Over-Optimization Penalty Does Not Exist

[morestar]

For starters, I want to point out that the so-called over-optimization penalty was mentioned, half-fast and off the cuff by Matt Cutts - the mention can be clearly heard here; you tell me what you think.

Now, I'm calling all the logical mathematical SEOs out there, them or just the logical programmic SEO web developer types - something doesn't sit well with me with this so called over-optimization penalty. Can anyone else see how strange it would be for Google to depreciate rankings based on;

• keyword density?
• similar anchor text?
• un-natural link building?

How so?

The news has been spreading for YEARS that Google's the Tip Top of search engines but now suddenly all those GREAT results prior to this "announcement" were poor and they need to "re-evaluate" the content they've been giving us?

Like here, there is too much speculation;

• Keyword/phrase over usage
• Too many redirects (?)
• Same/similar anchor in back links
• Same Niche same server (?)
• Doorway/thin affiliate (?)
• Link schemes/cheap backlink packages
• Anchor texts that are too similar (?)
• Less or near duplicated content (?)
• Inorganic and/or unnatural /paid inbound links
• High keyword densities

(My question marks)

Really? Now too many redirects which help users and Google are going to be added to the over-optimization penalty list? Really...Duplicate content? Really? That's a problem for Panda isn't it?

I don't believe there is one. I believe the "Semantic Web" (as covered by WSJ) may be something for us to more and more look forward to but if you see your website suddenly drop in the search results, I'd consider the drop related to any of the same reasons websites drop in the SERPs all the time.

Lastly, I'll suppose that if there actually is an over-optimization penalty, it's near the bottom of the list of importance and probably truly affects less than .01% of the search results - I'll bet'cha!

[mandocontrol]

I dont really believe Google is going to give sites a penalty for over Optimization.

But if they going to make a list the can never put backlinks on it i think. The reason why i think so is that it would be very easy to penaltize your competition. Just by a ton of cheap links for you competition and they get penaltized. The would rather just ignore the links.

Deplicated content i dont think so eather. What they good do is just ignore the content on one of the pages.

[BrandonHeate]

I sure hope you are right, all this 'over-optimization' talk got a lot of people shook up. Seems like a tactic to scare SEO's into sticking to white hat more than a plausible new algorithm. Time will tell I guess...

[SteveGerencser]

http://trafficplanet.com/topic/2369-...e-seo-results/

http://www.seobook.com/negative-seo-outing

[PhilipDunn]

http://trafficplanet.com/topic/2369-...e-seo-results/

This is a good read, especially Dan Theis' posts about the negative seo done to his site.

[SteveGerencser]

We've been saying it was possible for years. Now it's just easier to do it to nearly anyone. At least before it was a challenge.

[claybutler]

http://trafficplanet.com/topic/2369-...e-seo-results/

http://www.seobook.com/negative-seo-outing

Unless the story is fabricated they performed a great public service with this experiment. One, they demonstrate a fatal flaw in Google's thinking and two, the guy they targeted has the personal resources to correct the negative effect so he won't really suffer anyway.


As far as Morestars concerns, I know the most recent panda updates did dome odd things to my rankings for some of my most sought after keywords. One position sayed the same but was replaced with a completely different page. Another coveted keyword droped to page two after bouncing around on page one for many years.

So the one that dropped will require a bit of extra love i guess to push it back up.

But what I have noticed after the latest update is the quality of the SERPS. I don't think my pages are the best in the wold but it's odd when I'm either above results that really should be ahead of me, or I'm below results that are actually false positives.

But I've been around to long to freak out about it. I just keep plugging along and I'll probably drift back up to page one again. Perhaps without doing anything and just benefiting from next update.

[consultant1027]

I fully agree with Brandon..

In theory, negative SEO should not be possible. If negative SEO services become more and more popular this will eventually reach a critical mass that will effect Google's SERPS enough to force Google to remove anything in the algo that is giving essentially 'negative link juice' Any sort of penalty should only be given out when there is clear indication both the referring and the target sites are being controlled by the same entity. Lots of 301 redirects would be an example of a fairly reliable/clear indicator. Some may say dupe IP addresses also, but there are many shared servers on one IP.

If they ARE doing this, I would guess they expect they can use their massive resources to 'stay ahead of the game' They also may be relying on the fact that enough 'horror stories' about the Panda update will cause more and more businesses to be scared to utilize any services labeling themselves as SEO. There was an article I read a while back about your average person/business has a negative connotation association with "SEO" So if Google IS doing this it may be more about psychology than sound logic regarding the algo.

If someone has determined a way to consistently lower the rank of any website they choose (with exception of some of the larger properties like Amazon/Ebay, etc.), please PM me. I want to hire you!

If all the SEOs starting moving to a reverse strategy of sabotage/negative SEO, it should force Google to remove that part of the algo eventually. I think it is a case of a massive company with a lot of brainpower, money, and egos that can't accept the fact that their SERPS will always be able to be manipulated to a certain degree. Seems like it is all a game to me.

[SteveGerencser]

http://storify.com/JoshuaTitsworth/a...esm=sfy.co_pIT

[weegillis]

Gives a whole new meaning to 'reverse SEO.' Negative press one could handle with it, but negative SEO on such a grand and automated scale... that just, as one person said, 'leaves me speechless' (paraphrase). How does Google handle it? Their data centers could never keep up with an all out group effort. Kind of like locking the windows, and leaving the doors open.