Can inbound links really hurt you?

[AVC]

You mean by purchasing "incoming links" from Traffic Power, right Deepsand ???

Sorry, I meant outgoing links Fathom !!!

[fathom]

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

The problem with first hand accounts is that doing A and seeing B doesn't always equal to C. AB may not be real world every day events.

Example:

You can post a great piece of research and with RSS gain links from blogrolls and according to your test you should lose ranks. [these are sitewide links from natural related or unrelated sources and this allows "ALOT" - there should be a sizable amount of 2nd & 3rd data out there to support your claim.

A Thought:

Originally Posted by crankydave

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.

What if any of the following are true:

1. whois same [Google can see the linking site as a manipulation practice]

2. Same IP [Google can see the linking site as a manipulation practice]

3. Domain linking sitewide had links previously that weren't sitewide and these are now included with sitewides this loss of those quality links and ranks

That's 3 off the top of my head that read... "it wasn't the inbound link that cause problems" - it was Google's ability to recognize these weren't votes but manipulation practices.

It's easy to say "manipulation harms" instead of inbound links harming:

1. Same whois is manipulation

2. Same IP links are more likely a form of manipulation

3. If linkiing domain goes from "A LINK" to "MASSIVE LINKS" - the single's link's juice is gone and ranks could decline accordingly.

No matter... there are volumes of false positives that you can be shown in the real world environment which include Google changing datacenters, rollbacks, algo tweaks, fresh crawl data; environmental changes like a node outage, another linking domain 404; competitive changes; either domain being unstable in results; researching knowns and not considered like [as mentioned IP, Whois, duration too short to be meaningful... the latter [noting 3 times you did this] surely then we are talking about 3-6 months for each set and 3-6 month inbetween to ensure old data isn't being observed.

First hand viewing - sounds good but here at WPW that now 2nd hand at best - and no offense Dave... I don't trust my own eyes & ears so I won't take it on faith that yours are any better...

It's safe to say that if something stinks of manipulation Google will certainly spend millions trying to ensure you can't do it... but at the same time they don't want to negatively affect "GREAT SITES"...

If you search you will find this thread on every board out there going back to 2001... and everyone's got an opinion and some have done experiments but the experiment's observations and conclusions are still opinions without the data...

If you think you got something... show the data and allow the interested to scrutinize that... scrutinizing you opinions is like spitting rhetoric back and forth and no one learns.

A great thread: Natural vs. Un-natural - in SEO and the Google Algorithm [noting if your experiment isn't natural you getting unnatural returns and your conclusions are dead wrong.]

[fathom]

I did forget one thing... if you're doing experimentation on Google - don't use machines that have any Google applets loaded, and use Anonymous IP software... Google has a habit of showing you precisely what you want to see... rather than the truth.

[galide]

Fathom, you are wasting your time, really. check out the signature of people here:

1) AVC: link to a forum with only a handful of suscribers
2) cranky Dave: links to a blog where comments come only from SPAM bots
3) etc ..

And they are talking like SEO experts..

I suspect that we are actually not talking to real people, but to sophisticated SPAM bots, who are spamming forums such as WPW with nonsense:

Objective: get real people to post sensible answers, and make the threads look genuine.

[AVC]

Face it man, you have been exposed as someone who actually is a forum spammer !!!

[galide]

Face it man, you have been exposed as someone who actually is a forum spammer !!!

lol, you would probably have much more traffic on your forum (or shall I say "you would start getting some traffic on the forum your run") if you had spammers like me posting on it.

[AVC]

Sorry man, I would rather not have signature spammers on my forums, keep posting here, you are half arsed entertaining !!

[galide]

Sorry man, I would rather not have signature spammers on my forums

I would not call the site a "forum" just yet AVC - a forum with only one person posting on it can hardly be named a "forum". If I was posting on it, at least you could fairly call this a forum, for a start.

[galide]

and I forgot AVC:
Google results
Before worrying about how inbound links can damage your site, I would stick first to the very basics of SEO, and start getting at least a few inbound links.

