Can inbound links really hurt you?

[inertia]

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...

[dave9713]

In my opinion no. If that was the then the web would be a huge mess, think about all the big companies who have thousands and thousands of spam links everywhere just because there brand is known. This would also make SEO a case of damaging your competitors rather than outranking them naturally. Google knows that you can't control 100% who links to your site and unless they see that your buying links or consider yourself to be spamming then they won't punish you for it.

That amount of links won't even appear on there radar.

Dave

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by dave9713

In my opinion no. If that was the then the web would be a huge mess, think about all the big companies who have thousands and thousands of spam links everywhere just because there brand is known. This would also make SEO a case of damaging your competitors rather than outranking them naturally. Google knows that you can't control 100% who links to your site and unless they see that your buying links or consider yourself to be spamming then they won't punish you for it.

That amount of links won't even appear on there radar.

Dave

I agree Dave.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by inertia

Can inbound links really hurt you?

If it can really hurt you it would be to easy for an competitor to destroy your site. In my view, a sensible programmed SeBOT should only give non negative weight to IBL's. That means that a link can carry zero weight as a lower limit.

[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

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Can IBL's hurt you? The short answer is yes.

1. On which SE?
2. Are you sure that you have isolated the effect?
3. Then, how easy would it be to destroy a site?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

1. On which SE?
2. Are you sure that you have isolated the effect?
3. Then, how easy would it be to destroy a site?

1. Google
2. Yes. Repeated it several times.
3. People get paid, quite well, to do that very thing.

Dave

[kgun]

As usual I am sceptical, but I have noted that you have changed your signature

But I would like to see that the deletion of one IBL can improve your ranking. It is extremely difficult to isolate one of about 200 ranking factors.

Still very sceptical ...

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

As usual I am sceptical, but I have noted that you have changed your signature

I don't believe I've changed my signature for a very long time. I could be mistaken. But on occasion, I do change it for a variety of reasons.

Dave

[kgun]

No, you have recently changed your signature here or at the T.I.P forum. The link was to an article about Google, that I would not have had in my signature. But deleting that link should not improve your ranking unless Google is a "little evil" as most of us are.

[dave9713]

I am not disagreeing with CrankyDave's comments, however as I said in my opinion it would have to be a MUCH higher volume than what the OP was talking about. And please correct me if I am wrong but isn't there a way to report these to Google and let them know it is not you damaging your site?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

No, you have recently changed your signature here or at the T.I.P forum. The link was to an article about Google, that I would not have had in my signature.

Ahhhhhhh... yes. That was at TIP.

I changed it to my latest blog "rant". The one that was there was to my blog article about how I believe Google's stance on paid links is destined to fail. Still believe that, and don't believe they have "succeeded" nor will they. But that's an entirely different discussion.

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by dave9713

I am not disagreeing with CrankyDave's comments, however as I said in my opinion it would have to be a MUCH higher volume than what the OP was talking about. And please correct me if I am wrong but isn't there a way to report these to Google and let them know it is not you damaging your site?

To my knowledge, there's no way to "disavow" links.

Just to be clear, I believe that folks should worry about building a solid site, a solid link profile, the aggregate, and not worry about it.

Dave

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by inertia

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...

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.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

IBLs can be positive or neutral, but not negative.

Prove it.

Dave

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Prove it.

Dave

Right after you prove, to the satisfaction of dave9713, incrediblehelp, kgun and myself, that your claim to the contrary is correct.

[inertia]

If you had links on sites which Google saw as link sellers they could assume that you were buying links from them and penalise you for that. But then the argument about companies employing tactics to destroy competitors sites could be a very valid one.

I have seen no proof of bad links causing a site problems myself but then again i have seen sites drop and dismissed in bound links from having anything to do with it. Maybe I was over looking that factor!?

In all honesty having asked the question and read the answers it logically makes sense to me that links are either positive or neutral.

Dave, i would love to see some evidence or reasoning to prove that in bound links can hurt...

[dave9713]

Google Report a Spam Result - I have been told from a number of people in the past that If you can explain what is happening Google will investigate and help you out.

