|Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/12/13 8:56 PM|
I've read the FAQs and searched the help center.
My URL is: www.cedarfinancescam.com
My URL is constantly attacked by thousands of incoming links. The attack is probably a result of the site's theme, alerting about financial scams. As early as July/August 2013 Google alerted me through Webmasters of the improper links and handed me a Manual Spam Action. After two reconsideration requests which explained the impossibility of cleaning the links and the clear nature of the attack, the manual spam was revoked as early as August.
In addition, I disavowed 99% of my incoming links, which constitute all the ill-intentioned links. Some good links might have been lost in this process, but there were too many to process (over 20,000)
A great portion of the links have anchor words meant to hurt the site, such as porn-related and casino-related words. Nobody in his right mind would have intentionally done that to his/her site.
But, inspite of all this, the site dropped tremendously with Penguin 2.1 At the time, the site, a pure content, informative site (which survives through affiliation banners) had about 70 pages, with more than 40 of those pages having an average visit time of over 2.5 minutes (again, pure content, no videos, no forms, etc.). It was a site people used to inform themselves.
Is there any solution for this? I immediately sent a disavow request again, although I am sure the site will continue to be attacked.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Free2Write||10/12/13 10:19 PM|
Possibilities include but are not limited to:
1. The site has great informative content but suffers from a lack of quality or unique competitive value.
2. The site is so weak that it cannot survive. Doorway and affiliate sites are two examples.
3. Strong natural links were destroyed by you and people have not found value enough to link again naturally.
4. Unnatural links are being created by agents, brokers, associates, etc.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/12/13 10:44 PM|
Thank you free2write, but I don't see the connection between your answer and my question. If you could explain, thank you so much:
1. The site was highly ranked in hundreds of searches in several languages for months. Since all the site had was content and since visitors read that content continuosly, why would lack of quaity be a reason to drop?
2. What would constitute a weak site? I am not familiar with that denomination, but it seems an important one to learn. Thanks.
3. The unnatural links are created with the purpose of harming the site. That is my core question:
How can I protect myself from an attack of incoming malicious links (negative SEO)? This to me seems like the obvious reason the site fell exactly on the night between Oct 4 and 5. Since I cannot fix the links, since I did disavow them, and since the attacks will continue, how do I as a Webmaster protect the site?
I remind that the site ALERTS to a scam, and its drop is, in a way, benefiting the people who launched the negative SEO attack (and are probably the people performing the scam I alert about...)
Thank you for reading and answering.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Free2Write||10/12/13 10:56 PM|
Probably the only way to protect a site directly is by creating such a strong and powerful website that strangers want to return to and tell their friends and no external force can challenge.
Is your site better than all your competition combined? If so, how?
There are probably only four direct responses to an unnatural link. Remove, nofollow, disavow, or ignore.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/12/13 11:24 PM|
Thanks, I find your answer fascinating!
Sadly, my site is nowhere near being better than all my competition combined, or even, better than all my competition, period. But it's pretty decent, probably has oe of the most informative contents.
But the answer you gave me really creates a different, important question: Is Google creating an algorythm that can be manipulated by the stronger to overpower the weaker?
I do not think I will ever have the resources that the scam companies I alert about have. They will always have more resources to create bad links to my site than I will have to either remove them or equilibrate their negative impact with the natural links my site could create. It would take my site years and years to create 20,000 good natural links.
From what I understand from you answer, and you are probably very right, I can only contend with my situation by overpowering an attack that is many times greater than my ability to fight it. Do you think Google will not be able to find a solution that protects us, the smaller yet still useful sites?
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Free2Write||10/13/13 12:04 AM|
There can be a vast difference between causation and correlation and this difference is important when inspecting unnatural links.
Currently, there are only four choices with respect to unnatural links. Remove, nofollow, disavow, or ignore. Nothing else.
If your agents played a role then removal or nofollow is mandatory. All attempts must be documented before using disavow.
The strong vs weak has the unwritten caveat that the poor ranking is innate. That is, if the site is weak the (ranking) results should be nearly the same even if all unnatural links created by others were removed.
The following videos may help explain certain aspects of the issue more clearly.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/13/13 1:07 AM|
I am sorry, but I cannot agree with what you write.
A sharp drop in site positions that occurs exactly at the time which Google announces a Penguin update has been launched, was cause by the Penguin update, and thinking otherwise is silly in my opinion. The Penguing updates in general are known for leading with spammy backlinks, and my site has an evident and huge problem with such back links.
I never invested one minute in creating ANY links to my site, as a rule, I never EVER do. The links are clearly malicious, as noted, the anchor words are related to pornography, my site is about finance...
The amount of incoming links is absurdly greated than the site's size, and these amounts were created in a very very short span, most probably by automated malicious software.
You keep insisting with the idea that my site is either weak or the content uninteresting, and that this causes the drop. I think it is safe to say that Google has had an immense difficulty in creating quality resutls and it is constantly aiming to improve the QUALITY of results. The idea that site owners with more means create better quality is offensive, especially when the theme od a site discusses whether someone is offering a fraudulent financial investment. To the contrary, my site has high quality content, but it cannot contend with the massive investment in Negative SEO.
The questions I ask remain unanswered to me:
1. How can a Webmaster effectively protect himself from a massive Negative SEO attack of backlinks? (I remind: a disavow of all bad links was done prior to the update, and the manual spam actions was REMOVED by Google. A MANUAL review of my site convinced Google that the more than 20,000 backlinks my 70 page site has were not my doing...)
2. Is Google creating an algorythm that will not enable smaller sites to survive? ( A simple example, your local burger establishment sells burgers that are cheaper, taste better and are healthier than McDonalds. Is Google creating a system which would allow McDonalds to use its firepower to infest any smaller business with backlinks to the point that the establishment owner does not have the means to clean such an amount of links?