[AVC]

You are wasting time and mopping up after a failed effort (maybe successful to you since you are still spamming) to win a debate man, now move on.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by galide

Fathom, you are wasting your time, really. check out the signature of people here:

1) AVC: link to a forum with only a handful of suscribers
2) cranky Dave: links to a blog where comments come only from SPAM bots
3) etc ..

And they are talking like SEO experts..

I suspect that we are actually not talking to real people, but to sophisticated SPAM bots, who are spamming forums such as WPW with nonsense:

Objective: get real people to post sensible answers, and make the threads look genuine.

I love a good debate... I actually hate WPW but I still love a good debate... if all anyone can do is sling mud when their opinions are challenged... they either don't wish to defend their position or they don't care that the readership is being misinformed... [we'll assumes I'm misleading the readership]...

Honestly, Dave is a good friend of mine, I've worked with him off & one since 2003... but I didn't make any claims here...

A couple of things I know to be absolutely true:

Don't accept anyones word at face value in SEO... and as previously noted showing people your controlled, intended, and documented experiments are a means to establishing empirical evidence that speaks for itself... saying you did it is an unsubstantiated claim.

Can inbound links really hurt you? NO!

Can you create a link manipulation pattern... YOU BET!

Are those really the same thing? No they aren't

Just getting inbounds links from outside your own network of sites and domain's that aren't involved in link schemes... will NEVER HARM...

Linking to yourself [your other sites] - you bet!

Links from link scheme sites - you bet!

But those are'n't the topic of this thread.

[galide]

You are wasting time and mopping up after a failed effort (maybe successful to you since you are still spamming) to win a debate man, now move on.

there is no debate here AVC, at least with you - you fail applying the very basics of SEO to your own sites, so don't expect me to take your statements about SEO seriously. You are free to have your own opnions on any matters, but this is very arrogant to post statements when you have obviously very little SEO experience.

[galide]

Can inbound links really hurt you? NO!

...

Don't accept anyones word at face value in SEO

why should we accept the fact that inbound links cannot hurt you?

The absence of proof doesn't prove that something is false.

I personally think that they cannot hurt you, and would welcome anyone who is ready to prove that inbound links can ruin a site by running a campaign against my sites. But I find it arrogant to claim that they cannot hurt you though, as I find it arrogant to claim that they can, at least without proof.

[galide]

You are an obvious moron Galide and looking to Fathom as one to form a forum alliance with confirms this fact.

read above AVC - you have got it wrong again - not trying to form any kind of alliance here, just trying to keep in track with my initial objective, which is to post 100 times in less than 200 minutes. And trying to post something useful in the same time, doesn't cost more.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

You are an obvious ***** Galide and looking to Fathom as one to form a forum alliance with confirms this fact.

Surely your position can withstand the scruntiny of a village idiot such as myself.

We can debate the merits - or you should take your marbles and head home.

[AVC]

Like I said, you are wasting time and ruining the thread by spamming it along with Fathom now galide.

What is the use of posting along side of either of you is beyond me.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by galide

...


why should we accept the fact that inbound links cannot hurt you?

The absence of proof doesn't prove that something is false.

I personally think that they cannot hurt you, and would welcome anyone who is ready to prove that inbound links can ruin a site by running a campaign against my sites. But I find it arrogant to claim that they cannot hurt you though, as I find it arrogant to claim that they can, at least without proof.

Good point. But I'm not claiming that you should just get any old link [e.g. it doesn't hurt so just get links indiscrimantly]. Obviously with anything "cost" in dollars should be a cautionary note... what are you actually buying?

A link is a vote... and that is proven.

A vote is the bases for Google's PageRank and their idea of ordered ranks... and that is proven.

Thereafter, you should be able to classify votes general good or generally undeserving.

