Categories: Chit-chat :

Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO"

Showing 1-106 of 106 messages
Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Dan Thies 4/16/12 11:00 AM
I have read the FAQs and checked for similar issues: 

My site's URL (web address) is: http://www.seofaststart.com and http://www.seoresearchlabs.com

JohnMu replied in another discussion () and suggested starting a new topic.

Both sites have received "unatural links" messages in Webmaster Tools. Neither site has had a "link building" campaign ever.

By using 3rd party tools (e.g. Majestic) I can see a lot of unnatural links pointing at both sites, but I didn't put those links there. I have, for years, warned people not to buy into blog networks, profile link spam, paid text links, etc. and it's easy for a spam peddler to add spam links pointing to my site, since making spam is what they do all day.

Thus far, neither site appears to be affected by "penalties," and in my own case, getting traffic from Google is not especially important relative to the large audience I already have. I have submitted reconsideration requests on both sites as JohnMu suggested, but the big questions remain:

1. What should a webmaster do when something like this happens?
2. Will Google still state that what others do on the web should not be able to affect the rankings of one's web site?
3. If #2 is not true, does Google realize that they are actually creating a larger market for the spam they want to prevent?
4. Why, if you find unnatural links, don't you simply delete the links from your index and carry on?

It is far less important to me, to get answers about MY sites - and far more important to everyone that Google address the issues which affect all webmasters.

Thanks for your time, everyone.

Dan Thies
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Dan Thies 4/16/12 11:02 AM
Link to the other thread FWIW: https://groups.google.com/a/googleproductforums.com/forum/#!searchin/webmasters/authorname:johnmu|sort:date/webmasters/RPlKleYVOXk/-Lb4TE0yuqIJ
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Joooh 4/16/12 11:27 PM
Some guys are already starting Negative SEO companies out there to do what they normally were doing to normal clients to their competitors to counter balance de unnatural links.
Free2Write 4/16/12 11:50 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Will.Spencer 4/17/12 2:56 AM


1. What should a webmaster do when something like this happens?

If you know Matt Cutts, you can call him and he will clear the penalty. Or, if you know someone in major media, you can ask them to write a story which embarrasses Google and THEN Matt Cutts will clear the penalty. Otherwise, you're pretty much screwed.

It is interesting to me that Google penalties are easy to clear if you are guilty and almost impossible to clear if you are innocent.
 

2. Will Google still state that what others do on the web should not be able to affect the rankings of one's web site?

Google has toned down that messaging, but not abandoned it entirely.

 
3. If #2 is not true, does Google realize that they are actually creating a larger market for the spam they want to prevent?

Google's recent actions have created a MASSIVE market in negative SEO.  The link graph is set to EXPLODE.

Google seems to be either ignorant or uncaring concerning the affects of their actions on "ordinary" webmasters.

 
4. Why, if you find unnatural links, don't you simply delete the links from your index and carry on?

Google could do this.  This was the original practice.  However, that doesn't seem to be as effective as spreading FUD amongst novice webmasters.


It is far less important to me, to get answers about MY sites - and far more important to everyone that Google address the issues which affect all webmasters.

It's not guys like you and I who get screwed by Google's silliness.  It's the poor souls who are new to the industry and actually believe the crap they read.
 
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Sean Stewart 4/17/12 10:30 AM
And therein lies the problem of Google penalizing sites with "unnatural links". You have zero control over who links to your site and how they link to your site. Period. If Google detects unnatural links they should discard them.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" seo101 4/17/12 1:50 PM
@Dan   "I can see a lot of unnatural links pointing at both sites, but I didn't put those links there"

Unfortunatly your gloating on Twitter to MC over blog networks being indexed upset a lot of people. You have been targeted.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Norm DePlume 4/17/12 2:20 PM
Loving the irony.   

+++ This thread delivers!
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Jimmy Bellers 4/17/12 2:26 PM
"Oh my" Houston we haz a problem. 
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Norm DePlume 4/17/12 2:27 PM
I think the exact quote was "many pants are being pooped, and it's long overdue".


Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Dan Thies 4/17/12 4:03 PM
Gloating? That's funny... but they've been at this for years, and I already had an "unnatural links" message before any splog network peddlers had a chance to get mad at me for talking to Matt. I mostly tweeted at him about that to check for a pulse, since my "WTF" questions (as above) have been getting ignored for so long.

I have no sympathy for the people who have been lying to small business owners for years ("Google loves our links but even though they love it, it's also totally undetectable - buy now!") - this is entirely about the victims of the splog networks. Who are legion.

The only reason I am bothering to post anything here now, is to try to get some answers for everyone on whether Google has decided to open up the market for "negative SEO." Still looks like they haven't, but I also think they owe every webmaster an answer. Once I see how this all plays out, I expect to be "Google proofing" these particular sites with robots.txt.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 4/17/12 4:12 PM
Without any insights in general of your specifics I found it odd that websites a site where there has been NO "link building" at all would receive a message for unnatural links.

Without any insights in general of your specifics I found it odd that any website not link building would have 3rd parties that would find such a website competing with them.

I know every domain have less desirable links but those do usually promote thus in the great scheme of thing aren`t all that unnatural as far a manipulation.goes.

I caution webmasters not to knee-jerk everything as ìt was a competitor... more likely it is complacency and forgotten knowledge.

I did check archive.org and found a blogroll on your domain (no idea when that was removed) with many domains included which suggests you did participate in blog networking. What you link to can get you into problem faster than what links to you.

Dan I known you for a long time and we have a duty not to merely speculate on causes because of we don`t do painstakingly hard research we both know the uneducated will simply point and say `see`a competitor did this.

Just because the labels change doesn't mean the new version isn't the old version in drag.

Google writes about blogrolls on its Paid Links references:

Paid links

Google and most other search engines use links to determine reputation. A site's ranking in Google search results is partly based on analysis of those sites that link to it. Link-based analysis is an extremely useful way of measuring a site's value, and has greatly improved the quality of web search. Both the quantity and, more importantly, the quality of links count towards this rating.

