Can I get harmed by an inlink?
-
Hi! I'll jump right in to my question.
There's a webpage with the following stats:
PA 80, mR 4.70, mT 5.00. Pagerank ZERO.Now, these are some beautiful stats for every webpage, except for the pagerank. The reason to why the pagerank is so low is that the inlinks to this site is partial spammy (hidden links and other bad naughty black-hat stuff that I hate). (It's not my webpage, I don't even know whos webpage this is..)
I happen to have a backlink from this page. A clean dofollow, in-content link to my site. The total amount of external links on this page is five and there's no spam on the page or hidden anywhere else.
My question #1:
Is this particular inlink to my site harmful? Will I get penaltized for getting a backlink from this site? I mean, Google have figured out the spam factor of the links to the page that is linking to me. But I'm innocent, the link to me is just lying there... (Why or why not?)My question #2:
IF (and only IF) the link to my webpage is harmful. Are links from my page harmful? (Why or why not?)Thank you very much for using you awesome knowledge to answer this
-
Scan the URL with this link vetting tool
http://www.bad-neighborhood.com/text-link-tool.htm
if it's got tons of bad associations (people they are linking to and people who are linking to them are linking with)I would suggest getting your link removed.
Use this tool before reaching out to a site you want to get linked on too, this way you know what you're dealing with
-
Ya dropping out of the index really sucks. I've had some a few sites drop out of index due to offending google and its lame to have to wait 10+ days to get them back. For some people it takes way longer or they don't ever get the penalty removed and give up.
Good post about understanding backlink profiles for anyone who doesn't know already. Really old info that has been around for a while though quite important to keep in mind. Haven't looked at the learn SEO section but that would be good to have floating around for people to see.
-
Malicious attacks can both reduce site rank and prevent it from achieving future rank... it really depends on the the severity of the offense in the eyes of google. Getting demoted in the rankings is definitely not as severe as being dropped from the index. Neither outcome is desirable.
BTW: Check out this article from Michael Gray directly responding to the article I mentioned previously by James Lancaster in SEJ: Understanding Your Backlink Profile.
-
I wrote a reply then the page died and i lost it :(.
I hope no one does that case study to try and find out. Really no one should ever want to haha.
Ya I really do agree with what you have posted so far. All the skeptics do ask for proof. I was mostly asking because you stated: " You have to test. Then test again. This is only way to gain meaningful and actionable knowledge." So for you to believe what you are telling me I assumed you have proof besides possibly being misinformed(from experience and otherwise) as I may also be.
In your opinion do you think that such a malicuous attack could reduce rankings for an already established site (eg lose its long held first position for many keywords) or just that it would hurt future growth?
I am curious about what kind of penalty there would be to better understand this.
Good thread so far :).
-
HaHa, LOL
All the skeptics ask for proof... My interaction with this thread and elsewhere is not to encourage or divulge how to operate a malicious link campaign but to quash the myth that Google says it can't be done. More double-speak from Google from a prior post:
If you find unnatural links to your site that you are unable to control or remove, please provide the details in your reconsideration request.
If you have any questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support.Sincerely,
Google Search Quality TeamI work in the lead generation business and have witnessed first hand publisher sites that have been burned by such attacks. I've witnessed publishers inadvertently burn their own sites b/c of the velocity and volume of link growth (usually with 100% identical anchor text).
No one is going to write that case study and nor should anyone publish it IMO.
-
Indeed, I did not look at the order of the thread. I have a friend who would love the way you talk haha. He loves to bring up the Dunning Kruger effect too.
I have read both threads as well as was familiar with the JC Penny incident since it occurred and looked into why after it did. JC Penny was the ones who got themselves penalized in this case.
Since so far all that has been presented in this thread has not been supported with a case study I would be happy to hear from those who have tested including yourself. Would you mind sharing your personal tests or at least posts that directly speak of tests?
Edit: My experience with SEO has given me a current 3k+ visits a day in less than a year of learning. As well as a great deal of research into penalties and fixing penalties for clients. I am seeking facts not trying to suggest I know best if there is more evidence out there. Specific tests are appreciated. To me it seems insanely easy to create a penalty for any site if what you are suggesting is true and would be a major flaw exposed in google's ranking algorithms far worse than promoting oneself to game the results.
-
Indeed, I did not look at the order of the thread. I have a friend who would love the way you talk haha. He loves to bring up the Dunning Kruger effect too.
I have read both threads as well as was familiar with the JC Penny incident since it occurred and looked into why after it did. JC Penny was the ones who got themselves penalized in this case.
