Can inbound links really hurt you?

[AVC]

Page rank is one of over 100 factors used to determine how sites rank in the SERP's, read up on it, this is an old topic going back to 2003 kids.

Start reading here

Page Rank fanaticism and focusing on it actually can hurt webmasters when they chase it, make your sites for the users and quit your worries about PR and you will be much better off in the end, buying high PR links and trading links to garner PR will actually harm you and is against G's guidelines.

Matt Cutts on the 100 factors Google uses in ranking websites for the SERP's

[inertia]

Originally Posted by AVC

Page rank is one of over 100 factors used to determine how sites rank in the SERP's, read up on it, this is an old topic going back to 2003 kids.

Cheers for the explanation of what PageRank is kid. Id almost forgotten! One correction though, it goes further back than 2003, more like 2001 when the pagerank patent was granted.

Originally Posted by AVC

Page Rank fanaticism and focusing on it actually can hurt webmasters when they chase it, make your sites for the users and quit your worries about PR and you will be much better off in the end, buying high PR links and trading links to garner PR will actually harm you and is against G's guidelines.

Thanks for that, but its got absolutely nothing to do with this thread...

By the way...dont pull on supermans cape!

[AVC]

Don't go loony on us man, get real and have a nice day !!!

[deepsand]

Re. "Simple and irrefutable 'PROOF' has been provided ":

"I'm reliable sources, I'll tell ya anything you want me to know." -- Tom Waits

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by subhzash

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

Proof, please.

BTW, you may want to read the published algorithm that defines Page Rank, giving particular attention to the facts that 1) it's essentially a "voting system," one with weighted votes, and 2) the lowest weight given any vote is zero.

[Feydakin]

There is no where in the published algorithms that says they will hand job your site for selling links either..

[Terry Van Horne]

Yeah... and back then that published pageRank algo paper indicated they counted every link... recip unrelated or otherwise... to think that paper is very relevant today is IMO, a giant leap of faith, it is relevant only in that it was a starting point but... lots has changed and that could include the zero value since back then they pretty much did penalties with hand jobs and all or nothing banning.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

There is no where in the published algorithms that says they will hand job your site for selling links either..

There are an infinite no. of things not mentioned in the algorithm in question; does that mean that it is invalid, irrelevant, inconsequential or otherwise immaterial?

Or, might it simply be that 1) all algorithms deal with a specific set of conditions, and 2) any given system may comprise of multiple algorithms?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Yeah... and back then that published pageRank algo paper indicated they counted every link... recip unrelated or otherwise... to think that paper is very relevant today is IMO, a giant leap of faith, it is relevant only in that it was a starting point but... lots has changed and that could include the zero value since back then they pretty much did penalties with hand jobs and all or nothing banning.

It must be borne in mind that the PR algorithm is not the sum total of either Google's indexing or search results display engines.

Said algorithm, as published, remains mathematically sound regardless of what other algorithmic and/or non-algorithmic processes are employed by said engines.

[Feydakin]

It must be borne in mind that the PR algorithm is not the sum total of either Google's indexing or search results display engines.

Then why did you site it like it supported your argument??

mmmmm, smells like breakfast in here and I love waffles..

[AVC]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Yeah... and back then that published pageRank algo paper indicated they counted every link... recip unrelated or otherwise... to think that paper is very relevant today is IMO, a giant leap of faith, it is relevant only in that it was a starting point but... lots has changed and that could include the zero value since back then they pretty much did penalties with hand jobs and all or nothing banning.

Exactly, and Google is not telling webmasters what they do or the changes they make, it is in their interest to keep SEO's off balance, especially Black Hat SEO's.

Today there are a lot more webmasters following Google guidelines, many of them are also looking over their shoulder a hell of a lot more since the spam reporting form was introduced to the webmaster community in regard to reporting shady webmasters and link brokers.

Your friend of today may be your enemy tomorrow in the new environment.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Then why did you site it like it supported your argument??

mmmmm, smells like breakfast in here and I love waffles..

The PR algorithm cited does explicitly support the premise that there is no negative PR value; the lowest value employed in it is zero.

[Feydakin]

So you are using selective examples, in a vacuum to try to support your point?? In one post you use the patent algo to support your view yet in another post you say "is not the sum total of either Google's indexing or search results display engines.". When the topic is not the math of the algo, but whether someone can hurt your website by pointing links at it..