However, some SEOs and webmasters engage in the practice of buying and selling links that pass PageRank, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites. Buying or selling links that pass PageRank is in violation of Google's Webmaster Guidelines and can negatively impact a site's ranking in search results.

Not all paid links violate our guidelines. Buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web when done for advertising purposes, and not for manipulation of search results. Links purchased for advertising should be designated as such. This can be done in several ways, such as:

Adding a rel="nofollow" attribute to the <a> tag
Redirecting the links to an intermediate page that is blocked from search engines with a robots.txt file

Google works hard to ensure that it fully discounts links intended to manipulate search engine results, such as excessive link exchanges and purchased links that pass PageRank. If you see a site that is buying or selling links that pass PageRank, let us know. We'll use your information to improve our algorithmic detection of such links.

"I'll link to you if you link to me"... excessively (e.g. every page like a blogroll or excessive friends pages or excessive links pages, or excessive sitewide links or commonly called paid links if your didn`t know yourself or your friends) would be unnatural especially if this is a high percentage of your profile.

The link wheel came about with the invention of the blogroll... calling it something different does not change to nature of the development.

No matter what you call it... we do it to advertise and that means to be in Google`s good graces to add nofollow to those.

I cannot claim this it what happen to your domains... I simply saying that speculation in our business that someone intentional did this to you (without conclusive proof of who) just makes everyone ignore their own responsibilities.

I agree with John Mu... it would be very very rare for this to happen... just like it would be very very rare for you link spam but seriously you had a blogroll of friends in a sidebar with sitewide links to them... and those are identical to paid links (pattern wise).
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 4/17/12 7:07 PM
dan*(dot)seobraintrust(dot)com appears to be banned and you link to it from http://www.seofaststart.com/ (on every page almost) might suggest a problem.

I would kill all external links (for now) or at least add rel=nofollow to remove the potential of you being involved in a closed-loop link scheme which is website owner self-induced because you link to a domain that links to you & no other domains caught in the same closed-loop link scheme.

In my experience if you never link to the domains linking to you - you can never be unintentional caught for link manipulation through - at worse you lose the value those links provide. It they were the reason you ranked they will drop your results. Even if you haven`t lost results the above is an issue that need to be address (not saying it is what Googles emails considered as unnatural).
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 4/17/12 7:32 PM
http://www(dot)linkliberation(dot)com/freeblueprint/ and root http://www(dot)linkliberation(dot)com while currently disallowed in robots.txt have PageRank so I would gather these as recent changes - is there a possibility that these are involved in a link scheme... seoresearchlabs.com links to it.

http://gurutherapy(dot)com/ is also disallowed but always or recent I cannot tell but you link to it all well.

Without internal data I cannot be reasonably sure of anything but IMHO negative SEO is a metaphor for owner error and not someone with a score to settle.

.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Norm DePlume 4/17/12 7:34 PM
ROFL.  This thread continues to deliver!  Now we've got whitehats lecturing other whitehats to nofollow their blogroll links.  This is too awesome.  If Google's goal was to spread a little FUD, we're there.   Surely Lysis is going to stroll in and tell the OP his website is garbage and that he needs to nofollow his theme credit link.   Then, the circle will be complete.     
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 4/17/12 7:37 PM
Can you name one

I would love to test this conclusively. IMHO if you don`t link to what links to you what links to you cannot harm you.

That said the theory of 3-ways also applies... just because you do not link to crap developed if you link via proxies this is the same as linking directly back.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Norm DePlume 4/17/12 7:42 PM
If you aren't trolling, you must be some sort of divine delivery vessel of Karma.  I think I just peed myself a little.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Sean Stewart 4/17/12 7:45 PM
Still looks like they haven't

Yet you received a message for unnatural links. So you either built unnatural links to your site, or someone else did. Resulting in this automated message from WMT.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Dan Thies 4/17/12 10:15 PM
No kidding, that is hilarious. ;-)
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" kiliklinks 4/18/12 12:37 AM
This is Hilarious !!!!
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Lysis 4/18/12 2:45 AM
hahahaha Oh, I just wanted to quote this for posterity after reading the above posts. Oh my. I love this forum.
(unknown) 4/18/12 2:52 AM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" TheSEOguy 4/18/12 4:13 AM
Lets see your Matt Cutts arse kissing get you out of this one.

Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 4/18/12 4:46 AM
The blogroll is immaterial, in and of itself. But if you're linking to someone that is involved in a link scheme, link wheel you are included in that mix.

What you link to can harm you.

In fact, just because Google email you today - the offense could have been there for year.

Either way makes no difference to me... Google has more info than any of us.

That said, prove me wrong... remove all external links or nofollow them all should have a positive effect.

The subdomain I pointed out is banned and that means you could be next.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Lurk3r 4/18/12 5:02 AM
Dan, can I just confirm.
 
  1. You have made yourself a massive target, and fairly disliked by a lot of people, who are actively seeking to "teach you a lesson"
  2. You have published your sites (on this very thread)
  3. You have published your situation, making yourself even more of a target
  4. And you HAVE NOT been penalised. Just received warnings in WMT.

If this is the case then I don't think you can have any complaints over how google has acted. And either you have special status with Big G, or Negative SEO doesn't work.

Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Lysis 4/18/12 6:29 AM
Get out of what one?
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Jimmy Bellers 4/18/12 7:11 AM
"fathom" how long you been doing this?   If you look at the link profile of the sites in question Dan has been hit recently with thousands of links the massive links started around March 28, 2012.  This is the time just after Dan made his twitter posts. 

It takes approx 2 to 4 weeks after you get the GWT for the penalty to take effect.  You do not get the GWT message then immediately see negative effects it take Google a couple of weeks to process then demote the site. 



 
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" KORPG Kevin 4/18/12 7:20 AM

It takes approx 2 to 4 weeks after you get the GWT for the penalty to take effect.  You do not get the GWT message then immediately see negative effects it take Google a couple of weeks to process then demote the site.

