Can inbound links really hurt you?

[AVC]

Deepsand is still playing the attrition debate tactic where he actually wins if he gets in the last post before the thread is locked, sort of like musical chairs !!!

[kgun]

Originally Posted by 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.

That has always been my position too, even with a HUGE number of bad links, until the opposite is proved.

Originally Posted by AVC

Deepsand is still playing the attrition debate tactic where he actually wins if he gets in the last post before the thread is locked, sort of like musical chairs !!!

Is that an argument? Look at the substance of your last posts. Why are they not reported as off topic?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

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.

deepsand... We have not been discussing "probability". We have been discussing "possibility". Is it possible?

On page one of this thread you posted this...

Originally Posted by deepsand

SEs recognize that one cannot control all IBLs, and do not therefore penalize you for such. IBLs can be positive or neutral, but not negative.

Where people get into trouble re. links is with OBLs; here you do not want to be found pointing to "bad" sites.

And this...

Originally Posted by deepsand

The obvious and logical way for a SE to handle such links is to simply fully discount them, i.e. give them zero weight. Zero weight = neutral.

There is no evidence that Google's PR algorithm assigns a negative value to any IBL.

In the loose sense of the word, one can be "penalized" by way of legitimate IBLs not being given their full due weight.

Now you post this...

Originally Posted by deepsand

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.

First you state that SE's do not penalize you for IBL's now you say it's not impossible. Which is it?

And as far as not being concerned with IBL's, I said that in my very first post in this thread on page 1.

Originally Posted by crankydave

Can IBL's hurt you? The short answer is yes. I've see it happen first hand. This is why it's important to build and establish a solid link profile from the very beginning. Don't look at the individual links and don't worry about them. Remember, it's the effect of the aggregate.

Dave

[AVC]

Originally Posted by kgun

That has always been my position too, even with a HUGE number of bad links, until the opposite is proved.


Is that an argument? Look at the substance of your last posts. Why are they not reported as off topic?

I have given up on Deepsand, you can not argue with one who attempts to baffle with deception, he is the one who will not address real issues but continues on the same old worn out path without end in a vain attempt to "keep winning" on invalid points.

If you are able to even understand the above linked post, please explain it Kgun, to me it is like trying to read Chinese !!!

[kgun]

I don't agree.

But I agree with you that I think there is not much new information to add in this thread.

May be we can agree to disagree.

[AVC]

Right, I made the point that Google has busted link brokers selling links from websites specifically created as their own private networks, when Google found out, they not only de-indexed the link brokers websites, but these links that were pointed at "clients" websites gave Google a good idea of webmasters that actively purchased links from this broker.

So these "incoming links" from this link broker did hurt those webmasters who purchased one way links from said link broker when he was busted.

SearchKing in 2002 was involved in a lawsuit against Google that they lost, they were selling links on high PR pages out in the open, Google busted them and striped them of all page rank, all those "incoming links" hurt webmasters who purchased them.

Google recently busted link farm directories that were interlinked, see Bid for Position Directory of Directory Owners for the main perpetrators who were and still are promoting link farm directories, "incoming links" from these networks hurt all who purchased them and all these link farms were de-indexed by Google.

Now, where is your proper response to these historic facts ?

[crankydave]

AVC... I believe that part of the point that kgun and others are contending, is that in the instances where existing links were found that Google doesn't like that were already passing "value", that value was then lost so "technically" the site simply lost what they shouldn't be getting in the first place. I don't believe there is any real way to determine if it solely lost value or something additional as well in these particular instances.

However... In the instances I am aware of first hand, "losing value" a site shouldn't be getting in the first place was simply not the case. In these instances, just as soon as the links were found for the very first time the target sites suffered across the board.

Dave

[AVC]

It is so simple, but we have a few holdouts that want "to insist they are right and want to win this debate no matter what" which is a bit silly.

One way links that are "incoming links" from a link farm directory or one way links from a link broker that are "incoming links", have, can and will hurt you with Google.

All one has to do is read Matt Cutts blog in depth to see this is the case.

