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.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by crankydave

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...



My bolding.

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

Firstly, that many talk about having done or seen "something," absent their divulging what that "something" is, there is no way of determing that they are all in fact speaking of the same "something." To allow that they are is mere speculation.

Secondly, sheer numbers alone do not suffice as proof of anything. Bear in mind that it was once "common knowledge" that the Earth was both flat and the center of the Universe!

Lastly, it is clear that you fail to understand rationality in the formal sense. If you did, you would not continue to turn the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam on its head.

Again, Philosophy 101, Final Exam: In 25 words or less, answer the question "Why?"

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Again, Philosophy 101, Final Exam: In 25 words or less, answer the question "Why?"

Here's why:
Google has learned that looking at individual links isn't enough to determine the quality of the backlinks. They therefore look at all the links and obtain much more information from it by looking at patterns inside the link profile. They do this to improve the quality of their SERP's.

And here's how:

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.

Now if this seems like a whole bunch of nonsence to you, then wonder about why that is.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Here's why:
Google has learned that looking at individual links isn't enough to determine the quality of the backlinks. They therefore look at all the links and obtain much more information from it by looking at patterns inside the link profile. They do this to improve the quality of their SERP's.

And here's how:



Now if this seems like a whole bunch of nonsence to you, then wonder about why that is.

Bzzzz.

The question was simply "why?" It's not "why something in particular."

It's an excercise is Logic.

[AVC]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Firstly, that many talk about having done or seen "something," absent their divulging what that "something" is, there is no way of determing that they are all in fact speaking of the same "something." To allow that they are is mere speculation.

Secondly, sheer numbers alone do not suffice as proof of anything. Bear in mind that it was once "common knowledge" that the Earth was both flat and the center of the Universe!

Lastly, it is clear that you fail to understand rationality in the formal sense. If you did, you would not continue to turn the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam on its head.

Again, Philosophy 101, Final Exam: In 25 words or less, answer the question "Why?"

Right man, simple things you will not answer, but baffle the readers with "big words" gives you the appearance of looking intelligent in your own mind only Deepsand, you are not fooling the readers, it is plainly apparent to all what your game really is here, and that is not discussing real issues.

Maybe you would be better on a philosophy forum with other luminaries that have "uncommon knowledge" and swagger like you do !!

PS: Still can't answer on why Google de-indexed link farm directories DeepSand ???

[deepsand]

Google's having "de-indexed link farm directories" is not the issue at hand.

Such resulted only in PR that was not rightfully obtained having been recinded. I.e., the gain from such was nullified, zeroed out.

Zero does not equal a negative.


Analogy: If I take something that is not rightfully mine, and that something is then taken from me, I am no poorer than I was before I took that something.

[jawn_tech]

Hi again everyone.

http://www.webproworld.com/static/rules.html

Good discussion... above the belt please.

Carry on.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Bzzzz.

The question was simply "why?" It's not "why something in particular."

It's an excercise is Logic.

But you keep avoiding things that would actually explain things. You're replying to each post individually, trying to find the things that can be undermined, and talk about that. But you´re not adding anything. The simple logic I put up with the link profile analysis is completely ignored by you, why is that? Why not simply enjoy the fact that it might actually make sense. Discussions for the sake of discussing aren't getting you anything.

[kevsta]

i think some people here would be much more at home over at JREF where they all use philosophy and long words to attempt to outsmart each other and prove black=white all the time.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Analogy: If I take something that is not rightfully mine, and that something is then taken from me, I am no poorer than I was before I took that something.

Unless you were caught by the police.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Here's why:
Google has learned that looking at individual links isn't enough to determine the quality of the backlinks. They therefore look at all the links and obtain much more information from it by looking at patterns inside the link profile. They do this to improve the quality of their SERP's.

And here's how:

<quote>
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.
</quote>

Now if this seems like a whole bunch of nonsence to you, then wonder about why that is.

Interesting example.

Economists have good terms for this:

1. Competitive / alternative in consumption (rice and potatoes).
2. Complementary in consumption (bread and butter).
3. Unrelated (Fashion and bacalao, but who knows? - Mathematically the derivative is zero).

It is even expressed mathematically by the sign of derivatives (elasticities).