I'm done playing, you are boring and can't put together a well supported, logical, explanation, and conveniently ignore things that don't support your point of view, like my post explaining a possible way of harming a website that I see you choose to pretend does not exist..

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

So you are using selective examples, in a vacuum to try to support your point?? In one post you use the patent algo to support your view yet in another post you say "is not the sum total of either Google's indexing or search results display engines.". When the topic is not the math of the algo, but whether someone can hurt your website by pointing links at it..

Precisely where is there any logical contradiction in my statements?

Said algorithm provides an explicitly stated premise that contradicts the claim of a "penalty," i.e. of a "negative" value being assigned to "bad" IBLs.

To return to an election as analogy, votes cast by "dead" persons are given no weight; they do not result in any legitimate votes being taken away from any candidate.

To make a very fine point of it, a "Zero" value does not constitute a "penalty."

Therefore, any such "penalty" that might accrue must lie outside of said algorithm. And, as Google has provided no substantive definitive statement to support the claim that such has ever occurred or might occur, the claim requires empirical evidence of its having occurred.

While there have been claims to such effect, but no supporting data has been presented, the only "evidence" for such is anecdotal, which does not serve as substantive proof.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I'm done playing, you are boring and can't put together a well supported, logical, explanation, and conveniently ignore things that don't support your point of view, like my post explaining a possible way of harming a website that I see you choose to pretend does not exist..

As I and others have previously stated, the only effect that can be predicted is that the PR value passed from the "bad" sites via IBLs is zero. Therefore, your question has already been answered.

[AVC]

Deepsand, have you heard of Google's spam reporting form that they request webmasters use to report paid links directly to the Google anti-spam team ??

Are these incoming links that may hurt a website or get it deindexed ??

Can you answer the original question instead of trying to convert the thread into a PR analysis thread ??

[Varshen]

From Reading Every Post on this topic i see that
noone knows how google ranks pages.

[kgun]

It started here.

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

Originally Posted by deepsand

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.



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.

That is an exact description that has not been answered.

[fathom]

I can't believe there are 8 pages of fantasy posts.

Amazingly, every single thread of this type is loaded with pure 100% BS!

The general problem anyone has with identifying the root cause of any negative SEO event "they assume" too much; they think they know what caused it... but since Google doesn't say "you're right" and they weren't actually attempting to create that end result... [in the first place] they are merely taking a stab in the dark to give them some sort of comfort - that they learned a valuable lesson... course you can only learn if you're actually taught. [and Google doesn't say a word]

... If your end objective wasn't to prove or disprove IBL can harm [your original objective was actually to gain better ranks] it stands to reason that your uncontrolled, unintended, and undocumented experiment is unusually biased towards your... "I don't have a clue what went wrong - cause if I did; I wouldn't have done it"... comes to mind.

Showing people your controlled, intended, and documented experiments are a means to establishing empirical evidence in the absence of actual reliable truth... but talking about your 1st hand knowledge of your own failures that you didn't intend to do is nothing... happenstance isn't evidence of anything.

This whole thread breeds nothing but misinformation because a volume of people that claim to know "1st hand" something can't be bothered to disprove their assumptions "first hand".

Seriously, what kind of insight do you think you are offering to people that "don't know and are relying on you to tell them" when your claims are based on your own ranking failures – “you're in the obvious Google DON"T KNOW column rather than the Google know side”.

...I surely love the crack about "prove it"... prove what?

You're wrong? I just did.

Your happenstance isn't evidence of anything. Showing people your controlled, intended, and documented experiments might make for a worthy debate; debating about their merits.... but you haven't any.

[Niche]

Sorry i am a newbie here so please indulge my ignorance. I was always under the impression that some links can hurt your site's optimization. We are told in ebooks like seo made easy that link farms and bad neighbourhoods are going to hurt our rankings.

Also with this minus 60 penalty, which i am still strugling to understand, it would seem that link patterns could also adversely affect you

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Niche

Sorry i am a newbie here so please indulge my ignorance. I was always under the impression that some links can hurt your site's optimization. We are told in ebooks like seo made easy that link farms and bad neighbourhoods are going to hurt our rankings.