As for the videos you sent: in the first one, Mr. Cutts says that for those "very few" sites which actual suffer from Negative SEO attacks, the disavoe links tool was created. Well, it obviously did not help my site.
The second one, I remind you, my site received a Manual Spam Action which was REVOKED after reconsideration. In other words, Google, manually UNDERSTOOD the site was not to blame for the incoming links.
I do not know how the 3rd video directly relates to my question.
Particulary, I still understand that the current situation allows a negative SEO attack to significantly influence search results and apparently, there is NOTHING to be done about it, as long as the perpetrator has the financial means to attack the site continuously.
Reminder: my site alerts against a financial fraud!
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Free2Write||10/13/13 12:12 PM|
I believe only Google knows the exact impact of their algorithms on a specific site. Google does not release such site-specific information except what is under Webmaster Tools.
I have not assigned the exact cause of your site's drop. Only Google could. I have given a list of possibilities for you to consider.
1. Google does not offer any protection service except the disavow tool. If the disavow tool is used and critical natural links were removed then that action can harm an otherwise good site. Otherwise, if a manual action is removed by Google then typically the site is ranking based on weighing all Google's algorithmic samples such as on-site signals, affiliate and doorway signals, brand signals, useful and helpful content signals, site architecture signals, off-site link creation by known actors signals, clean link signals, manipulative signals, website design signals, usability signals, trust signals, etc.
2. I have no direct insider knowledge of Google's business goals, strategies, or tactics. Typically, even in the real world a local burger establishment selling burgers that are cheaper, taste better and are healthier than McDonald's will struggle, and most will probably fail, against the tens of other popular or established brands in the area.
Assuming the negative SEO analysis is 100% correct. Some questions might remain.
a. What specific natural links are currently pointing to your site? Which do you value the most? Why?
b. If your site is not the best among all your competition, what on-site actions have been taken to improve the site for users in the last six months?
c. What on-site signals have been improved in the last six months?
d. What real-world marketing and brand building actions have been taken in the last 12 months? Such as, local TV and radio interviews and ads, billboard ads, local newspaper articles and ads, volunteering at local community events, etc.
e. What does the business-plan indicate as sources of traffic to the site?
f. Why bother continuing the business's online presence if the current analysis is accurate? That is, what does the business-plan contingencies section indicate as the proposed fallback plan that is triggered by such a negative event?
g. What does "as a rule" mean? What exceptions to that rule have been attempted?
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/13/13 12:36 PM|
I appreciate your effort in helping me. I confess I have a hard time with your approach, though. Some other sites I manage as a WM are built and function more or less the same as the one that was hit by Penguin 2.1, but those remained untouched.
True, it is always good to try and improve the site, and the business, regardless of Google and its updates. But that is not the point I need help with.
But then I do have a technical question: it is my understanding, from reading WM forums, etc., that if the site dropped as a result of bad links, it will not recover, certainly not fully, by making on-site SEO improvements or adding content. As long as the core backlink problem exists, the site will probably rank poorly, and the positions it had prior to the update will not be recuperated. Is this a wrong approach, is this incorrect?
Because my question is based on that premise only. I cannot fight the Negative SEO attack. It has created more than 20,000 back links in roughly 3 months, and that number only grows. Any attempt to clean up such an enormous amount of bad links, coming from more than 1000 sites, is too time consuming. I would need to hire people for that, and of course, do not have the means, which for me, equates to Google allowing the malicious attack to overpower the smaller site owner. That is why someone with a site like mine cannot have the privilege of verifying all backlinks and selecting the very few that are good among the thousands that are bad. There would be little time for anything else. Since the site ranked very well prior to having ANY meaningful links, the strategy of disavowing the vast majority of links seems the most feasable.
I cannot imagine I had enough good links to justify a drop in positions even if all good links would have been disavowed. Perhaps a small drop? But not an all-encompassing drop like the one the site experienced. Unless I am sorely missing the point, my question remains: considering I did disavow the bad links, and that Google manually lifted my spam alert, what else could I have done, or do now, to recover the positions, since I will not be able to clean the bad links?
|Free2Write||10/13/13 1:28 PM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Free2Write||10/13/13 1:30 PM|
If you believe what you believe or read about negative SEO and recovery, then the site is probably finished. Recovery is probably not possible in that case.
If you believe otherwise, then working on the site, working on building a single strong brand, nofollowing or removing all links you or your actors have ever had a hand in creating or encouraged to be created, and either ignoring or adding to the main disavow file all remaining unnatural links might be one path to consider. Any recovery will probably be extremely difficult and slow. Affiliate and related sites usually require many extremely positive signals to overcome the notoriously strong negatives.
"other sites I manage"
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Lysis||10/13/13 1:43 PM|
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/13/13 1:50 PM|
Maybe it's just me, but you don't seem to trust what I say, and that is a little insulting. If we are interchanging information, I would hope you would come with the premise that I am being sincere, not dishonest.
I never create links, that is true. I don't know how that is incongruent with the fact that I manage several sites.
You are invited to visit my site, and verify its "poor affiliate content". As a consultant to many companies running affiliate networks, I am well aware of the very poor content that most affiliate site offer. My site offers excellent, relevant content. It has practically no side banners and absolutely no head banners. Practically all affiliate links are within the text, even if in the forms of banners, and are relative to what has been explained and proposed to the reader. Many pages are purely informative and contain no publicity.
In fact, the sites that now are above me in the searches, those are truly garbage sites. That is a sad but true fact. Google has substituted my site, which had content that could actually be of good use and relevant to the proposed search, by extremely low quality sites that are full of banners, have practically no relevant content, and the little content they have is neither unique nor updated.