1. A link from dot.gov?

2. A link from dot.edu?

3. A VERY RARE sitewide from dot.gov or dot.edu?

4. A link from any domain of high trust

5. A VERY RARE sitewide any domain of high trust?

6. A link from an info site [a blog]

7. A sitewide from an info site [a blog]

8. A link from an average commercial domain

9. A sitewide from average commercial domain

10. A link from a directory

11. a sitewide link from a directory

Will all of these cause harm?

I say none will on their own... so long as none are also owned by you... because voting for yourself isn't really a vote -- right?

Even if one or all repeats the process over & over again with other domain that doesn't mean "harm" will occur...

What "harms" is you looking for that same process over & over again [e.g. it work the first time it'll work again] particularly if you don't use other linking alternatives.

At some point you cross a threshold and Google can [WILL] negate it all and that means whatever you have left over [which is usually NOT MUCH] is why you see "harm".

Dave's claim is interesting - he had existing links and ranks and he merely added 3 unrelated site links and Google killed all the domains previous merits and ranks dropped... If it was only that easy...

Something doesn't add up... there are missing details in that experiments "because" links are the only thing that get's you ranks in Google... now we're saying they aren't?

[galide]

What is the use of posting along side of either of you is beyond me.

Fathom loves a good debate, and I am just enjoying a good pace here, 22 mn behind my plan, but trying to catch up.

You are wasting your time here, better spent on learning the basics of SEO - SEO for dummies is a good start - it will teach you that the redirect you have from your forum's homepage is very bad practice for instance, or that having a few relevant inbound to your sites is helping it getting some visibility in search engines.

[AVC]

No one will learn SEO from you man, you are lost for sure, you and Fathom have spamming confused with debating, but you are not fooling anyone here with your lunacy.

You and Fathom lost the debate long ago, you can't even answer simple questions, nor can Fathom or Deepsand.

Here is the question that all of you refuse to answer.

Can or have incoming links from Bidding Directory Link Farms hurt those who purchased a cross section of them ?

[galide]

Fathom, you are arguing a case here - and I pretty much agree with you. I am just stressing the fact that these are arguments, not proofs. And anybody is pretty much free to make their mind up depending on which argument they find the most convincing.

The initial question was about whether or not updating his signature, and inherit 100s of new links from a signle forum can damage a site. the answer is no, and I am just proving it with this thread - the traffic on my blog is stead (increasing actually) whereas I have got already over 80 links from a single thread.

The general question about whether or not inbound links can damage a site is too wide, and I believe it cannot really be answered in a single thread, because the format of a forum is not appropriate. You will get a lot of people picking on specifics, and the whole argument gets lost after a few replies. and most of people here, like AVC, should rather spend more time applying the basics of SEO to their own site, rather that arguing about stuff which is ver remote from what they have to worry about in practice, on a daily basis.

Here is the question that all of you refuse to answer.

Can or have incoming links from Bidding Directory Link Farms hurt those who purchased a cross section of them ?

The reason why you don't get the answer is that you are like a kid asking whether buying dodgy shares can damage your portfolio, while the only thing you can play with at the moment is the pocket money your parents are giving you. Concentrate on studying and spending wisely on good stuffs such as books, rather than sweets - and wait until you become an adult before worrying about your portfolio of shares.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

Can or have incoming links from Bidding Directory Link Farms hurt those who purchased a cross section of them ?

You will lose whatever the Bidding Directory Link Farms provided you once Google kills off their value but as for losing link juice and ranking value you get from dmoz, Google directory, your Chamber of Commerce, your industry association, local library, a few topically related blogs, a few PPI directories, a couple of recips, the lucky link from a dot.gov or dot.edu... NO 100% positive you would lose their value.

... if all you got was incoming links from 'now defunct' Bidding Directory Link Farms - boy are you in trouble... I can see why you think you got harmed.

[AVC]

No, the reason you will not answer is because you want to continue to promote pathological lies and propaganda instead of answering a simple question Galide because if you do answer it you will conclusively lose the debate you think you have won.

Sure thing Fathom, keep promoting your own delusion and fantasy that I was a victim of buying links in bidding directories, that is true to your character and your reputation.