Is that true?
I'll grant that I don't have any direct experience with this sort of thing so I'm very curious since from an anecdotal point-of-view, I see lots of domain owners come here day after day claiming their site tanked in the SERPS almost immediately after receiving the warning.

So I'm generally curious how you've come to that conclusion.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 4/18/12 7:44 AM
IMHO irrelevant.

Take a look at those linking pages and see if they are being discounted.

Google won't send you a message about link spamming and let those survive. they will drop first and loses will float in later if there is a direct association with you..

They "may" help point out an unknown issue on your domain and bring that into view but they won't be the cause of a drop.

What links to you cannot harm you unless there is some direct footprint to you.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 4/18/12 8:03 AM
Is that true?
I'll grant that I don't have any direct experience with this sort of thing so I'm very curious since from an anecdotal point-of-view, I see lots of domain owners come here day after day claiming their site tanked in the SERPS almost immediately after receiving the warning.

So I'm generally curious how you've come to that conclusion.

In my experience, if you are the linking website you lose rank & traffic immediately.

If you have unnatural links to you lose and Google cannot determine an association with the offending links you merely lose the credits as they filter through the web. March/April seems to be Google's spring cleaning time and with lots of website link offerings being killed off everything that domain touched must be recalculated.

It takes time.

This level of messaging is new - how it figures into the mix only time will tell.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Jimmy Bellers 4/18/12 8:06 AM
@ KORPGKevin

I have three sites that I let a SEO company do some work for me. 

I know SEO myself but took a chance on these guys and the three sites they worked on got the GWT message.  All three sites got the message in March 2012, then approx 2 weeks later they all tanked.  It was only these three sites out of several that tanked.

I sent in my re-inclusion request and got the links are still there message we cannot help.  

I know several people that used this same SEO company and ALL have had the same results. 



Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Jimmy Bellers 4/18/12 8:14 AM
@fathom

Are you referring to me?  

The links are the direct cause of the GWT message and the GWT message is the direct cause of the rankings drop. 

What links to you cannot harm you unless there is some direct footprint to you. 

What?  A link is a direct footprint is a direct footprint and to many too fast using the same anchor will get you the GWT message. 

Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" KORPG Kevin 4/18/12 8:19 AM
OK. That's with what I'd expect.
I'm just trying to square your experience with that of the countless, "Help! I have this message about links and now I'm not in Google!" webmasters who post here day after day.

I've presumed they just noticed the drop and signed up for WMT to investigate the issue, and then (and only then) did they discover the message was waiting for them on their domain.
But having no direct experience with the situation, and with most webmasters actually being the cause (either directly or indirectly) of their own demise, I've never been able to get a handle on the veracity of my presumption.

Your situation seems to support an assumption that Google actually tries to give a webmaster a buffer warning if they're involved in the spam link building, possibly giving time for the webmaster to analyze the situation and make amends should they be culpable or to help build a case they're not..
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 4/18/12 8:31 AM
If you have absolute no link spam involved on your domain Google cannot tie you to the links (if developed by a third party). If will simply discount the links.


Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Dan Thies 4/18/12 8:32 AM
My only "complaint" is that Google hasn't answered the question about what people who are targeted by this kind of stupidity should do when they get the message, and whether they've opened the doors to "negative SEO." A question many of us have been asking Matt Cutts and others for some time before the people who sell splog network links got their panties in a twist over Google taking steps to dump their garbage networks from the index.

I certainly hope that we will gain some useful information from all this, aside from the fact that sploggers really love using .pl domains. ;-)
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Dan Thies 4/18/12 8:44 AM
That is exactly what they *should* do, Fathom. But that's not the way they tell the story to webmasters, is it?
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 4/18/12 8:49 AM
Assuming the new algo is detecting histotical stuff that got by googlebot in the past this will be a short term issue.

I still recommend you nofollow those links as "we cannot see under the hood" and connecting dots blindfolded usually means your dog picture looks like a pile of ****!
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" KORPG Kevin 4/18/12 8:55 AM
But that is what they say they do - at least when claiming that your site cannot be harmed by "actions outside your control."
And your experience may very well prove that fact - since your sites don't appear to have been penalized in spite of receiving the message (granted this may be a premature claim and may not bear out over time.)

From what I can see, the issue lies in the fact that they don't (for good reason) tell anyone how they determine if there's a tie to you.
So if a webmaster is indeed innocent, there's no way to demonstrate such.

But if your sites don't tank, then that should validate the claim that the message is simply informative, not a demonstration of an action taken.

Which would support my theory that sites only tank because they've benefited from the links before those identified as spam are discounted.
So the linkspam penalty isn't a penalty per se, but a re-ranking back to where the site would be with a blind eye to any links determined to be spam.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Lysis 4/18/12 9:22 AM
I take everything said on how to "fix" the problem with a grain of salt, but as for people reporting what happens (I'm with you, I have never received any notice or even had a penalty).  Reports are that you get the message, and you see a minor drop. Sometimes only a couple of spots, and then if you ignore it, about a week later you see a major fall. That seems to be a pretty consistent report across a few forums.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 4/18/12 9:30 AM
But that is what they say they do - at least when claiming that your site cannot be harmed by "actions outside your control."
And your experience may very well prove that fact - since your sites don't appear to have been penalized in spite of receiving the message (granted this may be a premature claim and may not bear out over time.)

John Mu eludes to issues that have been around for a while. For a while we have known that if you link to a banned domain (or the bad neighborhood) that can harm you because you are vouching for it.

So (example only) a blogroll normally is not a problem but with the algo change say 1 or 2 domains in your blogroll got caught doing something really spammy and they are deindexed... you're still vouching for them right?

From what I can see, the issue lies in the fact that they don't (for good reason) tell anyone how they determine if there's a tie to you.
So if a webmaster is indeed innocent, there's no way to demonstrate such.