One thing I will not heed in forums, is when someone tells me that affiliate sites as a rule have "notorious strong negatives". Again, you are welcome to visit my site and decide if it has notorious strong negatives. Personally, I can't find any notorious negatives in it, and from what my WMT tells me, neither can Google...
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Free2Write||10/13/13 2:42 PM|
"don't seem to trust what I say"The "believe" statements were referring to your internal frame of reference, nobody having access to Google's algorithms except Google, and you having the most knowledge about your own website. Trust or distrust played no role.
In the end, that's probably for Google and your users to decide, not me.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Free2Write||10/13/13 2:44 PM|
Is that Hugh Laurie? I liked House a lot.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Lysis||10/13/13 4:01 PM|
Yes, I love House. They killed the show, and I cried a little on the inside. :(
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/13/13 4:21 PM|
Thanks. I guess I missed your point. I asked if someone had a solution for a site being attacked by Negative SEO backlinks, so as to solve the fact that the attack hurts the site, and the site owner cannot control the links being directed to their site, while the disavow tool did not help.
I was hoping someone would have an idea of how to solve that problem specifically rather than educate me, but I guess i was wrong so far.
Perhaps Google needs to choose between a Y number of sites being attacked by negative SEO and Y x 1,000,000 sites using spammy links, and sites like mine become the collateral damage. My job, as the one suffering the attack, seeing my site drop, and seeing a lot of rubbish sites take the positions ahead of me, is to seek answers.
And if there are no answers, my job is to complain. Google is an excellent free service, but I still want it to be better than it is today, and if there are flaws, the only way they will be fixed is if people like me don't take it lightly and voice our discontent.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Been wrong before!||10/13/13 4:28 PM|
The consensuses is that Google has solved the problem
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||StevieD_Web||10/13/13 4:48 PM|
But you haven't shown that nseo has tanked your site. If you are going to claim something, it is up to you to prove it.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/13/13 7:50 PM|
I'm sorry, I don't follow, what consensus?! The consensus in this Forum? The consensus in the SEO ommunity? The consensus among internet users? Seriously?
I want to repeat THE FACTS, since apparently I haven't proved that Penguin 2.1 has tanked my site:
The site ranked strongly. Similar sites I manage ranked strongly likewise. This particular site suffered from inumerous attacks. I was forced to chande hosting servers until I found the best company my money could afford, also had to protect it with Cloudflare, etc...
Eventually, not satisfied with seeing the site online, the attack shifted to created harmful backlinks with pornographic anchor words (to a finance site?).
Then GOOGLE (you know, the one with the consensus that solved the issue...) handed a manual spam action. THAT MANUAL SPAM ACTION WAS REVOKED AFTER RECONSIDERATION, WHICH INCLUDED USE OF THE DISAVOW TOOL.
This happened a little over a month before Penguin 2.1. The site had about 70 pages, the average text on each page was well over 1000 words. I should know, cause I wrote it all myself. The site ranked strongly in 4 different languages.
Exactly on the night Penguin 2.1 was launched the site, together with millions of other sites worldwide, dropped dramatically.
I am sorry for being so obtuse, but somehow, I find a correlation. If you need any specific material proof, let me know.
What I truly don't understand is why all the Level 9, Level 10, etc...in this forum are so eager to only praise Google. Do you really think that it has no flaws? That the algorythm is flawless, that YOU are flawless in its use?
Do you really think that your sites will NEVER be unjustly dropped cause you follow all the guidelines but we, the guests don't?
Well, guess what. We are you before it hurt. We are serious, professional SEO professionals, your PEERS, whom have had the negative experience of seeing our hard work NOT rewarded but penalized because someone attacked our site and we had no control over it, neither did Google.
If you have no real answers and no real suggestions, why not just say "we are sorry for your situation" rather than write, with all respect, ridiculous comments such as "the consensus is that google solved the problem" or "you need to prove the problem didn't stem from you".
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||StevieD_Web||10/13/13 8:32 PM|
Hey, I think Google has lots of flaws. And I have been vocal about them.
Penguin 2.1 is not one of those flaws. For every site that declined in the search rankings, another one took its place. For every unhappy webmaster, there is equally a happy webmaster.
For some strange reason, we don't hear much from the happy webmasters. But we do from the unhappy ones, like yourself.
And everybody wants to blame Google, their competition or even the phase of the moon rather than accepting that their own actions are to blame.
I guess passing the buck is just human nature.
You raise a question on your site:
"So what is the difference between xxxxx xxxxx and legit companies? Transparency, assistance and insurance. "
And yet your own domain is registered through what appears to be the office of a legal firm in the Virgin Islands. Hmmm, hiding behind the lawyers is always a good idea for somebody trying to accuse their competition of not being transparent.
And it is your competition that you are discussing on the website. More importantly, I checked the domain registration and found that you are a "trading company". Is bashing the practices of the competition on the up and up? I think not.
The website was just registered in January of this year
but didn't seem to go live until the end of March
And went into link building mode in early May using anchor text including the term "scam".
It is easy to blame the competition for your woes, yet who was building the links back in May? I highly doubt that it was the competition trying to build up your website mention accusing them of being a scam, especially since the site went live just a few days before the appearance of the first "scam" anchor text link.
In July, the website went into full aggressive link building mode with the dominate anchor text being the competitors name and "scam". Again, I can't imagine for the life of me why the competition would want to build up the backlinks accusing them of being a scam.
You see the fallacy in your claim that the competition did it?
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/13/13 9:06 PM|
"You see the fallacy in your claim that the competition did it?"
No I don't, thank you for bringing those point up though.
There is no crime in owning an offshore company. I don't see how that makes me a criminal. This is part of what is very wrong with your approach, trying to vilify me so as to make a point.