[Peter (IMC)]

Probably better to close this thread.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

Sure thing Fathom, keep promoting your own delusion and fantasy that I was a victim of buying links in bidding directories, that is true to your character and your reputation.

You're the one that seems to equate these types of directories with general "inbound links"... if you know they are worthless by their own merits why ask sneaky questions about them?

Why not ask: " Here is the question that all of you refuse to answer.

Can or have incoming links from General interest PPI Directories [like Yahoo.com, Business.com, stpt.com, clush.com etrc.) hurt those who purchased a cross section of them?"

Surely these "paid links" are a more generalized cross-section of the directory norm than a PageRank for sale to the higher bidder version.

[galide]

You should head over to Digital Point, they allow signature spammers that make idiotic posts for years to troll there, I have a feeling you will not be here much longer.

You are right - 12 posts left and I am gone. Which is a shame, because I think that it would take much more to convince you that you are not heading in the right direction, and will still probably still spend month worrying about stuff which are diverting you from doing valuable stuff on your sites, before realising all the time you have wasted.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Like I said, you are wasting time and ruining the thread by spamming

A view of self in the mirror would be most instructive.

You have done little more here than engage in sophistry in the extreme, stooping so low as to repeatedly make ad hominem attacks.

[AVC]

According to you Fathom, these incoming links from Link Farm Bidding Directories can't hurt a website's rank, so the burden of proof is on you.

Now you are simply dodging the matter here to promote "The Gospel of Fathom", and it is a false gospel Fathom !!!

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

According to you Fathom, these incoming links from Link Farm Bidding Directories can't hurt a website's rank, so the burden of proof is on you.

Now you are simply dodging the matter here to promote "The Gospel of Fathom", and it is a false gospel Fathom !!!

Here's a domain of mine... Coopyrite ranked #8 for Dating Advice. I welcome you to add as many Link Farm Bidding Directory links as you possibly can find and we see how far it drops.

While it may improve my ranks up to #1-7 for a time - it won't cause the domain to slide below it's current merits.

[galide]

According to you Fathom, these incoming links from Link Farm Bidding Directories can't hurt a website's rank

AVC, a "website's rank" doesn't mean anything. It is not even the case here of whether it is worth answering your questions anymore, it is a case of having to answer meaningless questions.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Probably better to close this thread.

Perhaps so, but folks need to debate/discuss the topic in a respectful manner, and please STOP with the insults etc. so it doesn't need to be.

Dave

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

According to you Fathom, these incoming links from Link Farm Bidding Directories can't hurt a website's rank, so the burden of proof is on you.

Now you are simply dodging the matter here to promote "The Gospel of Fathom", and it is a false gospel Fathom !!!

This is both a deliberate - if it's not deliberate, then you've not been paying adequate attention - misrepresentation of the statements of others and wholly irrelevant to the original subject matter. Even the OP has made note of the latter.

Therefore, if anyone here is "dodging" the issue, you are one such, which is why I ceased trying to engage in debate with you.

[AVC]

Are paid links "incoming links" ??

Fathom, DeepSand, Galide please answer this question and I will ask the next one afterward to make things as simple as possible for you all.

[galide]

ok, let's play with AVC. What do you mean by "incoming link"?

Note: I used "kiddie" in my previous post, which was deleted by the admin. Looks like "kiddie"is a banned word!

[fathom]

Originally Posted by galide

I am just stressing the fact that these are arguments, not proofs.

I wholeheartedly agree with that... and I privately noted to Dave my posts aren't meant to discredit but to allow others a moment to pause, to think for themselves...

It's easy enough for anyone here to voice an opinion and if never challenged a volume of the readership will walk away thinking they have absolute facts because -- an active member of WPW said so, or a veteran, or worse a Moderator or an Administrator... the latter two are worse because of their very position people tend not to be in these position unless they are knowledgeable and those that "don't know" trust the position first and not necessarily the weight of the advice.

The very worse thing that can happen is no one engaging the poster to defend a specific vantagepoint... as the readership will never learn to appreciate that there is often more than one coirrect answer.