Matt, when asked to review website status when questioned by webmasters on his blog as to why their sites were de-indexed always looks at their links, he directly states in many cases to the webmasters in question that they have either reciprocal linking problems (large percentage of their links are reciprocating) or he mentions paid links as a reason for their sites being dumped.

So if "incoming links" can't hurt you, why does Matt Cutts mention them in his analysis when giving webmasters reasons for their sites being de-indexed?

Are paid for one way links sold by link brokers "incoming links", are links in bidding directory link farms "incoming links", are reciprocal links "incoming links" ???

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by crankydave

deepsand... We have not been discussing "probability". We have been discussing "possibility".

If not "probability" then what? Absent 0 < P(X) < 1, all that remains is P(X) = 0 and P(X) = 1, which are "certainties." In that case, either the event in question is certain to not occur or certain to occur, respectively.

I do not believe that you are arguing for the latter; and, I know that I am not arguing for the former. Therefore, we are indeed speaking of "probabilities."

And, to say that something is improbable is not to say that it is impossible.

Originally Posted by crankydave

First you state that SE's do not penalize you for IBL's now you say it's not impossible. Which is it?

Firstly, as earlier stated, the taking away of that which was never rightly gained is not a penalty, but simply the restoration of equity. In the case at hand, a true penalty would be to incur the effects of a negative PR, as opposed to a zero PR, being passed.

Secondly, given that we are speaking here of practical matters, not abstract or theoretical ones, and that the preponderance of empirical evidence gives no sign of a negative PR being in play, then, from a practical stand point, my statement cited by you is correct.

Originally Posted by crankydave

And as far as not being concerned with IBL's, I said that in my very first post in this thread on page 1.

Am I in the wrong discussion?



Dave[/quote]

[AVC]

The original poster asked a question Deepsand, here it is:

Can inbound links really hurt you?

The answer is YES and it is simple for most folks with average minds to understand but you need to confuse and make your position so complex where the average reader is lost when reading your posts.

Now an academic like you needs to start reading Google patents and the original papers Larry and Sergey wrote when they created the idea for Google, there is a lot of complex math in there to absorb for above average thinkers like you.

[galide]

Now an academic like you needs to start reading Google patents and the original papers Larry and Sergey wrote when they created the idea for Google, there is a lot of complex math in there to absorb for above average thinkers like you.

mmh, I see that you are still fighting around guys, for something which is fairly simple:

1) Some of us state that it is possible since they have seen it in action
2) Some of us say that it may be possible and think that it is possible
3) Some of us say that it might be possible but are still undecided about whether it is possible or not
4) Some of us say that it might be possible but think that it is not possible provided that they have not seen any proof of it.

and ..

1) Those who know that it is possible refuse to provide us a proof of their statement, and ask the "sceptic" to rely on their word
2) Those who think that it is possible rely on other people's posts who state that it is possible
3) Those who are still undecided have to rely on people relying on people posts who state that it is possible
4) Those who don't believe that it can happen are not provided with any proof

So... what is the point of carrying on this thread?

[AVC]

Simple and irrefutable 'PROOF' has been provided, but those who insist on "being right" and "proving their positions" regardless of 'PROOF' presented in this thread want to avoid answering the 'PROOF', but would rather discuss mathematics, theories and probabilities so they can "Win the un-winnable".

[galide]

Simple and irrefutable 'PROOF' has been provided

oh I missed that then! please AVC, could you please quote where simple and irrefutable 'PROOF' has been provided in this thread.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

mmh, I see that you are still fighting around guys, for something which is fairly simple:

1) Some of us state that it is possible since they have seen it in action
2) Some of us say that it may be possible and think that it is possible
3) Some of us say that it might be possible but are still undecided about whether it is possible or not
4) Some of us say that it might be possible but think that it is not possible provided that they have not seen any proof of it.

and ..

1) Those who know that it is possible refuse to provide us a proof of their statement, and ask the "sceptic" to rely on their word
2) Those who think that it is possible rely on other people's posts who state that it is possible
3) Those who are still undecided have to rely on people relying on people posts who state that it is possible
4) Those who don't believe that it can happen are not provided with any proof

So... what is the point of carrying on this thread?