As for the links themselves. Since you did such incredible investigative work, probably you realized I have more than 50 sites. Why would I not use these black-hat techniques in any of my other sites? Does it make sense to you that I would invest my time in creating links only for one site, and do nothing about the other 40?
There is nothing wrong with buying a domain and getting the site up in the air after a few months. I have many sites waiting in line to be created.
But the point isn't that, here is my question to you: Google penalized the site manually for unnatural links. I asked them to reconsider. In my request to reconsider I clearly stated that it is an attack on my site, that I cannot clean it up, and paralel to this, that I was disavowing mostly all links, because I had no interest in any particular link, since I did not create any.
GOOGLE then MANUALLY checked the site, and someone Google pays money to check sites and verify whether they are creating spammy links LIFTED THE PUNISHMENT!!!
So again, contraty to your negative approach, and to you erroneous assesment of the links, a Google professional decided less than two month ago that those links were not cause by me.
See my point? Perhaps Penguin 2.1 was excellent. I never said it was not. But I think there is a major flaw in that Google has created an algorythm where a major factor is out of the hands of the site owner, he or she can be attacked through it, and matter of fact, the disavow tool did not work.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Lysis||10/14/13 6:30 AM|
haha you got pwnd, sir. You had a manual penalty. hahahahaha and the truth comes out!
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 6:45 AM|
This is what I wrote in my ORIGINAL first entry to this thread "As early as July/August 2013 Google alerted me through Webmasters of the improper links and handed me a Manual Spam Action. After two reconsideration requests which explained the impossibility of cleaning the links and the clear nature of the attack, the manual spam was revoked as early as August. "
As you can see, I did not hide this fact, to the contrary, I noted that this happened, and that this manual penalty was revoked by google after my reconsideration request (hence, google understood the links constituted an attack to my site...)
What I truly cannot figure out is the attitude. Why poke fun at someone who is having trouble? I am a single father of 3 trying very hard to make a living. Regardless of whether I am right or wrong, your attitude, which I have seen in several threads, poking fun at the expense of other peoples misery and treating new-comers with disdain and arrogance is uncalled for and is disrespectful.
I also see no point in the sometimes ludicrous need of some of the veteran members in this forum to defend Google actions at all times. If we do not bring forth criticism and ask for changes and corrections, improvement will not happen.
As a matter of fact, I am a clear victim of negative SEO, and I expect Google personnel to find ways of protecting us.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Lysis||10/14/13 6:49 AM|
oh, you're a victim of negative SEO oh. I've never heard of that before.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 7:00 AM|
Yes, you have, and you and several others here seem to think that there is no such thing. Surely all those that complain about negative SEO were involved in blach-hat SEO, according to you, perhaps.
So let me ask you, do you have an anti-virus software installed in your computer? Why?!
Perhaps because there are thousands and thousands of smart people out there investing their time in reating mechanisms that attack sites, with no other purpose than to attack them. You, and for that matter Google, would be very naive to think that trend is not moving over towards SEO and negative link building. Someone in this thread suggested that surely whomever attacked my site would not have done it by using strong (yet very repetitive) keywords as anchor text, as though the people involved in attacks were all stupid teenagers who have no idea about SEO or are unable to read a thread in a forum and figure out a way to attack sites.
So yes, I AM a victim of negative SEO, and I suspect Google understands that better than most of the arrogant people in this site. Except that so far, no one has been able to give me an answer of what a site owner under such attack can do...
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Lysis||10/14/13 7:04 AM|
>> So let me ask you, do you have an anti-virus software installed in your computer? Why?!
lol actually I don't. I haven't used antivirus since like 2006.
But whatevs. I guess it just sucks and the negative SEO guy is pretty good. He took you out!
I will play a tiny violin.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 7:11 AM|
Well, I guess at least you are faithful to your style.
Anyhow, the world goes round. Sometimes we are up and feel powerful, other times we are down. If when we are up we laugh at those who are down instead of understanding how they fell, there is a good chance we will find ourselves in their place...
Hoepfully by then people like me will have made enough noise to alert Google of the effects Negative SEO is having on this industry...
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Lysis||10/14/13 7:14 AM|
I think Penguin is awesome! All these spammers crying about negative SEO blah blah blah and they just got curb stomped for their lousy spam, most of what I've seen is forum spammers getting pwnd and I love it. This is the greatest algorithm change ever.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 7:30 AM|
You know Lysis, its all in the eye of the beholder. I am sure that most of all, Penguin 2.1 hurt spammers, no doubt about it. But it also hurt good sites, and there is no denying that. It also created a situation in which many very bad sites moved up in search results, and in soome search results the quality of the results has dropped sharply.
Today, neagitve SEO has hit my site, I complain and want Google to do something about it, because I disavowed the bad links prior to the update and it did not help a bit.
But tomorrow your sites can be attacked, they can be down, and for you to think this cannot happen is childish.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Lysis||10/14/13 7:54 AM|
My site has already been attacked. Still going at the same it was before. Meh.
Foam in the ocean. You can either be the whiner with the defeatist attitude or realize that your site has issues if you lost rank.
You know how many people we see who come here claiming negative SEO? Pretty much most of them claim it's not them doing it, but I'm telling you some automated spam isn't enough to tank a site.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 8:07 AM|
Again you are wrong, in every count. Negative SEO is not "some automated spam".
Try this: 26,000 links in three month from more than 1000 sites, most coming from sites in languages I cannot understand, which make it more difficult to deal with the webmasters, etc. Let alone that obviously these are links the owners of the sites are unaware of.
This is intelligent negative SEO. Maybe, maybe most people coming to this forum complaining of negative seo are spammers themselves. But in my case, Google themselves checked the site manually in August and revoked the penalty, even though the site had already over 20,000 hrrendous links.