Since so far all that has been presented in this thread has not been supported with a case study I would be happy to hear from those who have tested including yourself. Would you mind sharing your personal tests or at least posts that directly speak of tests?
-
If you read the entire thread (from the aforementioned article) and know which voices to trust then you'll have a better sense of what is good info and what is bad info. Jason Lancaster, the writer of that story, made bad assumptions w/o any support. I dare say he's a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Unfortunately, there are too many misinformed 'experts' that either want the attention or lack the experience or both. The 'good answer' above was chosen well before an actual discussion thread had time to materialize.
If you read previous comments in this thread you will see that my answer is nuanced and qualified in meaningful ways. My response also has a staff endorsement (I mean, if we're putting our endorsement phalluses on the table Also, just reading something doesn't make it true. You have to test. Then test again. This is only way to gain meaningful and actionable knowledge.
Be well my friend.
-
so you are saying you could just beat all your competitors with a malicious link campaign?!
what is stopping anyone from just sabotaging any site then?
the good answer chosen for this is the same as mine and thumbed up a few times:
"
Short answer is no. It would be all to easy for black hat SEO's to knock down the competition by setting up links like these to competators. Google wouldn't allow such activity as it would make their SERPs all to easily gamed.
I wouldn't worry about it. Just keep link building high quality links from trusted sites and you should be totally fine."
I would be interested to learn more about this as the info in those posts is kind of limited.
JC Penny happened to lose out on a lot of its traffic because it lost links that used to be valuable after having been found out that the links they had acquired broke the rules.
Google is far to easy to game if a malicious campaign really could hurt current results though it would make sense to me if malicious links seemed to provide a boost which was then lost after the links are determined to be malicious.
I don't think my comment deserves a thumbs down when the good answer chosen is the same, I thumbed yours up for adding valuable points to my comment though
-
This is simply wrong. Never take what Google says at face value. Please read the following article from SEJ and then the comments from heavyweight SEOs who've been in the business for a while:
Unless your site has incredibly strong authority and trust metrics with hundreds of thousands or even millions of inbound links (like CNN, or WSJ) then it is absolutely possible for it to be harmed by a malicious link campaign with adult oriented anchor text (for example). This has been tested and proven.
-
Question number 1: No
There is a good rule of thumb:
If a competitor can do it to you then it is not harmful to you.
Here is why: There are many sketchy places you could get links to a competitor which would then give you control over their reputation without their say.
Question number 2: Also no but sometimes yes! (read below)
This one is a little different. Getting a link from a questionable source is not bad for you as described above, however if you reciprocally link back to that source then you may be vulnerable to being penalized by google if the site linking to you has been penalized. It is your responsibility to make sure you do not vote to bad neighbourhoods.
To further answer question 2, if you are reciprocally linking to a bad neighborhood and also linking out to another site your outgoing link can only be harmful if that site reciprocally links back to you.
So as long as your follow the answer above for question 1 then there will be no trouble
Hope this helps.
-
Hi Derek,
I deal with a site which has a lot of low quality links. The owner decided it is a good idea at some point and got a bunch of links despite their quality. What I notice is that this works while the site is still small. Correct me if I'm wrong on this one. Not all sites are treated the same way and it definitely depends on the local Google version we are using. You will be surprised what still works on Google.bg. Things that would never get a site off the ground on google.com or google.co.uk.
Regards,
Svet
-
whoa, your title is so long it broke the layout. lol.
-
Yes just looking at an email in webmaster tools right now
Dear site owner or webmaster of ....
We detected that some of your site's pages may be using techniques that are outside Google's Webmaster Guidelines.
Specifically, look for possibly artificial or unnatural links pointing to your site that could be intended to manipulate PageRank. Examples of unnatural linking could include buying links to pass PageRank or participating in link schemes.We encourage you to make changes to your site so that it meets our quality guidelines. Once you've made these changes, please submit your site for reconsideration in Google's search results.
If you find unnatural links to your site that you are unable to control or remove, please provide the details in your reconsideration request.
If you have any questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support.Sincerely,
Google Search Quality Team -
Are you asking if we use content from article sites, etc? I'll try to answer as best I can but fel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted your question.
We have sites that use syndicated content but I am moving all new properties away from this practice and developing 100% original copy, etc in light of recent Panda updates.
-
No, I'm not suggesting that at all. My company chooses to build sites with longevity. However the lead gen space is rife with churn and burn operations and all the scalliwags that go with the territory. We have indeed lost sites to pirates but we've rehabilitated sites too.
