Can inbound links really hurt you?

[kgun]

Posted by Andy Greenberg 06.28.07, 1:20 PM ET.

Around the time of the link selling debate?

Much may have happened since then.

I think Google are constantly fine tunig the algorithmes to fit the theory that a company can not hurt a competitor by throwing links at his site(s). Q.E.D.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

Posted by Andy Greenberg 06.28.07, 1:20 PM ET.

Around the time of the link selling debate?

Much may have happened since then.

I think Google are constantly fine tunig the algorithmes to fit the theory that a company can not hurt a competitor by throwing links at his site(s). Q.E.D.

If they are constantly having to fine tune then it goes to prove that from time to time your competitor can hurt you by throwing links at you.

[Feydakin]

A little follow up.. Proof has been asked for time and again.. Let me ask you, would you want this proof posted in open public threads where anyone with a beef could read it?? I wouldn't, that's why so much testing is done behind closed doors..

Can I kill any site?? No, but I can certainly hurt some of them if I chose to.. Could it be recovered from?? Certainly, that was part of the testing.. Could it hurt someone if the timing (say right around Christmas) was perfect?? You bet.. There wouldn't be enough time to recover from it..

It can be done with "just" links, but only on sites with poor link profiles to begin with.. To kill sites with more age and better link profiles takes more effort and more than just links, but yes, those can be ripped from the SERPs as well.. It happens every day..

All I can say is that this has been tested, with more than one site and more than one person watching.. We saw the results for ourselves and filed it away under "good things to know".. But I most certainly am not about to go out and write a step by step blog post on how to do it.. That would simply be stupid.. Whether you believe me or not doesn't really concern me.. That is for you to decide for yourself.. But, as MC said, in theory it can happen, and we all know how good some people are at making theory reality..

[AVC]

Let a con man handle your SEO and you will get more proof than you can handle, bet on it.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by janeth

If they are constantly having to fine tune then it goes to prove that from time to time your competitor can hurt you by throwing links at you.

If you constantly improve security of your website, does that imply that hackers hack your site from time to time?

What if you did not constantly improve security? Is the world static?

I think if it is possible, it is (as a Google emploee said according to a cite mentioned above) extremely difficult, probably not worth the risk and effort.

Some members here seemingly know more than Google employees. So far I have only seen statements and words without proof.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

A little follow up.. Proof has been asked for time and again.. Let me ask you, would you want this proof posted in open public threads where anyone with a beef could read it?? I wouldn't, that's why so much testing is done behind closed doors..

Hmmm.

Firstly, while I do understand your reason for being taciturn, the fact remains that proof not presented is no proof at all for the purposes of supporting a publicly stated conclusion.

More importantly, though, is the fact that security by obscurity is no security. Hiding known vulnerabilities merely means that the vulnerable will have no opportunity to avoid the inevitable exploitations of such.

[Feydakin]

The problem is the only proof that anyone will accept is me going ahead and blowing up someone's website.. And not only will they want to watch it happen, they'll want all the details of how it was done.. I'm simply not willing to do that.. As I've said before, believe Matt Cutts (in theory it's possible) or not, believe me (putting theory in to practice) or not.. I have nothing further to add to the discussion..

[AVC]

Originally Posted by kgun

If you constantly improve security of your website, does that imply that hackers hack your site from time to time?

What if you did not constantly improve security? Is the world static?

I think if it is possible, it is (as a Google employee said according to a cite mentioned above) extremely difficult, probably not worth the risk and effort.

Some members here seemingly know more than Google employees. So far I have only seen statements and words without proof.

Can you please highlight the statements and words that were not proved in your mind kgun ??

In addition please tell us what Google employees have said about this.

Deepsand, have you heard of "the great directory de-indexing" crisis that has gone on?

What do you think caused this to happen in your opinion?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

The problem is the only proof that anyone will accept is me going ahead and blowing up someone's website.. And not only will they want to watch it happen, they'll want all the details of how it was done.. I'm simply not willing to do that.. As I've said before, believe Matt Cutts (in theory it's possible) or not, believe me (putting theory in to practice) or not.. I have nothing further to add to the discussion..

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is a great deal of difference.

Cutts said "theoretically," not "probably."

And, as noted earlier, the "just take my word for it" is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

So, while you may be correct, there remains no proof of such.

[Feydakin]

Which is why I normally avoid this particular subject..

I should go back to just telling people that nothing off site can hurt you and let them live a life of false security

[kgun]

Originally Posted by AVC

Can you please highlight the statements and words that were not proved in your mind kgun ??

In addition please tell us what Google employees have said about this.

Deepsand, have you heard of "the great directory de-indexing" crisis that has gone on?

What do you think caused this to happen in your opinion?

It is not me that has said that. If you reread the thread, you will note that there are cites (to cites) of Matt Cutts by other members. My personal view (reread my posts above), to the oppisite is proved, is that bought, irrelevant or "suspect" links can only carry zero or positive weight a priori. A posteriori, the positive weight of such a link can only be zeroed out. That implies that pagerank can drop from n to k where k < n. But I will not say that your site is hurt by downgrading such links. The positive effect was undeserved since the link was bought, irrelevant or suspect from the beginning. Some links that I call "suspect", may be relevant when studied in more detail. I think it is those links that may be categorized as suspect (or whatever you or Google prefer to call them) that can carry zero weight and as such hurt your pagerank (internal or external) since it should be higher. The link was categorized by Google as "suspect", but is relevant when they study the link in more detail or get an explanantion from a web master.

That was my sepculation initiated because of what has been said above, referring to statments made by Google directly or indirectly.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is a great deal of difference.

Cutts said "theoretically," not "probably."

And, as noted earlier, the "just take my word for it" is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

So, while you may be correct, there remains no proof of such.

There have been several folks that are "eye witnesses" to this happening. That simply goes beyond take my word for it. People personally doing it and/or seeing it happen is not "take my word for it". You simply don't accept it as enough proof for your satisfaction.

You keep wanting to point to "logical fallacy" yet you keep being selective about using it so that it only fits your position.

I hate to keep quoting it, since you did originally post the link but here it is...

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.

My bolding.

You keep doing the very same thing you are saying other people are doing.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

If you constantly improve security of your website, does that imply that hackers hack your site from time to time?

No, but it does mean that you realize and accept that it *can* happen.

I can accept the fact that "I saw this happen" and "I tested this and it can happen" coming from folks inside this thread and outside, is not enough proof for you and others.

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

No, but it does mean that you realize and accept that it *can* happen.

I agree to that. See what I write about "suspect" links in my last post.

Originally Posted by crankydave

I can accept the fact that "I saw this happen" and "I tested this and it can happen" coming from folks inside this thread and outside, is not enough proof for you and others.

As explained above, I do not rule out the possibility. By now you should know how sceptical I am to people that claim:

1. This happened to my site.
2. This was the reason.

That does not rule out the fact that links were automatically or manually categorized as "suspect" by Google and got zero contribution to pagerank. But the links were fine and should have contributed positively. That is my precision of "Can inbound links really hurt you?".

To repeat. Algorithms are not perfect, but hopefully they get better and better as the web matures.

[AVC]

Exactly Dave, those who want "proof" are having a hard time answering simple questions like I asked Deepsand a few posts ago and would rather simply hang on long enough until others give up on the thread so they can "win the debate" simply by lasting longer and by attrition.

[uberanimal]

high ranking inbounds are good for me i noticed. people have linked just because i had decent content i am sure. it is very interesting to see them on my stats.