Yet another Negative SEO attack question.
-
I need help reconciling two points of view on spammy links.
On one hand, Google seems to say, "Don't build spammy links to your website - it will hurt your ranking." Of course, we've seen the consequences of this from the Penguin update, of those who built bad links got whacked.
From the Penguin update, there was then lots of speculation of Negative SEO attacks. From this, Google is saying, "We're smart enough to detect a negative SEO attack.", i.e: http://youtu.be/HWJUU-g5U_I
So, its seems like Google is saying, "Build spammy links to your website in an attempt to game rank, and you'll be penalized; build spammy links to a competitors website, and we'll detect it and not let it hurt them."
Well, to me, it doesn't seem like Google can have it both ways, can they? Really, I don't understand why Competitor A doesn't just go to Fiverr and buy a boatload of crappy exact match anchor links to Competitor B in an attempt to hurt Competitor B. Sure, Competitor B can disavow those links, but that still takes time and effort. Furthermore, the analysis needed for an unsophisticated webmaster could be daunting.
Your thoughts here? Can Google have their cake and eat it too?
-
If it can be proven that the intention was to cause harm to another companies profits I would think you could be held liable. There is enough documentation on the web to show that Google penalizes for bad links and that negative SEO exists, if there is proof that you were doing what Google tells you not to do against your competition and it results in a penalty that Google says will happen, it seems like bad intentions can be proven and in that case you could be found guilty in a court of law. I am not aware of any precedents though.
-
Thanks, your reply helps keep this in perspective.
if it is proven that you created these links my guess would be
you could be held liable in court.This would be another interesting tangent discussion. Of course, the defense would be the first amendment right of freedom of publishing. In my feeble knowledge, I'm not aware of a court case that has encountered this issue, but it's an interesting legal question: Could you be held civilly liable for merely publishing links?
-
I completely agree with your comments Steve. Especially when it comes to a niche where there are only a couple of big companies and it's seasonal. If you can knock out the competitor during their busiest month of the year you've done major damage to them and have benefited yourself greatly. It's a horrible, shady practice and even though Google initiated the penalty, if it is proven that you created these links my guess would be you could be held liable in court.
-
Why is competitor A spending their time and money trying to harm Competitor
B whenthey can simply protect themself with the Disavow Tool Why not
spend those time and money on building quality links.Buying links on Fiverr = $5 and five minutes.
Disavowing links = a couple of hours of analysis or paying someone a bit of cash for the analysis.
So, it's easier to create the havoc, than to clean it up. I'm sure we're all on the same page that such a technique isn't ethical, doesn't help you build up your business, is bad business karma, and so on. But, is it feasible? Apparently so. Especially when the stakes are high, for Commerce sites, it seems like this would become a tempting strategy for the less ethically inclined.
-
There is no way that Google can know (unless you are intentionally transparent about it) if someone you paid or someone a competitor paid built those links for you. Negative SEO is very real but it takes time and money to get a site penalized, and now it's easier than it ever was to disavow links and get a site back which helps take some of the punch out of the negative SEO business.
-
Hi Steve,
I think I see your point. However, if Competitor A buys low quality links to Competitor B, yes, they can use the disavow tool to remove the links and it will still take time for them to do so and effort but what is the point in this. Why is competitor A spending their time and money trying to harm Competitor B when they can simply protect themself with the Disavow Tool Why not spend those time and money on building quality links.
Competitor A is simply wasting time and money to buy links where Competitor B is spending time and effot to remove them. I don't see why anyone would do that.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
SEO - All topic related pages in same directory?
Hey Mozzers, How would you structure the following pages for SEO. The site is a multi-product / multi-topic site, but all pages in this example are based on a single topic - CRM Software: CRM Software product CRM Software related blog post 1 CRM Software related blog post 2 CRM Software related blog post 3 CRM Software downloadable resource 1 CRM Software downloadable resource 2 CRM Software downloadable resource 3 I know building directory pyramids is a bit old hat nowadays, but I still see the odd website organising the above pages, as follows: /crm-software /crm-software/crm-blog-post-1 /crm-software/crm-blog-post-2 /crm-software/crm-blog-post-3 /crm-software/crm-resource-1 /crm-software/crm-resource-2 /crm-software/crm-resource-3 However, I'm more inclined to apply a more logical structure, as follows: /crm-software /blog/crm-blog-post-1 /blog/crm-blog-post-2 /blog/crm-blog-post-3 /resources/crm-resource-1 /resources/crm-resource-2 /resources/crm-resource-3 What would you say is SEO best practice? Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Zoope0 -
Are links on sites that require PAD files good or bad for SEO?
I want to list our product on a number of sites that require PAD files such as Software Informer and Softpedia. Is this a good idea from an SEO perspective to have links on these pages?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SnapComms0 -
SEO Company claiming our results?