You feel so powerful and just, but you show no graciousness to the ones in trouble, and that for me, means you fell to a place from which recovering is more difficult and less honorable. You can go on, harrassing people in the forums to feed your lack of self assurance, but ultimately, this thread is about the need of answers for Negative SEO attacks. If professionals have no answers, Google should respond with actions.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Lysis||10/14/13 8:12 AM|
26000 links in a couple of months is definitely automated. Look up scrapebox and xrumer.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 8:21 AM|
Oh, I have no doubt its automated.
I do think it is more than enough to sink a site of only 70 pages. I even have proof, it sank mine.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||StevieD_Web||10/14/13 8:37 AM|
>But it also hurt good sites, and there is no denying that
Really, can you name one?
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 8:58 AM|
OK, I guess we could have an endless discussion about what is a good site, so I will correct myself:
There is no denying that after the update many sites that took the place of the older sites have serious issues. Many low quality sites that were burried in bad positions for years rose from the ashes and are populating the search results. I could give you examples, but maybe g visit other SEO forums, you will see that the site owners of this adandoned sites themselves were shocked to see their old sites back.
In the field were my site was hurt the end user clearly is not getting a better deal. Google is showing sites with much less relevance to the searches, it is showing very strong sites, i.e. .gov, news corporations, etc, but those are sole articles as opposed to sites dedicated to the subject.
Let alone the videos. Before Google owend YouTube you would NOT see this amout of videos in first positions. Nowdays they are rampant, and most videos are very low quality. So, yes, definitely in some cases, good sites were hurt. How good were they? They had what the end user was probably looking for, and now has to search for beyond page one or two...
But, I guess according to you all Google is perfect. So thanks to you, it will never improve or progress...
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Lysis||10/14/13 9:07 AM|
I bet your competitors that took your place don't think it's a mistake.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 9:26 AM|
No, they don't, they think they are lucky.
I doubt that sites such as this one http://stockpair. me/ or this one http://eztradertrading .blogspot.co.il/2012/11/eztrader-scam.html or this one http://www.binaryoptions.pm/what-are-binary-options/ expected themselves to be well ranked. I don't think they feel deserving. Lucky, yes.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||StevieD_Web||10/14/13 10:05 AM|
for what query are these sites ranking?
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Been wrong before!||10/14/13 10:22 AM|
Your negative campaign on your competion hast been suspended.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 10:32 AM|
"Your negative campaign on your competion hast been suspended."
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||webado||10/14/13 11:53 AM|
Whose is this website? http://sawset.info/
It carries a lot of the same content verbatim that you also have on your site.
It's delisted now.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 11:59 AM|
I have no idea, but it is shocking to see. Its an exact copy of my site. I don't think its a real issue though, but I wonder what its purpose is. All the links are to the site, and even the affiliate banners have my code on them. It's weird.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||webado||10/14/13 12:05 PM|
Are the other language versions human translations or are they automated? I suspect they are automated.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||webado||10/14/13 12:09 PM|
3 domains are listed, they appear to be scraper sites, all with your content.
They are all deindexed or not yest indexed.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 12:14 PM|
First of all thank you, this is all very interesting. Would you have an idea of the purpose of these sites? What would the person or machine that creates them be trying to achieve?
As for all the languages in my site: I am multilingual. I write my own content in 7 languages. Since this proves very tiresome I send some of the English to be translated, specifically in German, Turkish and French. But most of the time I am writing everything. So nothing is automated. It is good quality and the average stay on any of the languages is proof to me that people are reading.
I'd be very interested in your answer, if you have an idea why would someone be duplicating the content like this.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||luzie||10/14/13 12:15 PM|
>>> But, inspite of all this, the site dropped tremendously with Penguin 2.1
Looking at the site I'm pretty sure it's more of a Panda than a Penguin victim (Panda updates are being rolled out constantly, so there's no way to pinpoint a single update as the "culprit" for a site's demotion in search results). I can't see any reason why this site should rank for anything in the first place.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 12:22 PM|
">>> But, inspite of all this, the site dropped tremendously with Penguin 2.1
Looking at the site I'm pretty sure it's more of a Panda than a Penguin victim (Panda updates are being rolled out constantly, so there's no way to pinpoint a single update as the "culprit" for a site's demotion in search results). I can't see no reason why this site should rank for anything in the first place."
Nope, pretty sure it was Penguin 2.1, because it happened on the night between the 4th and 5th of october.
I am sorry you feel a need to simply diss the site. Luckily Google doesn't have the same opinion, and ranked the site very highly in a few hundred searches, actually. Yes the site got severly hit by PENGUIN 2.1 but not totally. It maintained about 30% of its organic traffic and has been very slowly recovering. So I am sure happy you are not calling the shots at Google....
Seriously, what is the point of posting a comment like that? If you think there are improvements that can be made, that would be awesome to hear. But just to diss it, is there a purpose to that?
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||luzie||10/14/13 12:23 PM|
A short analysis of the homepage reveals it could almost be seen as what Google call "gibberish":
Cedar - 43 occurrences on this single page alone
Scam - 46 occurrences
Binary - 57 occurrences
Finance - 44 occurrences
... and so on. Such a text is barely readable and sure a bad user experience Google would want to eliminate from search results. No NSEO at all needed to explain bad search engine performance.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||webado||10/14/13 12:25 PM|
Scraper sites exists so that the spammers get to populate them with links to other things buried among supposedly legitimate content. Easier to scrape than invent content, also less obvious that it's scraped than if they produced totally mangled content.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||luzie||10/14/13 12:28 PM|
>>> It maintained about 30% of its organic traffic
Ok ... a massive downturn of 70% - for now. I'd be surprised if updates still to come won't erase the site completely from visibility.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Lysis||10/14/13 12:30 PM|
Amazing how other issues just pop up and maybe just maybe it's not nseo. Strange how that happens.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 12:32 PM|
Please do your homework...the site is called cedar finance scam. There are almost 3000 words in the home page, the density of cedar finance scam is hardly 1%. That is not a bad experience for the user, but....