Links can be negative, but in my experience it is always has to be in high quantitys over a long volume of time with a pattern that suggests you are spamming for Google to take a second look at your site.

You could point 5000 forum links to your site and all that will say to Google is you are a member there. However if you point 5000 text links from 5000 different IP's to yours over a period of a week when your site barely gains links naturally then Googlebot will definetly investigate.

[crankydave]

dave9713... The spam report isn't going to help you much in situations where you don't want to have a link(s) pointing at your site to the best of my knowledge. That's not what it is for.

Now, I have consistantly said, that it's about the aggregate. Additionally, Google is not going to "investigate" every instance that shows up. Their algorithms, filters, etc. are made and designed to "react" to things automatically... for example, a site that gains thousands of links in short period of time.

Dave

[crankydave]

Also dave9713, here's what Adam Lasnik had to say...

Also, be assured that we're not looking to penalize folks for a "bad" link here and there. Rather, our algorithms are tuned to look for patterns of "egregious" linking behavior... both on individual sites and in the aggregate.

While this was in response to a question about OBL's, he clearly does not limit or qualify his statement to exclude IBL's. I don't think many folks will disagree that Google looks for patterns in IBL's as well.

Algorithms, bots, filters, etc. aren't "intuitive". They can't "know" why a particular pattern exists, just that it does. When a pattern is "discovered" the "reaction" is automatic.

This is why I said that it's important to build a solid link profile from the very beginning. Not only build it, but maintain it.

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

... for example, a site that gains thousands of links in short period of time.

If I programmed GoogleBot, I would have neutralized (zeroed out) the effect (votes).

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

If I programmed GoogleBot, I would have neutralized (zeroed out) the effect (votes).

Then breaking news, effective viral campaigns, etc. would not receive the natural benefit they should. Could you program Googlebot to recognize those specific things automatically as well?

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Then breaking news, effective viral campaigns, etc. would not receive the natural benefit they should. Could you program Googlebot to recognize those specific things automatically as well?

Dave

Isn't there a Google NewsBOT to target those sites?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

Isn't there a Google NewsBOT to target those sites?

News, viral capaigns, etc. can come from anywhere. Only select sites would receive their due "benefit"?

Could you program Googlebot to recognize when the "egregious pattern" is due to the site owner trying to "game" the system? Program it to determine "why" an "egregious pattern" exists?

Dave

[kgun]

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

So this anwser

Originally Posted by crankydave

News, viral capaigns, etc. can come from anywhere. Only select sites would receive their due "benefit"?

Could you program Googlebot to recognize when the "egregious pattern" is due to the site owner trying to "game" the system? Program it to determine "why" an "egregious pattern" exists?

Dave

proves: Can IBL's hurt you? The short answer is yes.

I can only conclude that we come from very different backgrounds. You find some of mine in the lower http://www.blognorway.com/ left corner.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by inertia

If you had links on sites which Google saw as link sellers they could assume that you were buying links from them and penalise you for that. But then the argument about companies employing tactics to destroy competitors sites could be a very valid one.

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.

[Terry Van Horne]

IBLs will hurt you if you purchased them according to the Google new Guidelines on paid links. This is so absurd at first I did not believe it. This could be more FUD/white Lie to discourage paid links (everyone should now know ONLY buy links from Google). IMO, this is not an algorithmic filter/penalty but rather an objective opinion of a Google engineer/recent hire who knows hardly anything, personally I lean toward it being the later. This is confirmed by Matt Cutts on Google's Webmasters blog in the post on paid links (sorry I'm on the way out or I'd look up the address).

So... in my 15 years of SEO I've never seen a penalty as assinine as this. It's all about taking alternatives from publishers who they are presently sqeezing/chiselling for every cent they can. One would think that traffic acquisition costs would rise with revenue but Google's managed to expand revenue and decrease the % paid out. Do you think that is off the payout to ASK, AOL and other partners or is it off the back of webmasters? I doubt AOL or Ask payout was affected by Smart Pricing one cent.