Also with this minus 60 penalty, which i am still strugling to understand, it would seem that link patterns could also adversely affect you

1. Link Farm - imply you are part of the farm - so you are linking to others in the farm... your links out causes the problem [actually "EVERYONE'S" links out cause the problem.

2. Bad Neighborhood - again "linking to a bad neighborhood" is the problem.

3. Minus 60 penalty - is general hogwash... all ranking loses that are cause by a penalty - you disappear ABSOLUTELY not a few positions. If Google negates links from having any impact you drop to where you would be if you didn't have the links... and IMHO the number 60 position happens to appear more often than others simply because that the general threshold of competitiveness [the position usually reached by implementing traditional on-page SEO enhancements without any problem at all [a single low quality link and good on-page enhancements tends to get you to #60 - good links are need thereafter...

Lastly the average site purchasing text links isn't likely paying in other ways like better content creation for random links, link bait, social bookmarking, PPI directory or even recips... so when they lose the primary "paid for text links" they really don't have any links...so they go to the position most deserving and that happens to be #60 more than #50, #99, #124, etc.

... and anyone with "eyes open" and a "opened mind" can see that in just about any ranking circle... #61 and below isn't hard to reach.

[kgun]

Only a guestion and no intention to continue this infinite loop thread.

Penalties: How many are there?

-60 is new to me.

[AVC]

Do us all a favor Fathom, please link to all the "fantasy posts" if you would instead of speaking in generalities and giving us all "your verdict" and final judgment on this thread !!!

So now all incoming links are actually "outgoing links" that hurt your rankings according to you !!

[galide]

Seriously, what kind of insight do you think you are offering to people that "don't know and are relying on you to tell them" when your claims are based on your own ranking failures – “you're in the obvious Google DON"T KNOW column rather than the Google know side”.

This is a lost battle fathom. Whatever you say, it will become useless after 3 or 4 other people have replied to your post with nonsense.

I can't believe there are 8 pages of fantasy posts.

There could be much more! With your comment bringing this post back to the surface, we will probably have an other 2-3 pages of nonsense coming up!

[AVC]

Sure thing, but look at who posted the most nonsense in the thread galide, it is simple to see you posted the most against Dave's correct position, funny how those on "your side" refuse to answer simple questions posed to them.

Fathom, please answer one question.

If a webmaster purchases a link in a bidding directory link farm is that an incoming link or an outgoing link ???

[ami_iss]

Thinking out loud - Here is how I suspect IBLs might be used to sabotage a site or page - by "detuning" the Keyword of the page. Suppose I sell "Shoes" - Google finds 18000 inbound links to my Shoes.com - Free Shipping on Men's Shoes, Women's Shoes and Kid's Shoes that all have "Shoes" anchor text and returns my site as #1. Competitor decides to do me in and makes 50,000 links to my site that say "zvip" in the anchor text. My site is no top ranked for zvip, which nobody is searching for, and not for shoes. OTOH, what about all the links that say "read about it here" with the "here" used as anchor text? "Here" would be discounted because it is a common word I guess.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by ami_iss

Thinking out loud - Here is how I suspect IBLs might be used to sabotage a site or page - by "detuning" the Keyword of the page. Suppose I sell "Shoes" - Google finds 18000 inbound links to my Shoes.com - Free Shipping on Men's Shoes, Women's Shoes and Kid's Shoes that all have "Shoes" anchor text and returns my site as #1. Competitor decides to do me in and makes 50,000 links to my site that say "zvip" in the anchor text. My site is no top ranked for zvip, which nobody is searching for, and not for shoes. OTOH, what about all the links that say "read about it here" with the "here" used as anchor text? "Here" would be discounted because it is a common word I guess.

IBLs neither add to nor subtract from the content of your site.

Therefore, your SERP re. "shoes" is unaffected, and that re. "zvip" is irrelevant.

[ami_iss]

IBLs neither add to nor subtract from the content of your site.

Therefore, your SERP re. "shoes" is unaffected, and that re. "zvip" is irrelevant

AFAIK, the positioning of a page for a keyword is determined in part by the content of the anchor text in the incoming links. This is pretty well known, and I have found it to be true over and over in positioning pages in Google.
Therefore, I do not understand your comment. Of course IBLs do not determine what is on your page, but what is on your page is not the only thing that determines the positioning of that page for a given keyword.