The problem with the noise of all unnatural links emails, lost ranks, traffic PANDAized etc., is - it's so bloody easy to jump to conclusions.

But if your sites don't tank, then that should validate the claim that the message is simply informative, not a demonstration of an action taken.

The messages are the oddity. One of the unforeseen side effect? Maybe.

Which would support my theory that sites only tank because they've benefited from the links before those identified as spam are discounted.
So the linkspam penalty isn't a penalty per se, but a re-ranking back to where the site would be with a blind eye to any links determined to be spam.

I would mostly agree with that.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" marcink99 4/18/12 10:42 AM

well that’s what you get for kissing Matts ass on twitter. A lot of people don’t like google changes(bhw members) their incomes get crushed yet you seem happy about it, no wonder they attack your sites.

Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Norm DePlume 4/18/12 10:45 AM
Like everyone else, you are just guessing.    Correlation is not causation. 

I can find equal numbers of test cases that prove negative SEO works / doesn't work.

However, I find it silly that someone thinks Google can detect whether the site owner placed or paid for a link.   
The stakes are high enough in some niches that competitors would pay for negative links.   

The only obvious solution would be for Google to discount the links.  

There's strong evidence however, that they are doing more than just discounting links...Not proof mind you, but evidence.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" KORPG Kevin 4/18/12 11:08 AM
I can find equal numbers of test cases that prove negative SEO works / doesn't work.

Agreed.
 
The problem I have with all the "evidence" that it works is that it's all usually couched in terms like:
  • "I've seen it happen, but can't provide details..."
  • "I've heard of it happening..."
  • "I know a guy who knows a guy who claims..."

And nobody ever seems to be able to provide anything concrete to prove that third-party link spam does tank a site.

Meanwhile the other side's arguments all cite logically reasonable outcomes but even those claims are presented as opinion and not fact. And worse still while Google publicly espouses that no link spam could/should have any effect on your ranking, Google's very warning seems to be contradictory to that claim.

We may be witness to the first example that should help bolster one side of the argument or the other, but I fear regardless of the outcome, one side will claim Google manually adjusted the penalty or the other will argue that we didn't have all the facts. Something tells me neither will see the results of this situation as evidence to the contrary of their position.

Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Lysis 4/18/12 1:54 PM
It has a lot to do with the ratio here. The company I work for has tons of domains, affiliate links, yadda yadda...all the bad things you read about here that could give you the notice, but so far nothing for them, because they have also been around for 12 years and have good, valuable links as well. Most of the sites we see here are less than a year old, have done nothing but focus on Google and crappy backlinks, and have generally no real marketing, branding or authority.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Marc Lindsay 4/18/12 1:59 PM
I think Distilled summed this up nicely in a post of theirs.

Also if you look at the changes Google has made to their guidelines, it paints another picture again.

"Can competitors harm ranking?

 

There's nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index. If you're concerned about another site linking to yours, we suggest contacting the webmaster of the site in question. Google aggregates and organizes information published on the web; we don't control the content of these pages."

 

Then, in November, it got "slightly" modified... just a TINY fraction too:

 

"Can competitors harm ranking?

 

There's ALMOST nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index. If you're concerned about another site linking to yours, we suggest contacting the webmaster of the site in question. Google aggregates and organizes information published on the web; we don't control the content of these pages."

 

Wow, what a difference one word can make! So hang on, saying "almost nothing" means "can", no matter which way you spin it.

 

Then on March 14th, they caved.

 

"Google works hard to prevent other webmasters from being able to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index. If you're concerned about another site linking to yours, we suggest contacting the webmaster of the site in question. Google aggregates and organizes information published on the web; we don't control the content of these pages." -http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66356

 

In case you missed it, the key difference is in that first line:


You can see it's changed from "nothing" to "almost nothing" to "perfect political answer"

Copy and pasted from something we wrote elsewhere regarding this.

Unfortunately Dan, according to that message, you should do a manual re-inclusion.

My experience tells me that you ARE responsible for those links regardless.  This is assuming no favors from people you know to look into it (aka a standard webmaster).

My own reply on a domain of mine that I voluntry went into re-inclusion request for (hands up, we did the wrong thing and didnt put restrictions on the team we were using for this.... but we are cleaning it up), was an indication of this.

Given links they showed me as inorganic, just happened to be links that were from sites that decided to organicly republish some of my content from EzineArticles.  A site owner, making a decision of their own accord to re-publish the content we wrote.

That was considered an inorganic link.

Now it tells me that, the data the reviewers have in front of them is dumb data and they are simply making their best judgement call, based on whatever criteria they follow.

I know people are sprouting their karma stories about your tweets... honestly who f*# cares, they missed the point of this.

The point is.  Dan, typically as far as I know you (and especially for seofaststart, given I link to it or recommend it as one of the best free starting resources for someone to get, have done for many many years now) have a very "white hat" model to the point of not purposefully building links.

So you receiving these notices, in my mind, shows just how "untargeted" these seemingly "targeted" messages were.

Fun times, what a great opportunity to learn more about what Google is up too.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Dan Thies 4/18/12 2:13 PM
Yep - great summary Marc. I have filed the reconsideration requests since JohnMu said to do it, more to see how the process plays out than anything.

But you've put your finger on it - it's not that Google is finally putting actions with words on splog networks etc - it's that they've slowly shifted their position on the "can links hurt you" issue to the point where a straight answer is due. If it's the same straight answer we got for years, great. If it's different, then a public shaming of Google will surely follow.

If a handful of spoiled children firing XRumer and splog links at my site does actually affect my rankings, then it can happen to a lot of others. A "drop in the bucket" for me, since I can talk to tens of thousands of people tomorrow without Google having anything to do with it.

I sincerely hope nobody at Google does me any "special favors" since that would only prevent us from getting to the truth, which I have been trying to get at for much longer than the splogger "community" has been blaming me for the problems they created for themselves.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Norm DePlume 4/18/12 2:36 PM
Actually, Google says that it CAN hurt your site.