Welcome back galide.

Mostly accurate but I'd have said it like this...

Some of us tested the idea, seen tests of the idea, seen it happen, and/or know it can happen based on experience, and combining that with all the other credible information available, know IBL's can indeed harm a site.

Some of us, based on exactly the same information above, are either not sure, or remain staunchy unconvinced since they have not seen it happen themselves. Kinda like needing to drive a new car before accepting that it can run, or seeing the airbag deploy before accepting that it does indeed work.

I can accept that.

Dave

[galide]

Every time I read something from you Dave, it reminds me my first trip to China.

Whenever you ask for something, you always get an answer - the trouble is that the culture makes it difficult for someone to say "I don't know" without loosing face, and you end up being given false information if the guy or girl in front of you hasn't got a clue... this is a culture thing, I guess that when you live in the country, these are the types of things you simply ignore, same way in France when you come across arrogant waiters...

based on experience, and combining that with all the other credible information available

Nonsense - if you see something happening once, you don't need any other information. It can happen, that's it.

Some of us, based on exactly the same information above, are either not sure, or remain staunchy unconvinced

Nonsense again. If anybody sees something happening, they will have no choice but accept that it can happen

Kinda like needing to drive a new car before accepting that it can run, or seeing the airbag deploy before accepting that it does indeed work.

Not sure what you mean - don't you test drive before buying a second hand car? same applies to handbag, don't you get your car revised from time to time?

Gosh, this is insane.

[AVC]

Originally Posted by galide

oh I missed that then! please AVC, could you please quote where simple and irrefutable 'PROOF' has been provided in this thread.

Ask Matt Cutts on his blog, I don't know anything man and have no idea what I'm talking about !!!

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

Every time I read something from you Dave, it reminds me my first trip to China.

Whenever you ask for something, you always get an answer - the trouble is that the culture makes it difficult for someone to say "I don't know" without loosing face, and you end up being given false information if the guy or girl in front of you hasn't got a clue... this is a culture thing, I guess that when you live in the country, these are the types of things you simply ignore, same way in France when you come across arrogant waiters...

When I don't know, and am asked directly, or offer my opinion, I say so.

I really hate to have to keep repeating myself galide, but I have said repeatedly, that I know first hand that IBL's can hurt a site. Other people have said they know first hand that IBL's can hurt a site.

You seem to be intent on insulting people by accusing them of "making things up" or providing "false information" with no basis whatsoever. For what purpose I won't guess.

Originally Posted by galide

Nonsense - if you see something happening once, you don't need any other information. It can happen, that's it.

Nonsense again. If anybody sees something happening, they will have no choice but accept that it can happen

Think you misread or misinterpreted my comments galide. Let be simply them even further for you...

Some of us know IBL's can hurt a site because they've tested it, seen it happen, and/or based on their experience know it can happen.

Some of us, knowing other people have tested it, or seen it happen, or have definitivively stated that based on their experience know it can happen, are not going to be convinced that it can happen unless they see it happen themselves.

I for example, was convinced IBL's could hurt a site before my first hand knowledge.

You on the other hand, based on all the available information from different sources, are, based on your posts, not only not convinced, but intent on insulting people instead.

Now, since I have become completely fed up with your petty personal attacks, you are more than welcome to continue discussing/debating the subject in a civil manner. Should you feel the need to continue with the personal attacks and insults, my suggestion to you and EVERYone else, would be not to since such behavior is directly addressed in the forum rules.

I hope I've made myself clear.

Dave

[inertia]

I cant believe you guys are still talking about this!!

Pandora!! Close the box!!

[galide]

Ask Matt Cutts on his blog

I am sure you know a few things AVC, but happy to see that you have got the humility to point out a post showing Matt Cutts proving you wrong.

" I picked five links to the domain at random and they were all reciprocal links."

He is basically saying that all the sites provided were involved in reciprocal links, which has been proved to be damaging for a site in some cases. He is not talking about google bowling.