As an example let us take Bacalao - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"This article is about the possible island called Bacalao. For Portuguese dish, see Bacalhau. For Italian equivalent, see baccala. For salted and dried fish product on which these are based, see clipfish".

Dried and salted cod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Cod can be preserved by salting, drying, or both. Salted and dried cod is usually called salt cod; cod which has been dried without the addition of salt is called stockfish".

Now here is a lot of potential links between pages that some people may categorize as (ir)relevant or suspect. Some candidates:

1. A story about the food and the island. A food (restaurant) site and a travel site.
2. Fish site and site selling tomatoes (Peter may explain why that may be a relevant link).
3. Fish and salt. Tomatoes and salt?
4. Salmon site (competitive in this respect to) a site selling cod.
5. A site selling bacalao or was it bacalhau or baccala or dried / salted or dried and salted cod alternatively clip fish / stock fish and a fish seller in Norway that links to a German tourist site since he is also hiring cabins and boats for sportfishers.

You shall not have many possibilities before the potential link combinations are endless.

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

Not so relevant today as it may be tomorrow. May be one reason why W3C introduced the XML Family of technologies and the link (XML) base concept.

Conclusion:

1. Who should decide if links are irrelevant or suspect?
2. Who can decide that a link between a site selling fish and a site selling tomatoes is irrelevant?

Exercise 1: Is a tomatoe, a fruit, vegetable or berry? More generally is a berry a fruit? You find a very interesting discussion if you Google:

tomato fruit or vegetable

Exercise 2: Horse racing and car racing are (fill out missing word) in consumption?

"Did you report my site selling clipfish that had links to a site selling tomatoes? That hurt since it was one of my main providers". Spam yourself.

And don't mix this with the -30 / -950 penalty. Here is a typical example: http://www.w3toolbar.com (My site).

You see by looking at the Google AdSense on the site that it is penalized (even excluded from the Google index). You don't find it when you search for:

• w3toolbar dot com
• http : // www dot w3toolbar dot com

and may be for good reason's because of an earlier "title tag" that is now changed some weeks ago. In my view that site is excluded from Google's index that is even a larger penalty than a -30 or -950 penalty.

Related link: Can Inbound links hurt you in Google?

"This is fast becoming an IT urban legend!
No, inbound links are not a problem in terms of SERP. For if they were, the technique should be widely used to discredit competitors".

A good summary or more words and speculations?

More recent WMW link:
Google allowing other webmasters to damage your ranking

[AVC]

What about when "inbound links" get your websites de-indexed like the directories were de-indexed by Google for interlinking with their fellow directory owners and reciprocal linking with those listed in their link farm directories KGUN ???

Is that an effect on your SERP's ???

I guess not, especially since many of these scam sites do not appear in them at all any more for their main keywords and for many of the link farms they don't come up for their domain name either !!!

[kgun]

Originally Posted by AVC

What about when "inbound links" get your websites de-indexed like the directories were de-indexed by Google for interlinking with their fellow directory owners and reciprocal linking with those listed in their link farm directories KGUN ???

Is that an effect on your SERP's ???

I called that completely zeroed out.

Originally Posted by AVC

I guess not, especially since many of these scam sites do not appear in them at all any more for their main keywords and for many of the link farms they don't come up for their domain name either !!!

Personally, I think I have submitted my main site (see second link in my signature) only once in the last 2 years to a directory that I found here at WPW. My site had Google Pagerank of 2 (very easy to establish) now it has 1 (may be some of my link partners or forums where I participate have put nofollow on the link). I am not in the submitting industry.

http://www.webproworld.com/breakroom...tml#post371122

What is so fantastic about that link collection or directory? Last time I checked the pages for Norway that as explained in one of my posts there gave an Oslo (our capital in Eastern Norway) sub site with Ad from a site in Stavanger (a town in Western Norway).

That does not imply that I do not link to CL.

And directories and portals are much more important here than over there. I have defended Google here on seminars Search Summit Norway - Norge største forretnings- og teknologikonferanse innen søk since so many do not understand the model. Are they the web content police?

