgun]

"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."

Extremely important cite. There I think you hit the heart of the subject in this thread. In theory it is impossible but not in practice. In my view, if it can be proved, it is even criminal. There is no primary difference between distroying an offline or an online business.

For that reason you should be very careful when you report a competitor's site.

And a company doing it runs the risk of being penalised itself, in the worst case the site closed.

In 2008, there is still much anarchy on the internet. That will decrease as the web matures.

[AVC]

Originally Posted by deepsand

A "penalty" by virtue of their being discounted, i.e. given a zero weight, or affirmatively by way of a negative weight. If the latter, what proof of such exists?

Are all reciprocal links "bad?" If not, how to discern "bad" from "good?"

Negative is when you get busted for blatantly reciprocating with a tagged group of websites (known link broker created websites or known link farms) and G does a hand job on your website (de-indexing you and taking all your PR away for good).

Reciprocal linking when it is natural is fine, but Matt Cutts has mentioned it many times on his blog as being bad when done specifically for SEO and that a high percentage of reciprocals sends an alert to Google, when they see this they look at who your are trading links with and if that happens to be blacklisted link farms or link broker created websites you are toast.

[galide]

he two terms have been used synonomously. Search "google bowling".

it's even worse than I thought

Send a quick PM to one of the other moderators Dave and ask them to brief you before you carry on doing damages to this thread and a fool of yourself. You are also damaging WPW, who cannot be taken seriously if they let someone like you moderate forums about SEO...

[AVC]

Originally Posted by galide

it's even worse than I thought

Send a quick PM to one of the other moderators Dave and ask them to brief you before you carry on doing damages to this thread and a fool of yourself. You are also damaging WPW, who cannot be taken seriously if they let someone like you moderate forums about SEO...

You seem to talk a lot of trash, but at the same time you really say nothing, so give us a specific position and statement on where you really stand here instead of attempting to "win a debate" with Dave.

[galide]

This feels like cuckoo's nest! I am just genuinely impressed, I really don't get a chance to meet people like you in real life. And more amazingly, we have got a group of people with the same abilities to turn any sensible argument into a complete nonsense who meet together at the same place.

I just pointed that Dave mixes up potatoes and bananas, that he doesn't even see the difference between getting a site ranked with anchor links, and the idea of taking a site down with "bad reputation" links, which every one with a minimum of brain would have taken on board, and just run away, red face, to hide in a corner so that people forget about him. He comes back, bragging as ever, sweeping the argument totally with new nonsense and even proud of it. Guys, I was a bit upset the first time I landed here, I am just forwarding this thread to everyone I know now for a laugh!

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

it's even worse than I thought

Send a quick PM to one of the other moderators Dave and ask them to brief you before you carry on doing damages to this thread and a fool of yourself. You are also damaging WPW, who cannot be taken seriously if they let someone like you moderate forums about SEO...

By all means galide...

While you're at it, be sure and tell Web Pro News, Matt Cutts, Todd Malicoat, "Rustybrick", Rand Fishkin, etc. how much "damage" they have done.

All trolling is doing is making you look foolish galide.

If all you're able to "contribute" is insults and attacks without providing anything of substance to the discussion/debate then you'll quickly find those posts removed for admin review. I've been patient and tolerant long enough.

Dave

[galide]

help help help

[AVC]

Originally Posted by galide

This feels like cuckoo's nest! I am just genuinely impressed, I really don't get a chance to meet people like you in real life. And more amazingly, we have got a group of people with the same abilities to turn any sensible argument into a complete nonsense who meet together at the same place.

I just pointed that Dave mixes up potatoes and bananas, that he doesn't even see the difference between getting a site ranked with anchor links, and the idea of taking a site down with "bad reputation" links, which every one with a minimum of brain would have taken on board, and just run away, red face, to hide in a corner so that people forget about him. He comes back, bragging as ever, sweeping the argument totally with new nonsense and even proud of it. Guys, I was a bit upset the first time I landed here, I am just forwarding this thread to everyone I know now for a laugh!

You should because you are the nut here that everyone is laughing at Son !!!

[kevsta]

galide you seem to have a real problem. what exactly is it?

you are not exactly contributing in a positive manner or helping in anyway? if it were my board i would have banned you 2 pages ago.

is one of daves site outranking yours somewhere or something? you know he's been calm and polite through all your childing sniping and argumentative posts, and right or wrong looks every bit the consumate professional in this exchange by comparison with your seemingly childish and somewhat conceited view that you are clearly the only "uncompromised mind in a compromised forum" lmao.

my 2 cents.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by AVC

You should because you are the nut here that everyone is laughing at Son !!!

lol. beat to me to it with a one liner

[gunakesh]

Inbound links are really danger when those are from irrelevant sites or irrelevant pages.

i agree subhzash.

but you are saying that you getting inlinks from wpw then it will depend upon your site theme that it matchs to seo or internet or forums.if yes it cant be penalised by google.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by kevsta

is one of daves site outranking yours somewhere or something?

Or some earlier conflict? Strange indeed.

[kgun]

Why not rely on the above cite by Matt Cutts? I miss the link though. When was it posted?

To me this thread looks more and more like a storm in a glass of water. Time to close this thread and go on as firends?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

Why not rely on the above cite by Matt Cutts? I miss the link though. When was it posted?

To me this thread looks more and more like a storm in a glass of water. Time to close this thread and go on as firends?

I think galide posted the link on page 4 kgun. Here it is again...

The Saboteurs Of Search - Forbes.com

Dave

ETA... Yes, he did post it on page 4. Activeco quoted the same passage I did back there as well.