Dave is also mentioned :
"I mentioned that example because CrankyDave still has an open road ahead of him; he just needs to concentrate more on quality links instead of things like reciprocal links if he wants to get more pages indexed."

Thanks again AVC for pointing this link out. Doesn't bring anything new on the table really, except that Matt Cutt himself has been reviewing some of your suggestions, and demonstrated that it was likely that the sites were being penalised for exchanging links, not because of google bowling.

[AVC]

Who said anything about 'Google Bowling' man ?

I am not talking about someone trying to damage your site, I am talking about YOU DAMAGING YOUR SITE !!

How can one damage their website with incoming links? By purchasing links from link brokers, from contextual link networks, by making thousands of submissions to link farm directories or bidding directories, by making reciprocal link exchanges with seedy sites and by spamming the web with anchor text on forums and blogs.

These are all ways to build your incoming link profile and most of them are highly damaging to your rankings.

[crankydave]

Actually galide, Matt's entire quote in regards to me was this...

I mentioned that example because CrankyDave still has an open road ahead of him; he just needs to concentrate more on quality links instead of things like reciprocal links if he wants to get more pages indexed. (Again, in my opinion. I was just doing a quick/dirty check.)

Which in actuality turned out not to be the case and what was causing crawl/indexing issues, which btw has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not IBL's can harm a site, was the platform serving up both upper case and lower case URL's for the same page.

Now, directly... What does this have to with IBL's harming a site?

Dave

[galide]

Who said anything about 'Google Bowling' man ?

I am not talking about someone trying to damage your site, I am talking about YOU DAMAGING YOUR SITE !!

I think you forgot about your the original post AVC.

If during my years of link building i happened to have established links on "bad URLs" will this have an adverse effect on my site?

I have just changed my signature to include a couple of friends sites but I'm conscious that 300 links have just appeared on the WPW forum. Will this have an adverse effect? I cant see how this can possibly be the case as my competitors could cause me serious damage by such methods?

Links from forums are not reciprocal links, but 1 way links. It is hard to disagree that reciprocal links can damage your site, given the large number of examples available proving that it can happen. But it has never been proved that 1 way links (not paid links) can damage your site, such as links from forums.

In the link you provide, Dave is actually submitting a site to Matt, who clearly states that the reason why he doesn't rank is simply because he doesn't have enough 1 way quality links.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

In the link you provide, Dave is actually submitting a site to Matt, who clearly states that the reason why he doesn't rank is simply because he doesn't have enough 1 way quality links.

No galide. Not at all what it was about. It was about crawling and indexing and nothing at all to do about ranking. Not what I asked and not what Matt answered.

Again, very directly... What exactly does this have to do with IBL's hurting a sites ranking.

Dave

[Peter (IMC)]

I cant believe you guys are still talking about this!!

Pandora!! Close the box!!

Originally Posted by galide

So... what is the point of carrying on this thread?

Does there have to be a point to have a discussion?

[galide]

Does there have to be a point to have a discussion?

Kind of, otherwise the discussion becomes insane... - "what's the point having a discussion with you" - "mmh, there is no point" - "why should I have a discussion with you" - "you don't have to have a discussion with me", "well in this case I don't want to have a conversation with you" - "sure but you started didn't you" - and on and on and on. we have reached a pretty good level of insanity in this thread I would think.

At least with this thread, I'll probably reach 100 backlinks from a single forum's thread, and then be able to demonstrate that this certainly doesn't damage my blog traffic wise! which was the original question wasn't it

As matt said to Dave, I have an open road ahead of me to reach number 100, so please keep posting, until I can reach this number 100.

[AVC]

You are really being silly man, Google discounts forum signature links even if they are followed !!

Only newbies think the more posts they put up on forums with signature links improve rankings.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

At least with this thread, I'll probably reach 100 backlinks from a single forum's thread, and then be able to demonstrate that this certainly doesn't damage my blog traffic wise! which was the original question wasn't it

As matt said to Dave, I have an open road ahead of me to reach number 100, so please keep posting, until I can reach this number 100.