I can honestly say "because I don't have Google's vantagepoint I could very well be wrong" -- but until someone can engage me... with intelligence and make me think and defend my position to an end conclusion where I say "you are more likely right than me" [and that rarely happens] -- all that is left in mud slinging... and no one is fooled by personal attacks and rarely by colorful rhetoric... But I do love rhetoric myself -- I'm really good at it.

[galide]

Would be great to close this thread on these wise words Fathom, but unfortunately forums don't work like that, and you'll get without doubt a few post, probably from AVC, moving the thread to page 10, and your comment will then get lost .

[AVC]

You guys write a lot, but can't answer a simple question, so here it is once again to end the confusion of Fathom's posts.

Are paid links incoming links or one way links that point to a website ?

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

Are paid links "incoming links" ??

Fathom, DeepSand, Galide please answer this question and I will ask the next one afterward to make things as simple as possible for you all.

Yes... but that isn't your question...

I've answered your question... word-play won't make your previous rebuttal that was refuted any better... you can't fathom how to debunk that development so you think changing the word might work?

[AVC]

So you agree now that "Paid Links are incoming Links" then Fathom ?

Now, do you think that Paid Links can hurt a website with Google or get a website de-indexed from Google ??

[galide]

I privately noted to Dave my posts aren't meant to discredit

Note: I don't see anything wrong with discrediting someone. I have done it with Dave, and I am now doing it with AVC, because I strongly feel that they don't deserve the credit they are looking after.

I know that it may sound like a controversial attitude. But if someone posts wrong advice on a forum about accountancy for instance, and lead people to bankrupt, it would be fair to discredit this person.

The same applies here. By insisting on spreading rumours such as the impact of google bowling, you divert people like AVC (who I see here more as a victim than someone to blame really) diverting from basic stuff they should actually be doing on their site.

[AVC]

galide, one would think so, you discredit yourself more with every post you make, and I would imagine that is with any site you contribute to, including your blog.

[galide]

So you agree now that "Paid Links are incoming Links" then Fathom ?

not all paid links are links taken into account by Google, if this is what you mean by "incoming links".

A link from an adword ad, or with a nofollow attribute is not taken into account by Google, but are incoming links.

If you mean: "are all paid links taken into account by Google?", the answer is no. (see above)

Now, do you think that Paid Links can hurt a website with Google or get a website de-indexed from Google ??

Yes, think so. I think we all do here.

[galide]

galide, one would think so, you discredit yourself more with every post you make, and I would imagine that is with any site you contribute to, including your blog.

sure,

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

You guys write a lot, but can't answer a simple question, so here it is once again to end the confusion of Fathom's posts.

Are paid links incoming links or one way links that point to a website ?

Paid links are incoming links and are 'usually' one way links that point to a website. The link is "usually" the benefit/feature of a paid service being offered such as a 3rd party reviewing service, an membership listing, sponsorship of some event, etc.

There are a wide variety of useful services where the feature/benefit of a link in the service providers domain is highly attractive and then there are others where the link is the product being offered itself.

In general, "ALL SEARCH ENGINES" and most SEOs view the latter variety as "use at your own risk"... does that mean that the actual link is the harmful part... "NO" it merely means - you shouldn't waste your money because they are not generally SUSTAINABLE LINKING PRACTICES... and link history which helps define link quality is far more important than UNSUSTAINABLE LINKS!

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

So you agree now that "Paid Links are incoming Links" then Fathom ?

Now, do you think that Paid Links can hurt a website with Google or get a website de-indexed from Google ??

Nope...

...and you can prove me wrong "harm my site".

[AVC]

So Paid links are incoming links then ??

Can these incoming links hurt a website with Google ??

Why would Google want webmasters to fill out reports on those who buy and sell links, could it be that they are interested in taking action against these "incoming paid links" in some way ??

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by galide

Yes, think so. I think we all do here.

So, are you now saying that that "paid" links can hurt the target site?

Dave

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AVC

So Paid links are incoming links then ??