[activeco]

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.

Mostly yes, unless the majority of the links are "bad" ones in which case the site indeed receives a penalty.
The same is true for reciprocal (or one way to bad) links where the case becomes very clear.

[kgun]

1. Where is the lower limit of bad IBL's?
2. - infinity?

[activeco]

Originally Posted by kgun

[*]Where is the lower limit of bad IBL's?

Probably some percentage.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

IBLs will hurt you if you purchased them according to the Google new Guidelines on paid links. This is so absurd at first I did not believe it. This could be more FUD/white Lie to discourage paid links (everyone should now know ONLY buy links from Google). IMO, this is not an algorithmic filter/penalty but rather an objective opinion of a Google engineer/recent hire who knows hardly anything, personally I lean toward it being the later. This is confirmed by Matt Cutts on Google's Webmasters blog in the post on paid links (sorry I'm on the way out or I'd look up the address).

So... in my 15 years of SEO I've never seen a penalty as assinine as this. It's all about taking alternatives from publishers who they are presently sqeezing/chiselling for every cent they can. One would think that traffic acquisition costs would rise with revenue but Google's managed to expand revenue and decrease the % paid out. Do you think that is off the payout to ASK, AOL and other partners or is it off the back of webmasters? I doubt AOL or Ask payout was affected by Smart Pricing one cent.

1. Is your name Dave?
2. Why should it be possible to buy a position on the "free objective organic" SERP's?
3. Google can do what they want on their pages like you can on yours.
4. Google's paid links are separated from the organic.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by activeco

Probably some percentage.

The only logical, IMO, is zero.

Otherwise, wouldn't that favour countries whith high puchasing power? They could simply hire enough people globally for some $'s to destroy a competitors eProperty by enough bad IBL's!

[activeco]

Originally Posted by kgun

They could simply hire enough people globally for some $'s to destroy a competitors eProperty by enough bad IBL's?

Possible. Here & there we hear some cries.
Even the courtrooms don't need to be 100% sure to issue the verdict.

[kgun]

Algorithmically, it is also easiest to use zero as a lower limit. You soon get problems (of subjective nature) if you give negative values to IBL's.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by activeco

Mostly yes, unless the majority of the links are "bad" ones in which case the site indeed receives a penalty..

A "penalty" by virtue of their being discounted, i.e. given a zero weight, or affirmatively by way of a negative weight. If the latter, what proof of such exists?

Originally Posted by activeco

The same is true for reciprocal ... links where the case becomes very clear.

Are all reciprocal links "bad?" If not, how to discern "bad" from "good?"

Originally Posted by activeco

The same is true for ... one way to bad links where the case becomes very clear.

"One way to bad are OBLs, not IBLs, and are a whole different matter.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by deepsand

A "penalty" by virtue of their being discounted, i.e. given a zero weight, or affirmatively by way of a negative weight. If the latter, what proof of such exists?

For non-Google employees there are no proofs, just experiences.

Are all reciprocal links "bad?"

In this case I referred to reciprocal links with bad guys, not reciprocal in general, which in the other hand also has negative influence if used "excessively".

If not, how to discern "bad" from "good?"

Simple - The Black List.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by deepsand

"One way to bad are OBLs, not IBLs, and are a whole different matter.

True.

[jawn_tech]

In response to some discussions about paid links --

My understanding is Google discredits the pagerank power of paid links (some how, some way, for debatable reasons), so the only benefit would be human traffic.

That in itself isn't a punishment and doesn't hurt your site. Just your wallet, if you paid good money in hopes of pagerank in return.

If paid links were punishable, the advertising industry would go broke. Thus, no more CNN.com, MSNBC.com, or for that matter, Google.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by kgun

Algorithmically, it is also easiest to use zero as a lower limit. You soon get problems (of subjective nature) if you give negative values to IBL's.

Usually there are no problems of subjective nature if majority of problems is solved at the cost of statistically insignificant number of false positives.