LOL... too funny.

There are members of this community with thousands of links from WPW. What is it exactly that you intend to "demonstrate" by reaching 100?

Dave

[AVC]

Originally Posted by crankydave

LOL... too funny.

There are members of this community with thousands of links from WPW. What is it exactly that you intend to "demonstrate" by reaching 100?

Dave

Free advertising in action ???

[inertia]

Originally Posted by AVC

You are really being silly man, Google discounts forum signature links even if they are followed !!

Only newbies think the more posts they put up on forums with signature links improve rankings.

They definitely help tho. I added the three links below and saw a rise in SERPs (not much admittedly but a little).

[galide]

If during my years of link building i happened to have established links on "bad URLs" will this have an adverse effect on my site?

I have just changed my signature to include a couple of friends sites but I'm conscious that 300 links have just appeared on the WPW forum. Will this have an adverse effect? I cant see how this can possibly be the case as my competitors could cause me serious damage by such methods?

Any thoughts please...

I just remind you the original post.

LOL... too funny.

There are members of this community with thousands of links from WPW. What is it exactly that you intend to "demonstrate" by reaching 100?

Dave

You are really being silly man, Google discounts forum signature links even if they are followed !!

Only newbies think the more posts they put up on forums with signature links improve rankings.

lol, I think you have got your answers in a gentle and friendly tone Inertia.

[crankydave]

Just to remind you galide of the original title...

Can inbound links really hurt you?

The original post...

If during my years of link building i happened to have established links on "bad URLs" will this have an adverse effect on my site?

I have just changed my signature to include a couple of friends sites but I'm conscious that 300 links have just appeared on the WPW forum. Will this have an adverse effect? I cant see how this can possibly be the case as my competitors could cause me serious damage by such methods?

Any thoughts please...

And my initial reply...

Can IBL's hurt you? The short answer is yes. I've see it happen first hand. This is why it's important to build and establish a solid link profile from the very beginning. Don't look at the individual links and don't worry about them. Remember, it's the effect of the aggregate.

I directly answered the title. I directly answered the first question posed. I do not always answer every single question another member poses in a single post. Clearly, neither to other community members. Nothing wrong with that. Completely up to each individual member what they answer if at all.

Now I've asked you a few questions in the last sever posts, directly, none of which you've provided your answer to. Your choice. But please, do not forget to to announce to the community what exactly you "demonstrated" when/if you reach 100 posts on WPW.

Dave

[galide]

I directly answered the title. I directly answered the first question posed.

Ok, in other words, you half read the post - doesn't make sense to answer part of a question out of context. The question was about forums links, nothing else (please let me know if I am wrong Inertia).

Now I've asked you a few questions in the last sever posts, directly, none of which you've provided your answer to

Were they related to the actual topic of the post (now that you know what it is )? Please remind me then - if not, I would be more than happy to answer them (if I can) in an other thread.

[inertia]

Well, the idea for the post came from me adding a new link to my sig which i thought may possibly do some harm (I have since come to the conclusion that it cant possibly). But the question was also meant in the broad sense of link building. I have also come to the conclusion that you have to try pretty damn hard to mess your site up through link building and the punishment comes from google weeding out link sellers and punishing them which in turn affects you.

[galide]

Well, the idea for the post came from me adding a new link to my sig which i thought may possibly do some harm (I have since come to the conclusion that it cant possibly). But the question was also meant in the broad sense of link building. I have also come to the conclusion that you have to try pretty damn hard to mess your site up through link building and the punishment comes from google weeding out link sellers and punishing them which in turn affects you.

Well, that's pretty much it! assessing how link building in a much broader way can damage your site is a much broader topic though.. which can probably not be addressed with a single thread.

Couple of examples:
- purchased links can damage a site: in which circumstances? does a link bought from business.com can damage your site, etc ..
- If I exchange a link with a supplier or client, can this link damage my site?
- I have got multiple sites, and found in the past that interlinking them boosted the traffic. Do I take the risk to get penalised for it nowadays?
- if someone I know simply offers to put a link on his site in exchange of money, how can Google know??
- what is the actual impact of bad neighbourhood (loss of pagerank? inbound links not taken into account? other??)
- etc .etc .. etc ...