Can these incoming links hurt a website with Google ??

Why would Google want webmasters to fill out reports on those who buy and sell links, could it be that they are interested in taking action against these "incoming paid links" in some way ??

What incoming links are the defining as paid? Yahoo.com? Business.com? Textlinkads.com ads elsewhere? Your Bidding Directory?

What precisely does Google say they do when you report these?

Q: Okay, that example gives me a feel for the sort of paid links you’d like to hear about. What will you do with the new reports you get?
A: There are several ways that we intend to use the data. Our current algorithm detected the paid links above just fine, but these outside reports are a great way to measure (and then improve) the precision and recall of our existing algorithms on independent data. Next, the reports help build datasets for future algorithms. So the data helps us build the next generation of algorithms to improve quality. It also lets us work on new tools and techniques to improve how we detect paid links. Finally, we can investigate and take direct action on many reports that we receive.

Did that say anything about harming what you got from other non-paid-non-manipulating sources?

Q: This is all well and fine, but I decide what to do on my site. I can do anything I want on it, including selling links.
A: You’re 100% right; you can do absolutely anything you want on your site. But in the same way, I believe Google has the right to do whatever we think is best (in our index, algorithms, or scoring) to return relevant results.

hmmm... isn't this about paid "outgoing links"?

Q: I’m worried that someone will buy links to my site and then report that.
A: We’ve always tried very hard to prevent site A from hurting site B. That’s why these reports aren’t being fed directly into algorithms, and are being used as the starting point rather than being used directly. You might also want to review the policy mentioned in my 2005 post (individual links can be discounted and sellers can lose their ability to pass on PageRank/anchortext/etc., which doesn’t allow site A to hurt site B).

hmmm... SO according to the same post you threw at me... Google says what I'm saying.


Here's a good one:

Q: Hey, as long as we’re talking about directories, can you talk about the role of directories, some of whom charge for a reviewer to evaluate them?
A: I’ll try to give a few rules of thumb to think about when looking at a directory. When considering submitting to a directory, I’d ask questions like:
- Does the directory reject urls? If every url passes a review, the directory gets closer to just a list of links or a free-for-all link site.
- What is the quality of urls in the directory? Suppose a site rejects 25% of submissions, but the urls that are accepted/listed are still quite low-quality or spammy. That doesn’t speak well to the quality of the directory.
- If there is a fee, what’s the purpose of the fee? For a high-quality directory, the fee is primarily for the time/effort for someone to do a genuine evaluation of a url or site.

Those are a few factors I’d consider. If you put on your user hat and ask “Does this seem like a high-quality directory to me?” you can usually get a pretty good sense as well, or ask a few friends for their take on a particular directory

So let me ask you:

Do you consider a Bidding Directory Link Farm a high quality directory? Would Google?

Isn't the style of this directory type the problem and not the link itself?

If a bidding directory changed to be a traditional PPI directory would that increase or decrease the value of the link [according to Google]?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by fathom

Nope...

For there to be an IBL there needs to be an OBL... no? Can't have one without the other... no?

You also noted earlier, that there are "practices" (re external linking) that one can do to themselves that can harm them. What's to prevent a service, contracted by the site owner, or a "disinterested" (interested?) 3rd party from emulating the very same thing besides nothing?

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by fathom

What incoming links are the defining as paid? Yahoo.com? Business.com? Textlinkads.com ads elsewhere? Your Bidding Directory?

Isn't this part of the crux of the matter? Google has not "defined" what paid is? They have not defined what "agregious" is". I certainly don't expect them to. They make their best "guess" and act upon it. If a pattern is delivered and discovered it doesn't neccessary matter why or by whom.

Dave

[AVC]

You are talking about Google bowling once again Dave where a large amount of links are pointed at a site in a short period of time damaging the website with Google.

Google is aware of Black Hat Negative SEO, I think that is why they went to the warning notices where they warn webmasters of suspect tactics, I guess in an attempt to fight this sort of fraudulent activity and to give a webmaster a chance to respond.