[AVC]

Correct, this is commonly called Google bombing, that is when anchor text only ranks a page, when the text in the anchors never appear on the web page itself.

The most famous case being when Bush was ranking for "miserable failure".

In this case "inbound links" hurt the President and deservedly so.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by ami_iss

AFAIK, the positioning of a page for a keyword is determined in part by the content of the anchor text in the incoming links. This is pretty well known, and I have found it to be true over and over in positioning pages in Google.
Therefore, I do not understand your comment. Of course IBLs do not determine what is on your page, but what is on your page is not the only thing that determines the positioning of that page for a given keyword.

The point is that such will not diminish the site's standing re., in this case, "shoes."

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

Sure thing, but look at who posted the most nonsense in the thread galide, it is simple to see you posted the most against Dave's correct position, funny how those on "your side" refuse to answer simple questions posed to them.

Fathom, please answer one question.

If a webmaster purchases a link in a bidding directory link farm is that an incoming link or an outgoing link ???

Your question is irrelevant to the topic...

How did the incoming link from the bidding directory link farm "harm" the domain that received it?

If a link doesn't help, or did helped and then it doesn't now... [because the bidding directory is seen as some form of manipulation tactic] that doesn't negatively affect all the other links you have.

If all you got are incoming links from bidding directory link farms man do I feel sorry for you - that a pretty dumb thing to do. If Google takes a pot shot at bidding directory link farms [and they did] of course you won't admit that your plan was dumb - you'll attempt a tommy two-step to find some other plausible excuse for your failures... but that doesn't mean Google targets crappy links or all 'paid-for' links from just "anywhere".

If you have supporting data - I'll be glad to look at it but you theory IMHO has a flaw... I didn't nor every used a bidding directory link farm and I don't see what you see... and if you see something [that I don't] maybe it's limited to your specifically used tactics... and not the whole SEO world.

[AVC]

Fathom, I have a real feeling that I am wasting time trying to explain anything to you or even ask you a simple question since you assume way too many wrong things (like I ever thought Bidding Directories = SEO) that you yourself dream up.

So just forgive me if I never respond to any of your posts ever again, maybe that is "one of my failures" also !!!

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

Correct, this is commonly called Google bombing, that is when anchor text only ranks a page, when the text in the anchors never appear on the web page itself.

The most famous case being when Bush was ranking for "miserable failure".

In this case "inbound links" hurt the President and deservedly so.

Yes the example is widely know but here's another.... that isn't as well know but exhibits the same symptoms... Dell doesn't have "Computers" written anywhere on the page and yet it ranks... Why isn't this seen as "In this case "inbound links" hurt the company and deservedly so.... thus removed from results?

It suggests that Google can determine the difference between actual votes and attempts at manipulation... LSI technology is the likely source of this.

It's "likely" the reason why some links from some places appear to work and then abruptly stop.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

Fathom, I have a real feeling that I am wasting time trying to explain anything to you or even ask you a simple question since you assume way too many wrong things that you yourself dream up.

So just forgive me if I never respond to any of your posts ever again, maybe that is "one of my failures" also !!!

Ya often when people are on the wrong side of the debate they feel the need to post a sense of "wasting time"...

That's great though... you learn more when you listen!

[AVC]

Rest assured Fathom, no one will learn anything of value from your posts in this thread, that is a sure thing !!

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

So just forgive me if I never respond to any of your posts ever again

and then:

Originally Posted by AVC

Rest assured Fathom, no one will learn anything of value from your posts in this thread, that is a sure thing !!

Well we all learned that in response to my post that your word is meaningless... and that IS a sure thing!

[AVC]

You win the debate Fathom, incoming links are not the problem, it is all due to OUTGOING LINKS !!!

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

You win the debate Fathom, incoming links are not the problem, it is all due to OUTGOING LINKS !!!

Who's going to argue with straight talking, no bull, take no prisoners words of AVC!

[janeth]

When traffic power got all their customer sites banned, I was thinking it was due to traffic power building website and redirecting them to the sites of the paying customer.

Was that not the case?

[fathom]

Originally Posted by janeth

When traffic power got all their customer sites banned, I was thinking it was due to traffic power building website and redirecting them to the sites of the paying customer.