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

Ok, in other words, you half read the post - doesn't make sense to answer part of a question out of context. The question was about forums links, nothing else (please let me know if I am wrong Inertia).

No galide. I most certainly read the entire post. No galide the questions were not about forum links and nothing else. Please take the time to reread the posts more carefully.

Originally Posted by galide

Were they related to the actual topic of the post (now that you know what it is )? Please remind me then - if not, I would be more than happy to answer them (if I can) in an other thread.

They are there for you to read. No need to repeat them. Answer them if you wish.

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

Well, that's pretty much it! assessing how link building in a much broader way can damage your site is a much broader topic though.. which can probably not be addressed with a single thread.

Which has been being discussed in this thread galide. IBL's and whether or not they can harm a site.

Originally Posted by galide

- purchased links can damage a site: in which circumstances? does a link bought from business.com can damage your site, etc ..

Or whether or not they look to be purchased or exhibit a pattern that indicates such etc.

Originally Posted by galide

- if someone I know simply offers to put a link on his site in exchange of money, how can Google know??

They can't. They can only guess. If it is deemed to be "aggregious", ie sitewide, it can harm your site whether or not it's paid for and whether or not it is done with or without your knowledge.

Anything you can do externally with regards to links, someone else can do for you. Some of these things can harm a site.

These are some of the things that were being discussed in this thread galide. If you wish to continue discussing/debating them in a rational manner please do.

Otherwise, please, build a bridge and get over it.

Dave

[galide]

Dave, are you for real?

I was not asking the questions, just suggesting that they were valid questions to ask in separate threads. Just answer's other people's post, not mine please -

it will save me some time on my next posts... I am behind my 2.5 mn per post at the moment, because of you - something which doesn't make sense takes longer to answer that a sensible statement or question.

[crankydave]

Side discussion started here...

The Value of Signature Links

Dave

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by inertia

They definitely help tho. I added the three links below and saw a rise in SERPs (not much admittedly but a little).

They may help, but not through quantity, because in the end it's just one site linking to you.

And you can apply the logic that participating in a forum does something for your popularity. But you can't expect that just links from forums are going to give you high rankings.

This also shows that it's more about your link profile than the actual links them selves. If your site has links from lots of related places, you´re fine. If all your links come from forums, you´re not so fine. What is a good link and what is a bad link again?

Your link profile is a reflection of your site. Individual links tell nothing about your site.

[inertia]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

They may help, but not through quantity, because in the end it's just one site linking to you.

And you can apply the logic that participating in a forum does something for your popularity. But you can't expect that just links from forums are going to give you high rankings.

This also shows that it's more about your link profile than the actual links them selves. If your site has links from lots of related places, you´re fine. If all your links come from forums, you´re not so fine. What is a good link and what is a bad link again?

Your link profile is a reflection of your site. Individual links tell nothing about your site.

I agree. It makes perfect sense for Google to bunch links from one domain together or it would be very easy for us to link build. But do we think that some aspects of the site wide links aren't bunched together? I'm sure 100 links from Wiki will improve SERPs more than 1?

Extra thought: Using the Google "bunching" assumption we can figure that site wide footer links that web designers and seos put in their clients sites do them no harm either (although I've heard people say that it does).

[galide]

They may help, but not through quantity, because in the end it's just one site linking to you.

Dave has created a thread about this specific topic..

[Terry Van Horne]

Why should I report paid links to Google? leaves no question as to whether it is possible.

However, some SEOs and webmasters engage in the practice of buying and selling links that pass PageRank, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites. Buying or selling links that pass PageRank is in violation of Google's webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact a site's ranking in search results.

I bolded the important part. The bottom line is... it is possible, the real question is how and when it occurs and most importantly what criteria does Google use to determine when a "suspect" IBL should be a negative and not just no value and yet another big question is what is a paid link. IMO, Google have done a really bad job of making paid link criteria transparent on purpose likely because it's not about relevancy it's about getting an end on every monetized link on the web....