The average stay on the home page between May 1st and September 30th was 4:55 minutes. I am going to go ahead and cosider this a significant number for a site that offers nothing but content. So, no, it was Penguin 2.1
If you read my thread carefully, you will learn that Google was concerned with my backlinks as early as July 2013. My reconsideration request was accepted, but both Google and I agree the problem of this site is backlinks, so you are a minority opionion I am afraid.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 12:34 PM|
Nope, sorry, 100% negative seo. Google knew about it, I knew about it, both agreed that it was that.
Otherwise the site wasdoing great. And I believe it will do well again in the future. Because eventually Google will find a way to not allow negative SEO to influence search results.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Lysis||10/14/13 12:36 PM|
Google never told you the problem is links. That's a fact, Jack.
They accepted your reconsideration request for your manual penalty. Totally different. They even tell you in their communication that you can have other algorithmic issues on the site.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||luzie||10/14/13 12:42 PM|
>>> Nope, sorry, 100% negative seo
Yes ... of course you dearly need it to be NSEO, everything else would put your site's concept at stake, so, just go on and cling to NSEO, it's your very last resort of defense against reality.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 12:42 PM|
Well, no, actually, they did:
"Google has detected a pattern of artificial or unnatural links pointing to your site. Buying links or participating in link schemes in order to manipulate PageRank are violations of Google's Webmaster Guidelines.
As a result, Google has applied a manual spam action to cedarfinancescam.com/. There may be other actions on your site or parts of your site."
So Google did tell me. And they accepted my reconsideration specifically to the links problem. And at the time the site already had 20k plus horrific links. So Google understood it was a negative SEO attack.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||True Answers No Hypocrisy||10/14/13 12:44 PM|
negative seo definitely exists
my own website also got spammed with porn anchors while my area is gaming
also top contributors here are only for trolling :D
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Ben Griffiths||10/14/13 12:59 PM|
So, your business model is banging on about how Cedar Finance is untrustworthy so you can.... drive monetised traffic to their competitors?? (through dofollow links, I'll add).
And you think negative SEO is why Google has dumped the site?
I'd say you're unqualified to offer an opinion, if you haven't even taken the rudimentary precaution of using nofollow on your ads, and that Google has assessed your site the same way I did - an eye roll and a shrug.
Is Cedar Finance legit?
And if you think is a great user experience constructed with no SEO intent whatsoever, well..
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 1:14 PM|
Not sure what you are trying to make here Ben. My business model is defintely to drive traffic to cedar finance competitors, and I see nothing wrong in that.
As for the site, let us look at the facts.
I have several sites, all built with the same knowledge, mine. Limited, but same.
The other sites continue to rank nicely.
Only the site that was attacked by negative SEO was influenced.
Well, my wild crazy guess is that the reason this specific site fell and the others did not, is because it was attacked.
Google is not judging the integrity of my business, if it did, then it would not show any results when people search for porn terms.
Regardless, your personal attack does not deal with the real issue: what will Google do about the vulnerability of the algorythm? Sites can be attacked externally and it influneces results. Any suggestions?
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||webado||10/14/13 1:18 PM|
Did you miss this part of Ben Hof's post?
This is quite damning and there's no need of believing in external NSEO . You are doing it to yourself.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Ben Griffiths||10/14/13 1:20 PM|
Not a personal attack. An attempt to find reasonable factors that might explain a ranking drop.
"I have 3 sites built with the same content and one has dropped" is far from evidence for your hypothesis.
When I search Google for porn it knows I want porn. When I search for financial advice it probably knows I want trustworthy advice from unbiased sources. Otherwise I would start to not trust or use Google, no? Figure it out yourself.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 1:28 PM|
Oh, ok then.
Thanks for the no-follow tip. Will get right to it.
But you see, the site was really doing well for so long, then it dropped the day Penguin 2.1 happened, why not contend with that? Why say the site was dropped for something else than what has actually dropped so many sites that very same day? It sounds unrealistic to me. Maybe I am anive but did Google say, hey lets update the links thing, but for this specific site, lets drop it for the no-follow, we forgot about it for a year, but now seems about right...
Nope, doesnt make sense. So thank you, but I choose to believe that the problem was the nSEO, cause everything points in that direction. I do not think that the site takes such a drop on Penguin 2.1 launching date if it doesnt have 26,000 harmful links
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Ashish Ahuja||10/14/13 1:32 PM|
the op has mentioned that he was once let of on manual reconsideration when he showed that the site was affected from negative seo. If that's true op should post the emails received from google here to prove that his site was affected by negative seo once before.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 1:40 PM|
"We received a reconsideration request from a site owner for http://cedarfinancescam.com/.
Previously the webspam team had taken action on your site because we believed it violated our quality guidelines. After reviewing your reconsideration request, we have revoked this action."
If you teach me how to retrieve the exact letter I sent Google in my reconsideration request, I will gladly post it here. I do not know how to find it on WMT.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||luzie||10/14/13 1:44 PM|
No need to see your original request, the response by Google is unmistakable - but to my opinion still a sideshow in relation to the quality issue.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 1:50 PM|
I have certainly learned more about my site through this thread. Many of you know how to use tools i dont even know exist (because I dont do off site seo, believe it or not). I am impressed by your knowledge of SEO in some aspects that I wish I had.