Is there a bias that everything non American on the internet is of minor quality? What is the background of the person's that make your portals? What are the background of the personell at Google? I only ask, you do not need to answer since I will not involve in a new discussion about irrellevant portals or directories. May be you can start a new thread on that and I may participate there.

[AVC]

Google lowered PR for all sites on the web and raised the bar quite a bit, yes they are the link police, so if the sites linking to your site lost PR so will you lose PR in the recalibration.

Google did this to discourage webmasters from selling links on webmaster forums since it was so blatantly promoted on some forums and still is to this day.

Webmasters were bold enough to run "buy link in PR 7 Directory" and that sort of crap in their signatures on forums.

Do you expect Google to just sit back and allow link farm promoters to work their scams endlessly Kgun ?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by AVC

Google lowered PR for all sites on the web and raised the bar quite a bit, yes they are the link police, so if the sites linking to your site lost PR so will you lose PR in the recalibration.

No problem with that bolded text.

Generally, have you not yet understood my point? In theory IBL's can not hurt a site. Reread my long linking story above if you don't take it. My point is (my background is from finance) that webmasters that report a site for suspicious or irrelevant content should be very careful. And Google should be very careful with reported links:

1. They think are bought (sold by other companies). If they are 95 % (some scientists require 99 % confidence level) or more sure they should only give no pagerank is my personal view.
2. Irrelevant links. See my example above with fish and tomatoes.
3. Suspect links.
4. Scam or spam links.

And I think they are careful. My site W3toolbar dot come mentioned above is a good example of how clever Google is. Here

<title>W3 starts at W3-Toolbar.com</title>

is the old title I found in my backup. You see the modified title by looking at the source.

You can destroy some brands in seconds that it may take years to build. Web credibility may come like a snail and disappear at lightening speed.

Originally Posted by AVC

Do you expect Google to just sit back and allow link farm promoters to work their scams endlessly Kgun ?

No!

P.S.
Why do you think dmoz stopped discussing some topics with webmasters on their forum?

If there is any content police on the web, I find most of the links at W3toolbar dot com in decreasing order of priority.

[AVC]

I have no idea why, please tell us the DMOZ story Kgun !

[kgun]

I think you find the reason here:

dmoz, some facts and fictions

If not, my short story is that you can no longer come to their forum and complain about your site still not being included.

Submit to the right categoy with the right description of your site and forget.

[Terry Van Horne]

Looking for proof on this stuff is just tilting at windmills. I take Cranky Dave at his word simply because it can't hurt to entertain the repulsive thought that IBL's could hurt a site. That is contrary to the "unspoken" deal between SEO's & SE's. Do I belive it is possible. Absolutely and Google changed the Webmaster Guidelines in order to make that point. IMO, IBL's potentially penalizing and also penalizing link vendors directly are major changes to the guidelines. Bigger still was their removing link vendors from AdWords. Basically that's condemnation when Google says "you're money is no good here anymore!"

As to the value of links being zero a negative or whatever... not really important when you think about it it's just tooooo damn risky unless the client is willing to walk away from the URL. Google could conceivably place a different value on each IBL based on the link pattern of the sender site and receiver. So a clean link pattern for the receiving site gets: some or no value, a dirty link pattern gets a negative or no value. The value passed could also be scaled by the link pattern of the sending site. For instance a dirty receiver would get the negative value the clen pattern gets a penalized positive. This makes proving the passed value one way or the other virtually impossible which, IMO, is exactly what this is all about. If IBL's can hurt you then is any paid link or sponsorship a little riskier. The more opaque you make it the more effective it is. Add a snitch program to lighten' the load and... you break the link economy. Which, that is really what the paid links is all about!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by kevsta

i think some people here would be much more at home over at JREF where they all use philosophy and long words to attempt to outsmart each other and prove black=white all the time.

Philosophy 101 = A Study of Logic.

Absent the use of logic, there can be no rational discourse.

[AVC]

So did incoming links doom the directory link farms then Deepsand ??

Or did Google decide one day that they just did not like interlinked link farms engaged in reciprocal linking scams with those listed in their directories ???

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Philosophy 101 = A Study of Logic.

Absent the use of logic, there can be no rational discourse.

Are you or have you ever been married?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Are you or have you ever been married?