Their official answers:

"There's almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking"

"Google works hard to prevent other webmasters from being able to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index."

You'll note the weasel-words they use to avoid the truth.   They uh, "work hard" so that "almost nothing", etc.

If they were only devaluing spam, versus smacking people, why would the words be so wishy-washy?

Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" KORPG Kevin 4/18/12 2:53 PM
You're reading into the terms "almost nothing" as applying to backlinks.
That doesn't mean your assumption isn't correct, but it is still an assumption.

I'd say it's time for Google to answer the question once and for all if backlinks can hurt rankings and why the shift in Google's stated position.
In my estimation all the subterfuge and obscurity is causing more damage than its helping.

If backlinking can tank a site unless the webmaster discovers and addresses the issue then that's a significant stance considering the number of sites that don't even have a WMT account and Google arguably doesn't have a reasonable means of contacting the domain owner.

If backlinking can't tank a site then it's time to hear that from someone from Google with an explanation as to why the system even bothers to send the notice - if it's a courtesy message then that's something that should be explained.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Wheeeeeeee 4/18/12 3:31 PM
Searched around the black hat forums a little.  Found this.

http://trafficplanet.com/topic/2369-case-study-negative-seo-results/

Do you agree with their "pre" and "post" SERP positions for your site?

Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" dunton 4/18/12 5:13 PM
Dan can you explain the 301 redirect domains to your sites please? ;) white hat? don't make me laugh! I'm guessing this is just the start! Oh and please stop sending unsolicited emails to me since I've never joined any of your mailing lists it's classed as SPAM, any more emails and you will be reported.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Dan Thies 4/18/12 5:17 PM
What domains, sport? The old domain for the book redirects to the new domain for the book.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" windjc 4/18/12 5:19 PM
This thread is epic.

 LMAO @ all the experts on here scratching there heads to find some plausible reason that Dan's site wasn't the victim of negative SEO.

Open your eyes people. IT WAS.

Negative SEO is alive and well. People are paying for it as we speak. Google has unleashed a humongous can of worms. Until Matt and his team WAKE UP and decide to discount links instead of penalized for them, or until they admit to us that they don't, in fact,  really no how to discount the links so they don't know what to really do about spam, then everyone's site is at risk, unless you have a brand so powerful that you can make a PR issue of it.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" dunton 4/18/12 5:23 PM
are we talking about the same highly seo'd ones which serve really only to pass authority and rank to the new domain? :) No point hidng anything, they've already been publicly picked apart on a forum, I'm sure someone will send you the link, sport.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" windjc 4/18/12 5:25 PM
Dan, why are asking around on here and to Google about whether negative SEO exists?

Its obvious. You know the answer. Absolutely it does. Your site is case in point.

Negative SEO is alive and well. I know people selling packages as we speak. And taking many orders.

Google doesn't just discount for links. They penalize for them. And as long as they penalize for them, webmasters can hurt each other.  Most of the people on here saying otherwise are "employees" for companies, not building sites and making a living doing it for themselves.

Matt Cutts is a PR guy. At some point it comes down to perception. But the reality is, Google penalizes for links. And almost none is immune.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Dan Thies 4/18/12 5:28 PM
Unfortunately it's a little early to declare a result, because the shift in rankings on [seo book] matches what I have "achieved" during theme testing a few months back, prior to the site moving to new hosting, when the current theme was deployed again. Got some structural stuff to get back in place, and the internal linking isn't where it should be (run of site links to monthly archive pages, etc). So we'll see in a couple weeks on that, once we get everything back in place. You can probably find the old site on Wayback if you want to explore the differences.

The "shift" on [seo] is just a movement back to normal - there have been a several weird "spikes" in ranking on that query in the past year but nothing terribly exciting - usually lasts about a week and goes back down. Looks like they measured ranking during the most recent spike.

So we'll see - with any luck, they'll be able to create a definitive public case of negative SEO. That would not be a terrible outcome, because we need to know if Google has shifted that far, so we can call them out on it.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Dan Thies 4/18/12 5:37 PM
Dunton, give me some domains to look at, or you're just wasting time. I don't buy domains and all that junk, but there are a lot of recently-penalized domains controlled by people who blame me for their self-created problems.

Windjc, I know people are selling "packages" - but to DO anything about it, we need a verifiable public case. My sites are a perfect target because I haven't bought links, rented links, created domain farms, etc. etc. - SEO Fast Start in particular because there's a single SERP they can target. If they can really pull it off, then there will be no doubt about it, and we can put the issue front and center. I'm ambivalent about it - probably better for the world as a whole if they succeed, but I have doubts that they'll be able to do it.

I'll be working to put the site structure etc. back to the previous state so we can remove that variable. If these guys wanted to run a good experiment they'd have called me first so I could make sure not to make big changes to the site in the middle of it. If we end up with a null result, I'll find another site to target where we can run it out of the public eye until we get a definitive result. Got an ecommerce store I was thinking about buying, so maybe I can buy it, and then they can try to burn it down.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" KORPG Kevin 4/18/12 5:59 PM
Just for clarity, isn't a 301 redirect one of the proper ways to redirect one domain to another?
301, domain name redirection, and meta refresh don't strike me as black hat.

Or am I missing something?
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Marc Lindsay 4/18/12 6:22 PM
Yes it is.

But the above poster was implying that Dan had a previous domain that was less than white hat.

Then 301 re-directed that to "clean" or filter the value of that site through to this site.

Thus the links on the 301 domain could have been spam.

I am not saying that this did happen, just explaining what he is referring to when using 301's.

You can abuse 301's for ranking manipulation.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" KORPG Kevin 4/18/12 6:24 PM
Ahh, I see.
Thank you.
Appreciate someone clearing that up for me.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" windjc 4/18/12 6:25 PM
Dan,

You received a notice from GWTs. Then you had a drop in SERPS.  You still have "doubts" that people can effectively Negative SEO?
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Marc Lindsay 4/18/12 6:35 PM
I dont see anywhere he has "doubted" it.