A lot of groups get into the tit-for-tat snitching on each other that ends up hurting all parties involved (in the eyes of Google)... most of our sites have enough authority, trust and age that makes it easier to fend off attacks. Developing new sites is generally a daunting task and an acquisition is usually a smarter move that starting from scratch.
-
Thanks for that Anthony, I apprecaite your reply. I'm not a black hatter either but when I got started online I started building sites for myself and did all the usual link type stuff, articles, blog posts, comments, profiles etc ( you know the drill ), and as you mentioned I ranked these sites and they have maintained their rank.
I've since moved to doing SEO for other people so now I am much more concerend and aware of building links from these types of sites. The last thing I want to do is damage my clients site, even though I have successfully used these types of sites on my own websites.
So, as a director of search, can I ask if your you and your tem use links for web 2.0 properties/article sites etc?
D
-
Sorry to butt into the conversation again though your comment;
I don't engage in black hat tactics. I'm Dir of Search Marketing for a lead generation company and so must protect our properties from such attacks.
Are you suggesting that not engaging in black hat tactics protects you from black hat attacks. A sort of Do no Evil and no Evil will be done onto you?
(I do understand that competitors in a vertical can get upset if a competitor indulges in a lot of black hat seo to leapfrog them, then a tit for tat situation can evolve and descend)
-
It is extraordinary and thankfully it's an exception not the rule. Although Google claims that it is not possible for a malicious attack of this type to be successful, I've witnessed it first hand. Also, one just needs to read through the forums to a get sense of what is possible.
Be well!
-
Hi Derek -
Great question and thanks for engaging. First of all, let me say clearly that I don't engage in black hat tactics. I'm Dir of Search Marketing for a lead generation company and so must protect our properties from such attacks. It can be a very dirty business.
I've had many discussions with other professionals in our field and it appears that Google's web spam team (which is quite small, relatively speaking) doesn't have the bandwidth to police all market verticals at once and they can't rely on doing this algorithmically with 100% accuracy. So there are gaps in coverage, etc. They'll generally go after verticals that have had a large number of FTC complaints, abuses, etc. A lot of dark corners such as 'payday loans' are generally left alone... do a search and look at the link graphs for the entire 1st SERP... pretty amazing stuff.
I agree with you that there is a lot of bad information put out by the woefully misinformed. You can still rank sites using inbound links from forums and low quality sites (generally in concert with manipulated anchor text) with no problems. Some neighborhoods are worse than others - I dont know your site so can't really do anything more than speculation here. The kind of attacks I am talking about are highly targeted and with a very specific goal in mind: to burn your site.
-
Thanks anthony, It's amazing to think that it's possible to do that with companies spending so much on SEO and online reputation management.tey can then be targeted by links from known spam c blocks. It's an interesting topic that I'd love to get m,ore clarity on.
D
-
It's not so much that it is an oft used tactic but more in how the tactic is executed. It is precise in how it is accomplished. Placing inbound links on rotten c-blocks known for spam, spam rings, or malware hosts; placing paid links (i've known folks who have gotten hammered with just 10 paid links) on well-known txt link brokers, etc. All your competitor needs to do is find a sleazy corner of the internet to target you and it can be flagged by google with astonishing speed. There are black hat forums that post this sort of targeting information.
-
Hi Anthony,
Just curious how you know this? for me I've never understood or agreed with all the mentions on here ( an other sites ) about being penalized by Google. It's like SEOs are afraid to create a link on a site that other marketers use for links ( article directories etc ) for fear of being "penalized". It's crazy to think that. Worst case scenario is that they are discounted ( I think you still get a little bit of juice ), even from abused methods like blog comments or forum profiles etc.
I have a personal site that's about 3 years old and been on the 1st page of G for 2.5 years that has nothing but links from "low quality neightbourhoods"
D
-
As this is a tactic often used by black hat SEO, how can Google know when to penalise?
-
It is certainly possible for a site to be harmed with manipulated inbound links from bad neighborhoods. It is a trademark tactic emplyed by black hat SEOs against competitors. Granted, a handful of links wont make a difference but a concerted effort on a negative link campaign can and will get your site hammered. This is especially true in highly contested market verticals such as insurance, credit scoring, mortgage, etc.
-
If someone reports the site that sold links and the one that bought links?
In this scenario, no links are bought. I'm keeping my business out of that.
**Thanks for the good answer Garry Pickles! **
-
I can see the logic in that so I'm going to believe you. Thanks for the good answer
-
Gareth
Do you have experience of sites being penalised on this fashion?