Why do you ask?

Have you a woman for me?

[leesw]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Are you or have you ever been married?

Ha! Now that is funny. I am married and have had so many discussions that never met up with logic.

My opinion on this matter is that Google attempts to KEEP FROM penalizing a site just because of inbound links but, because they are not perfect, it is possible. That's from my own observations with sites I market. It's not known fact of course.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by leesw

Ha! Now that is funny. I am married and have had so many discussions that never met up with logic.

I'll vouch for that!

[leesw]

CrankyDave,

Would you mind telling us what link practices to avoid so that we don't inadvertantly do what our competition would like to and hurt ourselves? I'm sure a lot of it we have all heard before, but I want it constantly in front of my face. I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks.

[AVC]

I think that is common knowledge, read Google webmaster guidelines, do not get involved with link farm networks or link brokers, do not leave anchor text comment spam links all over the web, webmasters now report spammers directly to Google, this includes forum spammers trying to work (S pam E O) on forums.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by leesw

CrankyDave,

Would you mind telling us what link practices to avoid so that we don't inadvertantly do what our competition would like to and hurt ourselves? I'm sure a lot of it we have all heard before, but I want it constantly in front of my face. I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks.

My apologies for the delay. Took a long weekend.

I know it sounds cliche' but when it comes to linking, link for your visitors (internal and external) and not the SE's. If it makes sense to link then do so.

Build content people will want to link to, submit to good directories, try and be a valuable member of forums and/or blogs, exchange links when appropriate.

Just to expand on exchanging links... I don't actively exchange links very much anymore. Only because I lack the time and good link exchanges take a lot of work to maintain. A good link one day can easily be a bad one the next so you need to choose them carefully and constantly monitor them.

I tend to look at links I "create" this way... If I believe the link and content will attract, help, or be followed by visitors then any "value" a SE places on them is a bonus.

Dave

[incrediblehelp]

Thought this WMW thread might be relevant:

Competitors destroying you in SERPS with Links

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Thought this WMW thread might be relevant:

Competitors destroying you in SERPS with Links

From the few posts to date there, the conclusion appears to be that, for IBLs to be harmful would require both the concerted effort of a malefactor and complicit, though not necessarily knowingly so, action on the part of the SE.

[kgun]

And I always look at the join date of the posters at WMW. There is a definite correlation there between the quality of the posts and the time of joining IMO.

martinibuster joined 2002. I have read a lot of posts by him without remembering being impressed. The other posters joined more recently. I would a least wait until the more experienced WMW posters join the thread or read elswhere on the forum.

Did you note this post

Originally Posted by kgun

Related link: Can Inbound links hurt you in Google?

"This is fast becoming an IT urban legend!
No, inbound links are not a problem in terms of SERP. For if they were, the technique should be widely used to discredit competitors".

A good summary or more words and speculations?

More recent WMW link:
Google allowing other webmasters to damage your ranking

with two more relevant WMW thread IMO from what I read (not every post).

Originally Posted by kgun

No problem with that bolded text.

Generally, have you not yet understood my point? In theory IBL's can not hurt a site. Reread my long linking story above if you don't take it. My point is (my background is from finance) that webmasters that report a site for suspicious or irrelevant content should be very careful. And Google should be very careful with reported links:

1. They think are bought (sold by other companies). If they are 95 % (some scientists require 99 % confidence level) or more sure they should only give no pagerank is my personal view.
2. Irrelevant links. See my example above with fish and tomatoes.
3. Suspect links.
4. Scam or spam links.

And I think they are careful. My site W3toolbar dot come mentioned above is a good example of how clever Google is. Here

<title>W3 starts at W3-Toolbar.com</title>

is the old title I found in my backup. You see the modified title by looking at the source.

You can destroy some brands in seconds that it may take years to build. Web credibility may come like a snail and disappear at lightening speed.


No!

P.S.
Why do you think dmoz stopped discussing some topics with webmasters on their forum?

If there is any content police on the web, I find most of the links at W3toolbar dot com in decreasing order of priority.

Would a professional Se company get complains from third parties and penalize / ban a site with less confidence level than 95 % / 99 %?