It doesn't mean I approve the system, it's just the way the world turns.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by kgun

1. Is your name Dave?
2. Why should it be possible to buy a position on the "free objective organic" SERP's?

1. Not Dave, but he must be a smart guy.

I'm not saying it should be possible to buy your way to the top, you assume:
A. I'm dumb enough to BUY or SELL links
B. Haven't seen this shite a time or two in another form and implementation

IMO, wannabes see links as the be all end all! I've never bought a link for anything OTHER than to promote a site. A few years back I bought a few directory reviews, which had $0 ROI and provided 0 traffic so... I do not do it nor do I advise clients to do it anymore. Paid links are a suckers game and if a SEO solution is going to be effective it has to have longevity. Buying links is not a long term SEO solution. It's a promotion solution, it never has been, nor should it be called SEO. Sure, links are in the algos but most of the link techniques I see are manipulative and only the wannabes see that as a long term solution because anyone who has been around longer than a day knows what the shelf life of link manipulation is... if it works... it's dead in a year tops. I seek to provide decades long solutions not a hope and a prayer that lasts a year.

IBL penalties/filters are not a good idea because to assume competitors won't just buy spammy links is to give some in the industry more credit than they've earned. That will be a rats nest to fix at a cost to the owner that is unfair because by no means can anyone know who bought what or the intent (promo or link manipulation) unless they KNOW the intent of all parties. For instance many believe just buying a membership to an association is a paid link well.... that's just F'in ludicrous! No one knows that, it's a a subjective call, and on the same site two purchasers may do so for entirely different reasons. This IMO, is not what algorithmic engines are supposed to be about.

Originally Posted by kgun

3.Google can do what they want on their pages like you can on your

Where did I imply that Google didn't have the right to do anything? Sure Google has the right to do it... and I have the right to say... I think it's a terrible idea. I guess we'll see down the road who is right

Originally Posted by kgun

Google's paid links are separated from the organic.

AdSense isn't and that is what I was on about. They are also selling contextual display ads so... how is that any different from another site that also labels its listings as sponsorships with display and text ads. An AdCents ad can be placed anywhere. This is a really gray area and I'm just not so quick to give Google the benefit of the doubt... they are now all about the bottom line which I have no problem with. I do get a little skeptical when most of what is supposed to improve relevancy only seems to increase the bottom line of one party, and that party is not the advertisers. Afterall when was the last time you heard an advertiser complaining PPC costs went down?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by activeco

For non-Google employees there are no proofs, just experiences.

So, are you saying a "negative" weight factor is incurred? And, this from anecdotal evidence alone?

Originally Posted by activeco

Simple - The Black List.

Begs the question. Bad = Black List; Black List = Bad.

To be specific, how does any SE determine whether an IBL from a "bad" site is the result of an deliberate & intentional act on my part, and therefore a "bad" link, or one that was unilaterally deployed by another, and therefore an "ignore" link?

[activeco]

Originally Posted by deepsand

So, are you saying a "negative" weight factor is incurred? And, this from anecdotal evidence alone?

"Anecdotal" evidence is indeed subjective issue. How much is statistically enough to make valid conclusions?
Even the natural laws driving this planet could be false or only true for this space as well as changed at any moment.

To be specific, how does any SE determine whether an IBL from a "bad" site is the result of an deliberate & intentional act on my part, and therefore a "bad" link, or one that was unilaterally deployed by another, and therefore an "ignore" link?

I don't work as a quality engineer at Google or any other SE so I am not able to answer that question.
One can think on many ways, more or less fair or accurate.

From the horses mouth comes that the link sellers (for the benefits of SE ranking) definitely come to the Black List. (I have no time to search for the link, just take this as a natural law).
The link buyers (for the purpose of SE rankings) are more difficult to catch, but once caught they are cursed until the reinclusion request.

Officially they say: "As Google changes algorithms over time, excessive reciprocal links will probably carry less weight."

But "less weight" doesn't have to mean "ignore" as many cases prove it can carry negative weight.
For example this article Condemned To Google Hell - Forbes.com deals wrongly with supplemental pages, while the reason for losing half a million dollars in three months were reciprocal links.