I'd see it as dubious evidence at best.... AT THIS TIME

Google is fantastic at delivering multiple, big updates, simultaneously with enough cloud so that pinpointing it can be difficult.

1.  Blog networks hit.
2.  Over SEO Penalty mentioned to be coming
3.  Over 700,000 unnatural link warnings sent
4.  Big engine index updates.

All within a short period of time.

So yes.... that drop, is not an indication directly of negative SEO.

It could be.... but there is not enough conclusive data to say it is.

If you are going to mount something to bring to Google's Attention..... Then it needs to be clear.

Too many people jump to conclusions over a few drops.

Is it because you were penalized?
Is it because you cleaned up your links and thus you don't have as much link authority now?
Is it because of an algorithm change?


Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" windjc 4/18/12 6:41 PM
Dan said "I'm ambivalent about it - probably better for the world as a whole if they succeed, but I have doubts that they'll be able to do it."

Did you no read his posts?

As to your comments about "too many possible conclusions". HOGWASH. Everyone on here uses this ridiculous argument. Google does to. It helps to avoid all accountability.

Dan had a site he hadn't built links to in forever. It got spammed. He got a notice. His serps dropped.

This isnt the FDA and there is no way to do a 3 year study on it. You want to believe negative SEO is a myth, because Google wants you/hopes you will believe it? Ok.

There are dozens of others sites just like Dans - same pattern after negative SEO.  And thousands more that negative SEOed themselves with these links. But you need more evidence. Ok, enjoy searching for it.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Marc Lindsay 4/18/12 6:52 PM
Dude.... Dictionary much?

am·biv·a·lent

 [am-biv-uh-luhnt]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
having ”mixed feelings about someone or something; beingunable to choose between two (usually opposing) courses ofaction: The whole family was ambivalent about the move to thesuburbs. She is regarded as a morally ambivalent character inthe play.
2.
Psychology . of or pertaining to the coexistence within anindividual of positive and negative feelings toward the sameperson, object, or action, simultaneously drawing him or herin opposite directions.

Yeah, he said he has doubts, and so would I after that ranking.... sorry its not conclusive, plain and simple.

That would be like... split testing with 1 action and 5 views and determining a winner.

Serps drop all the time and come back, at this point it is non-conclusive.

If they continue to worsen, and stay that way for many weeks..... now you have something with a bit more evidence.

I didnt say I believe negative SEO is a myth, please do not impose your flawed logic on me because I do not accept it.

I actually believe negative SEO is well and truly possible and does exist.

Evidence.... I'll create it through controlled testing environment as much as can be done.

We are talking about two different things, subtle difference but important.

"SEO'ed themselves with these links"

VS

"Someone SEO'd them with the intent of negative SEO"

Will google evaluate it the same way, who knows, I'm not google.

But it's going to be interesting to watch how it unfolds.

Windjc, I'm saying, yes I believe Negative SEO is alive and kicking, but I want first hand data to support that in an enviroment I can control, as much as possible of course.

Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Dan Thies 4/18/12 7:03 PM
The problem is that the *only* SERP that's actually dropped so far (seo book) is one where it would have been expected to do so, because of the site changes I made last week. I haven't had any time to put the site structure back where I want it. If it doesn't bounce back after I made those changes, I'll believe that there's enough evidence to run a completely clean test, where nobody posts about it, nobody files a reconsideration request, etc. until it's clear what the outcome was.

The other SERP they're claiming success on (seo) is one where the ranking had an unusual spike - likely caused by their efforts - then dropped back down.

I want to get at the truth, and if the truth is "negative SEO works great" then we can all scream about it until Google has to do something. So far, we don't know. Sorry, but we don't.


Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" windjc 4/18/12 7:11 PM
Yeah we do. Its just that the people with the examples aren't tweeting MC. They are building sites and burning other peoples.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 4/18/12 7:57 PM
I want to get at the truth, and if the truth is...

Did a 3rd party just admit to attempting to cause intentional economy strife?

Economically harming anyone directly and intentionally has both criminal and civil vulnerabilities.

If you happen to lose money on this event Dan I would love to support your legal efforts to grow this specific industry.

I think a Negative SEO Countermeasure Company will get much wilder public acceptance than this and make a whole lot more money than mischief.

Turning disadvantage into advantage is the name of the game.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" CoolGuy81 4/18/12 8:05 PM
I almost spilled my water over the screen when I read this.

I'm not sure if this has already been stated..but..yes this was actually part of a negative SEO case study from another forum (that's how I got here). I won't say which, but it's there. You've pissed off a lot of people, and I guess you're paying for it.

I'm not condoning their actions but it's a positive affirmation that NEGATIVE SEO is alive and well.

For all you Google product forum "know-it-alls" (you know who you are), I hope you read this one.

I'm seeing negative seo reports JUST LIKE THIS ONE cropping up all over the forums, and I've decided to sit back and eat my popcorn while Google tries to dig itself out of this hole they've gotten themeselves into.

Fun stuff.


Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Norm DePlume 4/18/12 8:10 PM
"Economically harming anyone directly and intentionally has both criminal and civil vulnerabilities."

I was all set with a witty remark, but the naivety here speaks for itself.

Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Lurk3r 4/19/12 1:12 AM
This is properly excellent.
 
All the smug Google-hating sheeple getting on board, making this a posterchild for their skewed world view.
 
Data-led SEOs saying the results are not in, and in fact show Negative SEO has NOT worked so far, but are fascinated to see what happens.
 
And the sheeple saying how that is not the case, despite a lucid explanation from the site owner.
 
Absolutely classic. If nothing else, a perfect demonstration of the jubilant, "me too", uncritical Sheeple mob mentality. Ignore the facts, follow the emotion.
 
BTW, I'd love to nail Google for Negative SEO, but I have never seen evidence it works before now, and regrettably still haven't. But the only thing worse than Google are the Google haters spreading their own kind of FUD.
 