Thanks
-
Just one bad link would not harm you, but it IS possible to damage a site with bad links.
-
I note you state So unless you have done any known link building with paid links I don't think you have anything to worry about
That is the question I have.. How can Google tell whether you have paid for any bought spammy backlinks or your competitor has organised these backlinks to get you penalised??
-
Short answer is no. It would be all to easy for black hat SEO's to knock down the competition by setting up links like these to competators. Google wouldn't allow such activity as it would make their SERPs all to easily gamed.
I wouldn't worry about it. Just keep link building high quality links from trusted sites and you should be totally fine.
-
I asked a similar question related to this issue. It was from a slightly different point of view where I was worried about spam attacks. The logic being if a competitor could try and get a site delisted on google by posting lots of spam links. The kind of replies I received all mentioned that at the end of the day you can't effect or control who or what links to your site.
So unless you have done any known link building with paid links I don't think you have anything to worry about. It is probably just a matter of time but as Rand says page rank isn't everything...
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
-
"Google chose different canonical than user" Issue Can Anyone help?
Our site https://www.travelyaari.com/ , some page are showing this error ("Google chose different canonical than user") on google webmasters. status message "Excluded from search results". Affected on our route page urls mainly. https://www.travelyaari.com/popular-routes-listing Our canonical tags are fine, rel alternate tags are fine. Can anyone help us regarding why it is happening?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RobinJA0 -
Can a hidden menu damage a website page?
Website (A) - has a landing page offering courses Website (B) - ( A different organisation) has a link to Website A. The goal landing page when you click on he link takes you to Website A's Courses page which is already a popular page with visitors who search for or come directly into Website A. Owners of Website A want to ADD an Extra Menu Item to the MENU BAR on their Courses page to offer some specific courses to visitors who come from Website (B) to Website (A) - BUT the additional MENU ITEM is ONLY TO BE DISPLAYED if you come from having clicked on the link at Website (B). This link both parties are intending to track However, if you come to the Courses landing page on Website (A) directly from a search engine or directly typing in the URL address of the landing page - you will not see this EXTRA Menu Item with its link to courses, it only appears should you visit Website (A) having come from Website (B). The above approach is making me twitch as to what the programmer wants to do as to me this looks like a form of 'cloaking'. What I am not understanding that Website (A) URL ADDRESS landing page is demonstrating outwardly to Google a Menu Bar that appears normal, but I come to the same URL ADDRESS from Website (B) and I end up seeing an ADDITIONAL MENU ITEM How will Google look at this LANDING PAGE? Surely it must see the CODING INSTRUCTIONS sitting there behind this page to assist it in serving up in effect TWO VERSIONS of the page when actually the URL itself does not change. What should I advise the developer as I don't want the landing page of Website (A) which is doing fine right now, end up with some sort of penalty from the search engines through this exercise. Many thanks in advance of answers from the community.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ICTADVIS0 -
Looking for a Way to Standardize Content for Thousands of Pages w/o Getting Duplicate Content Penalties
Hi All, I'll premise this by saying that we like to engage in as much white hat SEO as possible. I'm certainly not asking for any shady advice, but we have a lot of local pages to optimize :). So, we are an IT and management training course provider. We have 34 locations across the US and each of our 34 locations offers the same courses. Each of our locations has its own page on our website. However, in order to really hone the local SEO game by course topic area and city, we are creating dynamic custom pages that list our course offerings/dates for each individual topic and city. Right now, our pages are dynamic and being crawled and ranking well within Google. We conducted a very small scale test on this in our Washington Dc and New York areas with our SharePoint course offerings and it was a great success. We are ranking well on "sharepoint training in new york/dc" etc for two custom pages. So, with 34 locations across the states and 21 course topic areas, that's well over 700 pages of content to maintain - A LOT more than just the two we tested. Our engineers have offered to create a standard title tag, meta description, h1, h2, etc, but with some varying components. This is from our engineer specifically: "Regarding pages with the specific topic areas, do you have a specific format for the Meta Description and the Custom Paragraph? Since these are dynamic pages, it would work better and be a lot easier to maintain if we could standardize a format that all the pages would use for the Meta and Paragraph. For example, if we made the Paragraph: “Our [Topic Area] training is easy to find in the [City, State] area.” As a note, other content such as directions and course dates will always vary from city to city so content won't be the same everywhere, just slightly the same. It works better this way because HTFU is actually a single page, and we are just passing the venue code to the page to dynamically build the page based on that venue code. So they aren’t technically individual pages, although they seem like that on the web. If we don’t standardize the text, then someone will have to maintain custom text for all active venue codes for all cities for all topics. So you could be talking about over a thousand records to maintain depending on what you want customized. Another option is to have several standardized paragraphs, such as: “Our [Topic Area] training is easy to find in the [City, State] area. Followed by other content specific to the location
