Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google
searchenginewatch.com
Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google
1–10 of 172 posts
Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google
#2Somehow it seems unfair for Google to suggest that people spend time with the disavowal tool to correct deficiencies in Google's algorithms.
Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google
#3Matt if you read hackernews. This is bullshit. Spam links should count for 0 value not negative value.
Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google
#4This seems like an open invite for people to create blatant spam content.
Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google
#5Somehow it seems unfair for Google to suggest that people spend time with the disavowal tool to correct deficiencies in Google's algorithms.
Especially when a competitor could buy 1000s of these links for $20 on a place like fiverr. Are we supposed to spend the rest of our lives disavowing this stuff?
Edit: the 1000s figure is not an exaggeration. Go to fiverr and search on "back link" to see.
Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google
#6The PageRank algorithm seems broken to me. If spam links count for negative value you get competitors doing negative seo by buying cheap bad links to competing websites in bulk via places like fiverr. If they count for zero value then you get webmasters trying their luck by buying the same stuff themselves - who knows, there could be a good link amongst all the bad stuff and no harm in trying...
Something other than ranking by inbound links seems to be needed at this point.
Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google
#7Matt if you read hackernews. This is bullshit. Spam links should count for 0 value not negative value.
How about just asking, "Hey Matt, can you say something about why you decided spam links should count for negative value instead of 0?"
I've never met him, but as demonstrated by his long HN profile, Matt is clearly a nice guy. He's also smart, so he probably thought this exact case through. None of us outside Google really know how this works.
None of that means his group didn't make a poor decision in this case, but let's see if we can talk like adults and can learn more before going all "OMFG this is bllsht" on him...
Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google
#8How can Google detect if a spammy link has been created by the site's owner or by a competitor?
I don't see any way to detect that - apart from asking webmasters to report spammy backlinks. But that really isn't sustainable.
Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google
#9Matt if you read hackernews. This is bullshit. Spam links should count for 0 value not negative value.
How about just asking, "Hey Matt, can you say something about why you decided spam links should count for negative value instead of 0?" I've never met him, but as demonstrated by his long HN profile, Matt is clearly a nice guy. He's also smart, so he probably thought this exact case through. None of us outside Google really know how this works. None of that means his group didn't make a poor decision in this case, bu…
[deleted]
Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google
#10Matt if you read hackernews. This is bullshit. Spam links should count for 0 value not negative value.
While I tend agree, it sounds too obvious to be a solution. I would suggest that because Google can't detect all bad links, they want to make the ones they do detect "hurt" more. If Google simply zeroed out negative links there would be no repercussions for webmasters building massive amounts of bad links. Sort of like throwing link pasta against the wall. If you build enough crappy links, you will eventually find areas of the web Google has yet to police, therefore you're always slightly ahead.
With penalties in place, those bad links might not be worth building because the penalties will outweigh the benefits of building massive amounts of low quality bad links.