 
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Will.Spencer 4/19/12 1:12 AM
On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 1:13:30 PM UTC+2, TheSEOguy wrote:
Lets see your Matt Cutts arse kissing get you out of this one.

I'm betting that is exactly what happens.
 
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Will.Spencer 4/19/12 1:20 AM
On Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:11:52 AM UTC+2, windjc wrote:
... the people with the examples aren't tweeting MC. They are building sites and burning other peoples.

Exactly true. Negative SEO has been working for a long time and it's only now becoming public -- because someone decided to do it to a well-known name in the SEO field.


Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Will.Spencer 4/19/12 1:31 AM
On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 5:32:00 PM UTC+2, Dan Thies wrote:
My only "complaint" is that Google hasn't answered the question about what people who are targeted by this kind of stupidity should do ...

Google's lack of response has given us a pretty clear answer.

They just don't care about webmasters or even web searchers. 

For all they care, we can all suffer and die.  All Google needs is ten URL's to wrap AdWords ads around -- and these days Google is using their own properties for many of those ten URL's.  Soon, independent webmasters won't be needed at all.

 
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 4/19/12 1:44 AM
IMHO they are doing Google's bidding.

These guys are forcing webmasters to clean up their act.

If the site owner hasn't done anything wrong on the domain it won't be permanently kept out and regardless of whether the neg campaign had any direct impact if the webmaster is doing shady stuff even in a limited fashion they must dump that as well to be reconsidered.

Google get that's for free so why would it really be an issue... these guys are Google's mystery shoppers.


Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" TheSEOguy 4/19/12 5:36 AM

Now you know what happened Dan

--------------------
Pixelgrinder and I conducted a little experiment on whether negative seo was possible in the current climate - we felt it was important to 
know whether it was possible for a site to be negatively affected completely by outside influences. This experiment was not done with the knowledge or consent of TrafficPlanet.com owners/admin/moderators.

We carried out a massive scrapebox blast on two sites to ensure an accurate result. The two sites we chose and the reasons we chose them are as follows:

seofaststart.com (Dan Thies)

1. He has received a direct response from Matt Cutts on Twitter, so if we were able to affect his site he is more likely than most to get the ear of the right person and show google what can be done (https://twitter.com/#!/danthies/statuses/180389475497676801)

2. A self proclaimed "seo guru" (Hi, I'm Dan Thies. Although I'm best known as the "keyword guru," I've been practicing, studying and teaching advanced search engine marketing strategy and tactics for several years http://www.seoresearchlabs.com/) - it should be harder than most to affect the site of an "seo guru".

3. If it works, he should be smart enough to profit from all of the publicity he would get out of it.

4. He already has several domains 301d to seofaststart.com without penalty (not a white hat tactic) - we were wondering if he had been 'protected' in some way.

5. He is a suck-up-brown-noser, smugly bad mouthing everyone and crowing that "many pants are being pooped and it's long overdue" - we don't like him.

negativeseo.me

1. They are selling services for negative seo under the tagline "destroy your competitors".

Rankings Before (22nd March:(

seofaststart.com
dan thies - number 1
seo - number 11
seo service - number 34
seo book - number 3

negativeseo.me
negative seo - number 2
destroy your competitiors - number 1

Timeline:

15th March - Dan Thies posts smug tweets to Matt Cutts and pisses off the entire internet.

18th March - seofaststart.com - blog posts started - anchor text "seo" "seo service" and "seo book"

22th March - seofaststart.com - 1 million scrapebox blast started - 100% anchor text "Dan Thies"

24th March - negativeseo.com - 1 million scrapebox blast started - 100% anchor text "destroy your competitors"

26th March - Dan Thies posts in Twitter that he has received an unnatural links message.

Note: 18th March - seofaststart blog posts started. This was NOT US. We had previously decided that it would be risky to 'out' the blogs that links were getting placed on and agreed not to include blog posts in our experiment. We don't know who did this, how many links they built or what network/s they used. We discovered these links in ahrefs and have estimated that about 5000 links where built, probably with ALN between the 18th-23rd March.

Ranking After (18th April) note rankings are still jumping a little:

seofaststart.com
dan thies - number 1 (still number 1)
seo - not in top 1000 (down from number 11)
seo service - not in top 1000 (down from number 34)
seo book - number 34 (down from number 3)

negativeseo.me
negative seo - number 6 (down from number 2)
destroy your competitiors - number 13 (down from number 1)

Other stuff of interest right now:

ahrefs seofaststart.com (notice how few of our 1 million scapebox links have shown up!)
https://ahrefs.com/site-explorer/backlinks/subdomains/www.seofaststart.com

ahrefs negativeseo.me (notice how few of our 1 million scrapebox links have shown up!)
https://ahrefs.com/site-explorer/backlinks/subdomains/www.negativeseo.me

Dan Thies begging on google groups
https://groups.google.com/a/googleproductforums.com/forum/#!category-topic/webmasters/chit-chat/Azfly-iRtLs


Our personal message to Matt Cutts/Google: 

Negative SEO is possible. Sort it out!

Our personal message to Dan Thies:

Next time you want to smugly throw your holier than thou 2 cents into the ring, think before you speak. Every backlink to your site was analyzed before starting this. Don't think those 301d domains hide what you are doing because they don't - you are the same as the rest of us - your methods for link bait are, in fact, worse than some of the 'spammers' you so often refer to. Now your pants are being pooped and it's long overdue :P


..... thanks! B)  
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" jjray 4/19/12 6:35 AM
+1 There is no defense to the negative SEO practice of link spamming except to beg Google for relief ... which is totally discretionary.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 4/19/12 7:05 AM
There are many ways to combat low quality..

Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Norm DePlume 4/19/12 9:21 AM
Cool.  Offer up one of your websites.  One's that's making money, so it's clear your convictions are strong.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" CoolGuy81 4/19/12 9:35 AM
You are properly the perfect example of your own "sheeple" analogy. I love these forums =)
seochamp39 4/19/12 12:41 PM <This message has been deleted.>
seochamp39 4/19/12 12:50 PM <This message has been deleted.>
seochamp39 4/19/12 12:54 PM <This message has been deleted.>
seochamp39 4/19/12 12:57 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" seochamp39 4/19/12 1:07 PM
"Google has decided to open up the market for "negative SEO." Still looks like they haven't"

That's the most ignorant response I've even seen...

