Hidden Links

[briguy]

The occasional inconclusive Matt Cutts sound byte doesn't cut the mustard.

Well, I do see the occasional person get his attention on Twitter...https://twitter.com/#!/mattcutts

[kgun]

Kgun, that information is horribly horribly out of date, and was even wrong back then. You have got to keep current.

Proof, please.

Do anybody know what incrediblehelp, the owner of this http://www.kbkmarketing.com/ site means today?

I have still not seen a serious proof that inbound links can hurt a site. The only serious test I know of is

Rand Fishkin at SEOmoz has been testing the negative SEO waters, challenging others to hurt his sites’ rankings. He told us a couple weeks ago that despite thousands of questionable links, his sites were still ranking well.

Source: http://www.webpronews.com/is-google-...ssible-2012-05

In addition do you reply on behalf of Jaan Kanellis http://www.linkedin.com/in/jaankanellis owner at KBK MarketingSEO/Traffic Specialist at iNET Interactive? He was a moderator here at WPW long before you and a respected member.

Now lets make a reduction ad absurdum. Think of three identical search engines aside from this feature:

1. Search engine A zero out suspect links.
2. Search engine B give suspect links a negative weight.
3. Search engine C let web masters report suspect links.

1. Which search engine would you prefer?
2. Which search engines SERPs will you rely mostly on?
3. Which search engine is most objective in your view?

[MrKappa]

The only thing I can think of, is perhaps they've linked to you, in a discreet manner, because somehow you are linking to them in a discreet manner?

Are you approving comments without screening the links found within them, ect...

Why else would they link to you in a subversive way?

If you are not linking to them, there is quite literally nothing that can be done. Whoever the domain belongs to, that's their virtual property and they can link to you however they want. It's not going to do you any harm unless you link back to them.

[deepsand]

... notify Google via a reconsideration request and tell them that you've found bad links to your site, you've tried to correct them, but the domain owner(s) won't do anything.

Per Matt Cutts, absent a notification from Google re. a manual action, there is nothing to be reconsidered.

[ozsubasi]

The only thing I can think of, is perhaps they've linked to you, in a discreet manner, because somehow you are linking to them in a discreet manner?

No, as I tried to explain, I have had no contact with this site, and I do not link to them in any way. If we had some kind of underhand arrangement I would have no need to raise the question here.

Are you approving comments without screening the links found within them, ect...

I have a blog which is part of my site, but commenting is not enabled. In any case the links are on their site, not mine.

Why else would they link to you in a subversive way?

I have no idea, it was was one of the questions in my opening post.

If you are not linking to them, there is quite literally nothing that can be done. Whoever the domain belongs to, that's their virtual property and they can link to you however they want. It's not going to do you any harm unless you link back to them.

Then what is Penguin all about? Isn"t it exactly this kind of thing, which may appear that I have some involvement in when I don't, that looks wrong to Google?

[SENtelligence]

Hiding text or links in your content can cause your site to be perceived as untrustworthy since it presents information to search engines differently than to visitors .

Bah, the OP is not hiding anything in his content.

ozsubasi, did you ever blast your site with auto-placed comment links or anything? There seems to be a hidden comments section on the page you've mentioned, and it says "Posted August 13, 2011" about your particular comment.

[ozsubasi]

ozsubasi, did you ever blast your site with auto-placed comment links or anything? There seems to be a hidden comments
section on the page you've mentioned, and it says "Posted August 13, 2011" about your particular comment.

No, I've never used anything like that. Back in Aug 2011 my site had only been up for a few months and at that time I didn't even know such things existed.

[ozsubasi]

To update, this identical link appears on two different sites. I did send a report to Google and received an acknowledgement but nothing further. I emailed the site registrant as per whois (not surprisingly it is the same person for both sites) but the email address given doesn't exist. I have just contacted the hosts (Godaddy) and am waiting for their reply.

[ozsubasi]

Godaddy replied, but although the sites are registered with them they are not the hosts. I found who the hosts were and have emailed them.
Meanwhile, I tried the "contact us" page on one of the sites (the other has no contact details) and sent an email off explaining the problem. They replied that they were not the owners of the site, and their reply carried a link to their site. I went there, it is a different domain name to the site I have problems with, but it is identical, down to the contact details and order form. However, it does not have any hidden links. Whois shows a different registrant.
I've now just had a further email saying that the copy site are re-directing visitors to the original without their consent, and their legal department is dealing with it.
That sounds a bit thin to me - why should they be concerned about someone sending them clients? Anyway I have reported it all to Google again, I feel I am doing their job instead of mine.

[weegillis]

...Google again, I feel I am doing their job instead of mine.

OT: Webmasters have been doing their job since Google began.