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CSawatzky
“Find your [Topic Area] training course in [City, State] with ease.” Followed by other content specific to the location Then we could randomize what is displayed. The key is to have a standardized format so additional work doesn’t have to be done to maintain custom formats/text for individual pages. So, mozzers, my question to you all is, can we standardize with slight variations specific to that location and topic area w/o getting getting dinged for spam or duplicate content. Often times I ask myself "if Matt Cutts was standing here, would he approve?" For this, I am leaning towards "yes," but I always need a gut check. Sorry for the long message. Hopefully someone can help. Thank you! Pedram1 -
Can I Point Multiple Exact Match Domains to a Primary Domain? (Avoiding Duplicate Content)
For example, lets say I have these 3 domains: product1.com product2.com product.com The first 2 domains will have very similar text content, with different products. The product.com domain will be similar content, with all of the products in one place. Transactions would be handled through the Primary domain (product.com) The purpose of this would be to capitalize on the Exact match domain opportunities. I found this seemingly old article: http://www.thesitewizard.com/domain/point-multiple-domains-one-website.shtml The article states that you can avoid duplicate content issues, and have all links attributed to the Primary domain. What do you guys think about this? Is it possible? Is there a better way of approaching this while still taking advantage of the EMD?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ClearVisionDesign0 -
Can I be penalized for offering incentives for links and social followers?
A competitor of mine is using contest/loyalty software like ContestBurner or PunchTab to generate social followers and links. This has been very successful, and over the past several months his rankings have improved. Does anyone know if Google is "OK" with this type of program? I'm trying to decide if I should start one myself.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | dfeemster1 -
Beating the file sharing sites in SERPs - Can it be done and how?
Hi all, A new client of mine is an online music retailer (CD, vinyls, DVD etc) who is struggling against file sharing sites that are taking precedence over the client's results for searches like "tropic of cancer end of things cd" If a site a legal retailer trying to make an honest living who's then having to go up against the death knell of the music industry - torrents etc. If you think about it, with all the penalties Google is fond of dealing out, we shouldn't even be getting a whiff of file sharing sites in SERPs, right? How is it that file sharing sites are still dominating? Is it simply because of the enormous amounts of traffic they receive? Does traffic determine ranking? How can you go up against torrents and download sites in this case. You can work on the onsite stuff, get bloggers to mention the client's pages for particular album reviews, artist profiles etc, but what else could you suggest I do? Thanks,
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Martin_S0 -
Does your website get downgraded if you link to a lower quality site?
My site has a pr of 4. My friends site has a pr of 2 but I think that he is doing some black hat seo techniques. I wanted to know whether the search engines would ding me for linking to (i.e., validating) a lower quality site.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | jamesjd70 -
Opinions Wanted: Links Can Get Your Site Penalized?
I'm sure by now a lot of you have had a chance to read the Let's Kill the "Bad Inbound Links Can Get Your Site Penalized" Myth over at SearchEngineJournal. When I initially read this article, I was happy. It was confirming something that I believed, and supporting a stance that SEOmoz has taken time and time again. The idea that bad links can only hurt via loss of link juice when they get devalued, but not from any sort of penalization, is indeed located in many articles across SEOmoz. Then I perused the comments section, and I was shocked and unsettled to see some industry names that I recognized were taking the opposite side of the issue. There seems to be a few different opinions: The SEOmoz opinion that bad links can't hurt except for when they get devalued. The idea that you wouldn't be penalized algorithmically, but a manual penalty is within the realm of possibility. The idea that both manual and algorithmic penalties were a factor. Now, I know that SEOmoz preaches a link building strategy that targets high quality back links, and so if you completely prescribe to the Moz method, you've got nothing to worry about. I don't want to hear those answers here - they're right, but they're missing the point. It would still be prudent to have a correct stance on this issue, and I'm wondering if we have that. What do you guys think? Does anybody have an opinion one way or the other? Does anyone have evidence of it being one way or another? Can we setup some kind of test, rank a keyword for an arbitrary term, and go to town blasting low quality links at it as a proof of concept? I'm curious to hear your responses.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AnthonyMangia0