You site was a direct test of negative SEO by guys on Traffic planet.

The proper answer is.... YES, they have.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Lysis 4/19/12 1:09 PM
The quote feature is hard.
seochamp39 4/19/12 1:14 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" seochamp39 4/19/12 7:44 PM
Okay Apologies Dan. I was mad at you for what you tweeted a while back :). I deleted my posts, some were a bit inappropriate.

But the point remains. Negative SEO shouldn't exist... BUT... SEOs need to clean up their act.

It's easy to see that QUALITY ranks faster, and better now. There is no need to spam anymore...
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" matthewhunt 4/19/12 8:10 PM
this is crazy and scary stuff.  will be staying tuned to watch this play out.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" seo101 4/19/12 8:21 PM
There are now some negative SEO gigs on fiverr .... tank your competitors for $5 !!!!!
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Temperance 4/20/12 9:06 AM
Negative SEO exists for sure. I managed a site(http://www.erectiledysfunctionclinics.co.uk) that was funded by Bristol GPs. It was aimed to educate people about counterfeits and pill mills and informing the visitors about Govt regulated online doctor services. It started to rank when some idiots totally screwed it up with spam. Its nowhere now. Guess only the illegal pill mills can rank for that niche.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 4/20/12 9:29 AM
It started to rank when some idiots totally screwed it up with spam. Its nowhere now. Guess only the illegal pill mills can rank for that niche.

It started to rank.. you mean it wasn't? So after they finished it went back to where it was. Amazingly I thought the value was to harm sites doing reasonable well.


Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 4/20/12 9:52 AM
From that domain Is This Legal?
Here at NegativeSEO.me we only use legal means to ensure your competitors get banned. Google will penalize a site for bad links. If we create bad links to your competition, we can get them banned on google, while staying completely in the framework of US legislation.
I would get multiple law firms involved in this one.

A civil lawsuit is a remedy for dispute. It's about "money". You forced me through unfair business practices to lose money and your client received unjust enrichment through those acts.

No one needs to prove you did something illegal. Violating multiple services TOS will do nicely.

There were suggestions of false DMCA claims which falls under copyright law.

§ 506. Criminal offenses4

(a) Criminal Infringement.

(1) In general.Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.




Temperance 4/20/12 10:52 AM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Temperance 4/20/12 10:54 AM
No sir, what I meant was it was starting to rank - and some people screwed it up. This happened a couple of months back.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Temperance 4/20/12 10:59 AM
Everytime I see that negativeseo site - it angers me so much
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" reyjunior 4/23/12 5:13 PM
Here is what happened. In this post, Dan Thies, actually replies to the culprits who did the negative SEO on his websites:

http://trafficplanet.com/topic/2369-case-study-negative-seo-results/page__st__0

Sorry to hear you were a victim of this Dan.

I was also a victim and Google must fix this issue...

Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" leon streete 5/4/12 9:07 AM
What do we do when your competitors can send 10k negative links to your site for $5?

Surely theres more Google has to include in its algorithms in order to prevent this?
Panda_Effects 5/5/12 7:54 AM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" tokyotokyo 5/9/12 3:48 AM
Hi Dan...

I think the ultimate solution to this whole negative seo problem is by google changing the power a webmaster has in the webmaster tools panel.  I left a reply on the seo book blog with my idea...  what do you think?

Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Will.Spencer 5/14/12 9:55 PM
Google's idiocy in penalizing web sites for inbound links is creating amazing waves of unintended consequences.

Check out this awesome story of a blogger harassed by LifeShield over links from his blog: http://www.pskl.us/wp/?p=722
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" seo101 5/14/12 10:01 PM
That is easy to deal with. You can not use a DMCA for that. The financial penalties for filing a false DMCA are substantial.
...the problem is that most hosts will run scared and demand you comply.

I wish someone would try this on me ... it will come back and haunt them big time.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" fathom 5/14/12 11:08 PM
LOL obviously someone is communicating with them... poorly!
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" OkayNetwork 5/15/12 12:28 AM
I agree Sean Stewart, it's not like Google is going to tell us which ones they consider to be spammy and which ones they don't. So where is the harm in just ignoring spam links? This would solve the negative SEO market that Google has created with the help of Penguin.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Maqbool Ahmad 8/31/12 12:06 AM
I have a blog site purehealthytips.com and where I can check unnatural links... pls help me and if you have any tool for this so send me.
Waiting 
Thanks
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" ShopSafe 8/31/12 2:38 AM
Hello Maqbool Ahmad, :)

Links are not the issue, Maqbool, your problem is offering health advice without qualifications and selling links for cuban cigars and dentists.

I am sorry to be the one to tell you this and I am not an expert but I think your best move would be to dump this site and start over with a better plan.

Consider starting with this link before buying your next domain:



Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" Lysis 8/31/12 7:54 AM
" the problem is that most hosts will run scared and demand you comply."

Yep, that happened to me. It was Demand Media/ Demand Studios of all people. They claimed that ALL of my content was theirs when what I had been doing was slamming their content and posting snippets as proof. The thing was that I was doing the same thing for other content farms, so not all of my posts were from ehow.

I get a DMCA from their lawyer filed at the host. The host demanded I take all of it down, and the DMCA was making false claims. The DMCA was also targeting the wrong domain name, which was funny. They had my content listed as the violation, and a different domain name listed as the address.

It was funny but I should have sued Demand Studios for a false DMCA, but I'm just the little guy without the funds to fight off the shyster company.
Re: Unnatural Links, Webmaster Tools, and "Negative SEO" AlexDuvot 10/4/12 7:54 PM
wondering what the end result will be?

More topics »