This company http://www.synapseinteractive.com/portfolio/kempnrugelawgroup.php is linking to us, with a bs graphic about how they improved our rankings for some keywords. I have no idea who this company is. Does this happen often? Also, I'm tempted to contact them to take it down, but I really don't need some questionable company getting annoyed and then linking 10,000 spam sites to me. Any thoughts on what to do? I'm tempted to just do nothing, but for I ignore it, I want to make sure there's insidious about this link that would cause me any problems down the road. No, I haven't got any GWT or BWT messages about it. Thanks, Ruben
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
SEO expert advice needed :)
So I have a niche site that I'm pretty sure has received an over-optimization penalty. This was about nine months ago or so. I haven’t really done much with the site since however I’d like the site to start appearing in the serps again, as I am adding fresh content and trying to create a really useful resource. I don't appear in the serps for any keywords related to my niche anymore. The site IS still indexed though. I didn't get any messages telling me that I was penalized so I don't think it was manual. I didn't use any spam or anything like that but I believe the penalty was probably for anchor text over-optimization and/or too many links to non-home page urls in comparison to the total amount of links the site had. I know removing these links or changing the anchor can help but the thing is the site only has about 30 total linking root domains pointed at it. So I was wondering if I could just add more links to other pages/the home page and add more links with varied anchors/naked urls to change the ratios and make it appear more natural. Now, would/could this fix my penalty? I am frustrated that I even received a penalty at all because much of my competition is ranking for fairly competitive terms with no real solid links pointed at their site and tons of comment spam. I have some relevant links/quality links so I am hoping that fixing this penalty could help put me back where I was before I got knocked into oblivion. There is one example of a competitor with a PR0 site getting good traffic and ranking for some nice keywords with only a bunch of self-set up web properties (and some comment spam) containing one only page for the purpose of linking back to their money site (blogspot, wordpress, weebly, mywebstarts ect). On top of that a lot of the sites I'm competing again are MFA, garbage sites that are written by non-native English speakers that offer zero value to the visitor. I need to start out ranking these spammers again. What should I do? thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | jmckiernan86_gmail.com0 -
Closing down site and redirecting its traffic to another
OK - so we currently own two websites that are in the same industry. Site A is our main site which hosts real estate listings and rentals in Canada and the US. Site B hosts rentals in Canada only. We are shutting down site B to concentrate solely on Site A, and will be looking to redirect all traffic from Site B to Site A, ie. user lands on Toronto Rentals page on Site B, we're looking to forward them off to Toronto Rentals page on Site A, and so on. Site A has all the same locations and property types as Site B. On to the question: We are trying to figure out the best method of doing this that will appease both users and the Google machine. Here's what we've come up with (2 options): When user hits Site B via Google/bookmark/whatever, do we: 1. Automatically/instantly (301) redirect them to the applicable page on Site A? 2. Present them with a splash page of sorts ("This page has been moved to Site A. Please click the following link <insert anchor="" text="" rich="" url="" here="">to visit the new page.").</insert> We're worried that option #1 might confuse some users and are not sure how crawlers might react to thousands of instant redirects like that. Option #2 would be most beneficial to the end-user (we're thinking) as they're being notified, on page, of what's going on. Crawlers would still be able to follow the URL that is presented within the splash write-up. Thoughts? We've never done this before. It's basically like one site acquiring another site; however, in this case, we already owned both sites. We just don't have time to take care of Site B any longer due to the massive growth of Site A. Thanks for any/all help. Marc
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | THB0 -
How do you remove unwanted links, built by your previous SEO company?
We dropped significantly (from page 1 for 4 keywords...to ranking over 75 for all) after the Penguin update. I understand trustworthy content and links (along with site structure) are the big reasons for staying strong through the update...and those sites that did these things wrong were penalized. In efforts to gain Google's trust again, we are checking into our site structure and making sure to produce fresh and relevant content on our site and social media channels on a weekly basis. But how do we remove links that were built by our SEO company, those of which could be untrustworthy/irrelevant sites with low site rankings? Try to email the webmaster of that site (using data from Open Site Explorer)?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | clairerichards0 -
Is it negative to put a backlink into the footer's website of our clients ?
Hello there ! Everything is in the subject of this post but here is the context : we are a web agency and we, among others, build websites for our clients (most of them are shops). Until now, we put a link in their footer, like "developped by MyWebShop". But we don't know if it is bad or not. With only one website we can have like hundred of backlinks at once, but is it good for SEO or not ? Will Google penalize us thinking that is blackhat practices ? Is it better to put our link in the "legal notices" or "disclaimer" part of the websites ? What is the best practice for a lasting SEO ? I hope you understand my question, Thnak you in advance !
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | mywebshop0 -
Influence of users' comments on a page (on-page SEO)
Do you think when Google crawls your page, it "monitors" comments updates to use this as a ranking factor? If Google is looking for social signs, looking for comments updates might be a social sign as well (ok a lot easier to manipulate, but still social). thx
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | gt30