More info:
Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Information about buying and selling links that pass PageRank
Link schemes

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

To be specific, how does any SE determine whether an IBL from a "bad" site is the result of an deliberate & intentional act on my part, and therefore a "bad" link, or one that was unilaterally deployed by another, and therefore an "ignore" link?

Precisely the point. They can't. They can't "know" whether or not a link is paid. They "guess" and act upon that "guess", based upon a pattern.

As I said earlier, algorithms, bots, filters, etc. are not intuitive. They can't "know". They don't consider what "makes sense". They don't "think" (not yet anyway). They can't assign "no value" to a paid link, they need webmasters to do that, what makes you, or anyone else for that matter, think they can assign "no value" to any other link "automatically"?

A pattern is a pattern. When that criteria is met, it is acted upon automatically. Doesn't matter why the pattern exists. "Why" cannot be automatically discerned.

Dave

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by activeco

"Anecdotal" evidence is indeed subjective issue. How much is statistically enough to make valid conclusions?

Anecdotal evidence is not subjective, but rather is purportedly objective evidence that cannot be empirically validated. In this case, statistics could, theorectically, be use for such validation; however, no data amenable to the application of statistics has been presented.

Originally Posted by activeco

From the horses mouth comes that the link sellers (for the benefits of SE ranking) definitely come to the Black List. (I have no time to search for the link, just take this as a natural law).
The link buyers (for the purpose of SE rankings) are more difficult to catch, but once caught they are cursed until the reinclusion request.

Officially they say: "As Google changes algorithms over time, excessive reciprocal links will probably carry less weight."

But "less weight" doesn't have to mean "ignore" as many cases prove it can carry negative weight.
For example this article Condemned To Google Hell - Forbes.com deals wrongly with supplemental pages, while the reason for losing half a million dollars in three months were reciprocal links.

More info:
Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Information about buying and selling links that pass PageRank
Link schemes

All of which still begs the question of whether or not IBLs from "bad" sites are categorically subject to to being "negatively" weighted, and without regard to culpability.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by crankydave

A pattern is a pattern. When that criteria is met, it is acted upon automatically. Doesn't matter why the pattern exists. "Why" cannot be automatically discerned.

Dave

I completely agree with Dave. It is possible to get your competitor's site drop in rankings by doing really bad link building for their website. Everybody agrees that doing link building the wrong way can hurt your rankings, and I think everybody would agree also that Google can not know who's responsible for the backlinks that a site has.

So how come that when you´re not the one doing the bad link building, these backlinks all the sudden won't hurt?

It's actually pretty easy from an algorithmical point of view. All you really have to do is make sure that the average backlink age goes down so much, that the site gets kicked out of the results. Being able to get that many backlinks though, is a whole different story, that's not that easy and pretty expensive too. Though it wouldn't surprise me that it is possible if you get people from 200 dollars a month countries.


On another note, I do believe Google is able to get an idea of who's responsible by looking at link paterns. An enormous backlink blast all the sudden is reason to investigate and I think there is a lot more information in paterns than you'd think at first.

[jawn_tech]

I abosolutely HATE to bring myself to say this, or use this phrase, and I'll duck as I say this...

Are we talking about "sandboxing" competitors?

I'm just saying.

[Mads Dam]

I don't think a few bad inbound links will hurt anyone, for the reasons others have mentioned. But... if all inbound links came from bad sites, I would be worried. Then again, such a situation would be highly unlikely...

[subhzash]

Originally Posted by inertia

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...

Inbound links are really danger when those are from irrelevant sites or irrelevant pages.

[sushil]

Originally Posted by subhzash

Inbound links are really danger when those are from irrelevant sites or irrelevant pages.

Exactly, inbound links are danger but if those are from spam site. otherwise that is useful for site to make site popular.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Anecdotal evidence is not subjective, but rather is purportedly objective evidence that cannot be empirically validated. In this case, statistics could, theorectically, be use for such validation; however, no data amenable to the application of statistics has been presented.

Tell it to all those sites went to Hell.