This is about web credibility for Joe and Ann average.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by kgun

And I always look at the join date of the posters at WMW. There is a definite correlation there between the quality of the posts and the time of joining IMO.

martinibuster joined 2002. I have read a lot of posts by him without remembering being impressed. The other posters joined more recently. I would a least wait until the more experienced WMW posters join the thread or read elswhere on the forum.

Did you note this post



with two more relevant WMW thread IMO from what I read (not every post).



Would a professional Se company get complains from third parties and penalize / ban a site with less confidence level than 95 % / 99 %?

This is about web credibility for Joe and Ann average.

Concur wholeheartedly.

As I'd earlier asked, with no answer, "Why, if IBLs are so easily manipulated so as to damage another, is the Web not now in chaos?"

That the ensuing silence is deafening does, I submit, speak for itself.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Concur wholeheartedly.

As I'd earlier asked, with no answer, "Why, if IBLs are so easily manipulated so as to damage another, is the Web not now in chaos?"

That the ensuing silence is deafening does, I submit, speak for itself.

It's simply not a matter of the extremes that you keep pointing to deepsand. Manipulation and trying to create damage is certainly nothing new to business, politics, and yes, even personal lives. Pick anything you wish and ask the same question... Why is <this> not in chaos because bad things can happen? Doesn't change the fact that bad things do happen... all the time, every day.

Going from can IBL's hurt you, or can a competitor hurt you with IBL's, to "web chaos" is quite sensational don't you think? Planes can be hijacked... why doesn't the entire planet stop flying until it's impossible to do? Why is the entire flight industry not in chaos because hijacking can happen?

The fact still remains that IBL's can hurt a site. It's impossible for the naysayers to demonstrate that they cannot. What's "easy" is to come up with a "test" that demonstrates that they can. It's been done.

Dave

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by deepsand

As I'd earlier asked, with no answer, "Why, if IBLs are so easily manipulated so as to damage another, is the Web not now in chaos?"

Don't recall anyone every saying it was easy.. Don't recall saying that "anyone" could do it to "any" website either..

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by crankydave

It's simply not a matter of the extremes that you keep pointing to deepsand. Manipulation and trying to create damage is certainly nothing new to business, politics, and yes, even personal lives. Pick anything you wish and ask the same question... Why is <this> not in chaos because bad things can happen? Doesn't change the fact that bad things do happen... all the time, every day.

Going from can IBL's hurt you, or can a competitor hurt you with IBL's, to "web chaos" is quite sensational don't you think? Planes can be hijacked... why doesn't the entire planet stop flying until it's impossible to do? Why is the entire flight industry not in chaos because hijacking can happen?

The fact still remains that IBL's can hurt a site. It's impossible for the naysayers to demonstrate that they cannot. What's "easy" is to come up with a "test" that demonstrates that they can. It's been done.

Dave

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

If someone asks you if the Sun is shining, while you are standing outside, in what appears to be sunlight, do you answer "yes, it is"? Or, do you reply that "Well, it seems to be; but, as the light that I'm seeing emanated from the Sun approx. 8 minutes ago, such that it's theoretically possible that it's no longer shining, I'll have to wait said 8 minutes to give you an answer. And, at that time, the answer I give you then will be only a report as to whether it was shining 8 minutes earlier."?

If the former, you presume that your interrogator asked a practical question, rather than a theoretical one.

Likewise, so did the OP here. Therefore, the proper answer turns on the issue of probability.

Were said effect easily obtained, then we should expect to see evidence of such occurring frequently enough so as to be easily observed. To hold that such effect is not observed simply because of the underlying methodology being an obscure one is untenable, as it makes the exceedingly unlikely assumption that such knowledge is possessed only by those of good will.

Therefore, while said effect is theoretically possible, it is presently quite improbable.

And, as I have never claimed that the effect that you champion is impossible, I am not incorrect in stating that, as a practical matter, one need not be concerned re. passively acquired IBLs from "bad" sites.

[blogdawg1]

My understanding, and I have heard it from senior SEOs and from a Googler (shall remain nameless), you cannot be hurt by bad links unless they are in HUGE numbers. Bad links generally just count as a zero link for all the obvious reasons being discussed here.