At the end of the day, I know full well that I never create a backlink, good or bad, and that I disavowed the links as best I could. I think there is a flaw in the algorythm. Not because my site fell this particular time, but because I do not know how to protect myself from negative SEO, and from all the answers I got here, currently the only protection is the disavow tool.
That is either not working, is too slow, or gets overridden. One way or another, a blemish I hope Google addresses.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||StevieD_Web||10/14/13 2:01 PM|
you do realize that Google made over 600 algorithm changes in 2012 (500+ in 2011) and most likely just as many this year?
Back on October 4th, there was a minor change named Panda 2.1
The day before, on October 3rd, there was a minor change named MugShots.
Google announced both algorithm changes.
Wanna bet that intermixed between the two public changes was AT LEAST one other change if not more? I would bet there were at least 5, 1 immediately before MugShots, 1 intermixed between the two public changes and 1 immediately after Penguin 2.1.... all of that to keep the spammers and crap sites from cooking their sites to match the Google algorithm.
And while Mugshots doesn't apply to your site, how do you know which of the other 4 do apply? We all guess Penguin 2.1 because it is so easy. Low hanging fruit and all that. But which algorithm change really applies?
Quit flogging the nseo when it clearly doesn't apply.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 2:09 PM|
So you are saying the 26,000 harmful links I have for my site have nothing to do with the drop my site had exactly the day Goolge announced an update that is related to spammy backlinks?
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||mcgids n#l||10/14/13 2:20 PM|
did you read the warning the disavow tool shows you?
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||luzie||10/14/13 2:21 PM|
That's the idea, yes. Look at the effect of Google having revoked manual action for shady links: none as far as rankings are concerned, right? You're still down by 70% - isn't that telling?
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||webado||10/14/13 2:26 PM|
Harmful if you acquired them.
Useless and totally neutral otherwise.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||ets||10/14/13 2:42 PM|
So just to recap on this thread very quickly:
1. You highlighted "negative SEO" backlinks, suggested that had sunk your site, and asked: "Is there any solution for this"?
2. Six other notably knowledgeable and helpful people suggested more likely causes:
- Your site is fundamentally weak (Free2write)
- Your site had a history of spammy backlinks (StevieD, Lysis)
- Your site lacks any sort of legitimacy (StevieD, BenHof)
- You have or had duplicate/verbatim content on other sites (Webado)
- Your site is keyword stuffed and or very low quality (Luzie)
No-one tell you exactly why a site suddenly drops in the rankings, but if your site fails on all those counts, it's probably so fundamentally flawed that it's time to give up on it. Learn the lesson about what does not work. Quit now and waste no more time on this. Move on to something else.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||StevieD_Web||10/14/13 3:25 PM|
ets for the win.
Clear and precise.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 7:53 PM|
People were not trying to help me, they were trying to prove me wrong, and when you do that, it is probable that your assesment of my site will be fundementally wrong
1. My site is absolutely not weak. First of all, each search category is measured by competition, and in my niche my site is extremely strong on several categories. Most notably, the permanence on pages was extremely high, i.e., users were LIKING the site, READING the content and visting MULTIPLE pages. It is a very rich site in terms of content. It is NOT weak.
2. Google new of the spammy links and revoked its own manual action when GOOGLE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS NEGATIVE SEO
3. My site does not absolutely lack legitimacy. It is an informative site, and again, within my industry, scores times more informative than average. You will find a VERY hard time finding more meaningful material. Google didnt...
4. The duplicated content was part of the attack and even the person here who pointed it out realized Google was not giving it any weight
5. The person who alleged the site was stuffed with keywords was simlpy wrong, as I pointed out to him/her, and got no answer back. 1% density for your main, domain name keyword is hardly stuffing
So I am still waiting for someone to have answers concerning the obvious reason the site dropped: backlinks. I disavowed them more than a month before the update and google accepted my reconsideration regarding them specifically. You cna try to prove me wrong all you want, it does not change the facts, it only makes you look bad....
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Ashley||10/14/13 8:02 PM|
The site just seems like a frustrated consumer with too much time on their hands that took it too far and got a little greedy. Wait - does that seem ironic in context?
stuff like this with all of their ads tells me you're not in it for the consumers:
Yet questioning if Cedar Finance is legit perhaps is the not the direction you need to take. The real key to your success is choosing the right broker for your needs. Binary corporations such as EZTrader, Optionbit or Global Option are professional and reliable companies that can actually enhance your trading abilities and increase your odds of profiting consistently.
Plus, you're still competing against nearly 48M pages for the query "cedar finance" you're not cutting it.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||webado||10/14/13 8:22 PM|
>>4. The duplicated content was part of the attack and even the person here who pointed it out realized Google was not giving it any weight
Oh, I only said the 3 sites I found with the same content were not indexed. Either deindexed or not yet indexed. It may or may not mean anything.
If you publish feeds then your site is super easy to scrape. If you publish feeds then you're looking for trouble.
And then there's the thing others mentioned about your content. I cannot comment on that as I didn't actually pay attention to it.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 8:52 PM|
I never punlished feeds, I dont know what publishing feeds means. I trust you will not believe that, but that is the truth, I do not know what publishing feeds means.
Duplicate content is an issue, with this sites and mostly all the others I write, because I am a good content writer. I think they have an influence, but absolutely not the reason the site fell. The timing was Penguin 2.1, and the site's main problem, as noted by Google, is spammy links.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/14/13 9:08 PM|
Well, thanks, it makes me proud. I am competing with 48M pagesfor the query cedar finance and have been historically able to secure on of the top 5 positions for months. Only lost it to an attack (maybe from, ehhh.. Cedar Finance?) So apparently I do know something about SEO after all, to be able to succeed in such a competitive field?
Anyhow, I really want to thank everyone in this forum. Since posting this thread, my organic traffic has had an 80% surge.
