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.