I think the possibility of IBL's hurting a site has always been a possibility because it comes down to what you mean by hurt. Personally I think a good Black hat SEO could cause this to happen but... IMO, the site under attack would likely have to be doing something else that Google thinks is dodgy and that could be as little as locking down your domain records. Because as we all know the only reason you do that is if you are trying to hide something from Google... which is paranoid to the extreme and just a tad delusional!

[jawn_tech]

Thanks Terry, welcome to WPW. That page has updated since the last time I checked.

I wasn't aware they were now encouraging nofollow in paid advertisements or robots.txt.

[Feydakin]

I love the fact that is still going on..

Let's talk some hypotheticals now..

Suppose there is a website out there developed to sell links and PR against the Google guidlines.. Let's say Google knows that they do this.. No suppose you own that site and know a site that you don't like with a reasonably weak link profile.. Suppose that you threw a bunch of "paid" links from your site at their site.. Suppose you go to a bunch of other paid link sites and worked as a network and they posted some links for you..

Now you have a website with a weak link profile, "apparently" purchasing links for PR against the Google guidelines..

Let's assume further that someone signs up on several black hat forums and puts sig links to your website in their profile.. Then poses questions about how to game Google..

How about your link being put in a series of "free" WordPress templates and distributed liberally around the interwebs..

Now you have 4 things here..

1. a weak profile for your website to begin with..
2. paid links pointing to your website..
3. Known blackhat sites pointing to your website..
4. Distribution of "free" template / quizes / badges / etc. (all things Google has said they don't care for)

Do you think that Google will ignore all the negative aspects of your link profile vs the positive ones?? Or do you think that Google may assume the worst and slap you around a bit to convince you to stop being evil??

I'm just saying.... ..... ..... .....

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Why should I report paid links to Google? leaves no question as to whether it is possible. I bolded the important part. The bottom line is... it is possible, the real question is how and when it occurs and most importantly what criteria does Google use to determine when a "suspect" IBL should be a negative and not just no value and yet another big question is what is a paid link. IMO, Google have done a really bad job of making paid link criteria transparent on purpose likely because it's not about relevancy it's about getting an end on every monetized link on the web....

There is an important distinction between a "negative impact" and a "negative PR value."

Zeroing out the PR passed by a "bad" link reduces the target site's incoming, and hence its total, PR, which is a "negative impact" from the perspective of that site.

[AVC]

Page rank does not determine how your websites rank as the main factor at Google, it never has been the major factor as far as your site coming up in the SERP's, it is less of a factor today than it was in the past since PR has been abused by webmasters and SEO's.

[subhzash]

Inbound links can hurt if they are irrelevant. Thats it. No more comments

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by AVC

Page rank does not determine how your websites rank as the main factor at Google, it never has been the major factor as far as your site coming up in the SERP's, it is less of a factor today than it was in the past since PR has been abused by webmasters and SEO's.

You are aware that Page Rank (Larry Page) has been, and still is, at the core of the Google algorithm, aren't you?? That's why "links" have such an effect on a web site's ranking in Google's SERPs.. That's why Google bombing / bowling worked so well until Google finally put safeguards in to protect against it (another example of IBLs hurting you by making you rank for things you "don't" want to rank for..

The page rank in the toolbar is worthless, but the real thing that Google tracks and updates pretty much continuously is still important..

[inertia]

Originally Posted by subhzash

Inbound links can hurt if they are irrelevant. Thats it. No more comments

I have NEVER seen any evidence of this being true. In fact i have seen the opposite many a times.

I got a link from Traffic Analyser ages ago. It wasn't paid for, it was a genuine appraisal! The page had a very high PR and my SERPs for the anchor text rocketed about a week later. The link was totally irrelevant but the high PR had a big effect. If it had been relevant it would have been even better!

[inertia]

Originally Posted by AVC

Page rank does not determine how your websites rank as the main factor at Google.

The thread has descended into lunacy!