Its too early to undertand the causes fully, but at least I have recovered a significant portion of my traffic, so my loss went from 70% to roughly 50% . I think it is at least a sign that people who have been hit by negative SEO should be outspoken, take it to the forums and not give up. Google is not a bunch of webmasters bashing guests in forums, it understands the need to correct issues and develop its algorythm. If we insist, a proper solution for negative SEO will come.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Free2Write||10/14/13 9:11 PM|
The weakness was more about an accumulation of factors. Not that people thought the content was weak or didn't stay to read. There are many reasons people stay on a site.
If the reason is already known or assumed and the other reasons are being dismissed then there are only four actions available for unnatural links. Remove, nofollow, ignore, or disavow. There is nothing else. These actions usually work only if there are no other factors involved and is appropriate. For example, disavowing natural links can be disastrous. That doesn't mean the site will return to the exact previous rankings and usually only if there are no other factors involved.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||ets||10/15/13 12:02 AM|
Apologies if I misquoted anyone.
Shaul - all the regulars here are trying to help, 100% of the time. However, we're also trying to "help" the quality of the Web overall and that means being honest with sites that use techniques outside the guidelines to rank themselves artificially or gain an unfair advantage over other honest webmasters who play by the rules. If you run a forum site, for example, and you spend an hour a day deleting comment spam, that gives you a certain "tainted" view of comment spammers - and you're not likely to be too polite to them. Ditto, if you spend weeks every year (as I do) filing DMCA takedowns and other legal threats, you really don't appreciate content scrapers and copiers when they pop up asking for advice. So if people are sometimes snarky on the forum, that's why. Nevertheless, we are all still, quite sincerely, trying to help. :)
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/15/13 12:23 AM|
Thank you for your answer and your explanation which is logical.
Unfortunately, it does not erase the horrible impression many site veterans made here, being overly aggresive, childish and downright unpolite. As I wrote in one of the posts, if someone is claiming to have been a victim of negative SEO, give them the benefit of the doubt. If you are sure they are lying, appreciate that at least they have come here, trying to make ammendments.
What I have seen is an immediaten pouncing on such visitors, a masacre of their sites, be it just or not, amazingly, people poking fun at them and openly expressing their happiness at their misfortune. I do not know if Google or whom is giving a certain status to these people, but their behavior is neither professional nor tolerable.
I know my site was attacked. I know I did not create one single link, and I know my site was directly affected by this attack. I hoped to find people who would give me advice, but mostly found people trying to prove me wrong and diss a site that Google had approved of and was willing to promote for a long time. I understand the aggrevation with the black SEO people, but alas, they are part of the SEO world. What good is it to fight with them over a forum?
They came here to learn correct SEO techniques, not to be educated. Even if you and your fellow experts can make them add to their bad techniques some good ones, and slowly let them realize there is a better way, isn't that better than the antagonism.
Look at it this way: every time one of them comes to the forum, it is a chance to befirend him or her, help them out with good will, and hopefully take them of the list of people who give you unwanted work...
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||StevieD_Web||10/15/13 12:45 AM|
>As I wrote in one of the posts, if someone is claiming to have been a victim of negative SEO, give them the benefit of the doubt.
Nope. Not going to happen. Everything Google has said about the nseo subject has been to the effect that it a statistical outlier on the order of finding a needle in 10 fields of haystacks and even then it might not really exist without an extraordinary set of circumstances conspiring to provide the right conditions.
Repeatedly, over a wide range of subject matters over a number of years, Google employees have always directed us to look for the obvious because the vast majority of the time it is the obvious or simple things that are pulling down the site rather than obscure.
And yet you want us to chase our tails trying to prove the 1 in a trillion freak event while lacking sufficient computational power and full access to the data?
Go sell your crazy some place else.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/15/13 1:02 AM|
Stop being rude and childish.
Please refer me to "everything google has said..."
In certain countries, such as Russia, for example, Negative SEO is rampant, not an outlier. In other smaller but meaningful countries, such as Israel, it has changed the SEO scenery drastically, because the attacks targeted the clean SEO sites and dropped them from the first page, inserting in their place poor SEO companies lacking in expereince and clientele.
This are two examples of countries that contribute, sadly, greatly to the expansion of computer viruses and hacking. If they have turned to negative SEO, and I can assure you they have, then it will become an increasingly serious issue very shortly. What you are seeing here, now, in this forum, is the tip of a very big iceberg, and by the time your own boat hits it, I hope Google will have done something to solve this matter.
Also, grow up and treat your peers, whether you disagree with them or not, with respect. This forum is not yours.
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||JohnMu||10/15/13 4:54 AM|
Looking through this thread and your site, I'd strongly recommend also focusing on your site, making it the absolute best of its kind. It's easy to add domains to your disavow-file, if that's what you're worried about -- there's definitely more involved in making your site amazing in all aspects. Don't put off working on your site.
I don't know if others have mentioned it, but the translations on your site appear to be very bad. Keep in mind that automatic translations are seen as auto-generated content from our point of view, and should be blocked from crawling / indexing.
There's a lot of feedback here about your site, I'd really recommend on picking it up, collecting it, and considering using it in future updates (and definitely taking into account feedback from real users as well).
|Re: Negative SEO attack drops site, solutions?||Shaul Meor Jai||10/15/13 5:28 AM|
Thanks for your feedback.
I'm fluent in several languages and write most of the content, in all languages, myself. Can you point out to me which translations are bad? These are NOT automated translations. What languages do you speak?
I have taken into account EVERYTHING that has been written here. I have already implemented some of it, like nofollowing all my affiliate links (done).
Nonetheless, some of the recommendations are irrelevant and seek to disaprove of me rather than help me. Thankfully, your toned is quite different.