Was that not the case?

The site building was actually after the ban occurred... The scope of TP bans across their network of clients was due Google hand and not any automated process... but it did allow Google to significantly improve their anit-spamming software.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by fathom

The site building was actually after the ban occurred... The scope of TP bans across their network of clients was due Google hand and not any automated process... but it did allow Google to significantly improve their anit-spamming software.

But it was due to incoming links?

[fathom]

Originally Posted by janeth

But it was due to incoming links?

Well "no" -- technically Google banned all the domains for:

1. sneaky redirects
2. doorway pages and
3. generally providing the browser with different content than the bot

While you could argue that each domain had links to other clients [thus your idea of inbound links]... having inbound links from other websites isn't a crime according to Google and their link absession... having inbound links "is good"...

Manipulating those links in the case of TP with sneaky redirects, doorway pages and generally providing the browser with different content than the bot got everyone banned.

The inbound link isn't the problem... the outbound link [the page offering the link] is the manipulator...

No matter how you define the relationship [an inbound link to someone is an outbound link elsewhere] and it will be the outbound link "everytime" that gets "binged" thus the receiver gets nothing.

Most link strategies built around manipulation will work for a time but at some point you will cross Google's pattern detection theshold... so it's the farm, the directory, the xyz linking "out" strategy that Google hammers and not the "linking in".

[janeth]

Originally Posted by fathom

Manipulating those links in the case of TP with sneaky redirects, doorway pages and generally providing the browser with different content than the bot got everyone banned.

Which would mean that I could build a site and link it to you with sneaky redirects, doorway pages and generally providing the browser with different content than the bot got and stand a chance of getting your site banned.

[AVC]

Fathom, thanks for clearing all this up for us, now we can all go out and buy links from link brokers selling links on high PR pages since only the "outgoing link seller" will be de-indexed by Google and not the webmasters who buy the "incoming links" !!!

This is the news the industry has been waiting to hear, thanks for bringing clarity to this issue Fathom, all of us who are inept thank you dearly for opening up our eyes to the "real truth" !!

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I love the fact that is still going on..

Let's talk some hypotheticals now..

Now?

Originally Posted by 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

Yes.

Hopefully the thread will not be so long as this

Googles use of the Description Metatag

where my last post concluded that

Originally Posted by kgun

This time I fully agree with williamc. Good that you defend your sites position in my linkfarm.

in a thread where he and cd even used the phone to discuss my posts. The most funny thread I have participated in here at WPW so long.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by janeth

Which would mean that I could build a site and link it to you with sneaky redirects, doorway pages and generally providing the browser with different content than the bot got and stand a chance of getting your site banned.

What I do with my domain can harm me...

What you do with your domain can't.

What I do with a network of sites that beyond to me can harm me...

What you do with a network of sites that beyond to you can't.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

Fathom, thanks for clearing all this up for us, now we can all go out and buy links from link brokers selling links on high PR pages since only the "outgoing link seller" will be de-indexed by Google and not the webmasters who buy the "incoming links" !!!

This is the news the industry has been waiting to hear, thanks for bringing clarity to this issue Fathom, all of us who are inept thank you dearly for opening up our eyes to the "real truth" !!

...and I thought you were done... what a joke!

AVC's rhetoric - short for Automatic Volume Control... dialing him up and watch him vibrate!

[janeth]

Originally Posted by fathom

What I do with my domain can harm me...

What you do with your domain can't.

What I do with a network of sites that beyond to me can harm me...

What you do with a network of sites that beyond to you can't.

Traffic Power owned the sites and linked out to clients. They got their sites banned and all of the clients sites banned.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

Traffic Power owned the sites and linked out to clients. They got their sites banned and all of the clients sites banned.

And, in so doing, they acted as agents of their clients.

I.e., their clients harmed themselves!

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

And, in so doing, they acted as agents of their clients.

I.e., their clients harmed themselves!

But the sites were banned because of traffic power linking to them. Google never saw any contracts, they used a bot to find the sites and hand banned them all.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

But the sites were banned because of traffic power linking to them. Google never saw any contracts, they used a bot to find the sites and hand banned them all.

How the evidence was obtained is irrelevant.

The fact remains that they harmed themselves, rather than being harmed by another.