Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

searchenginewatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 172 posts

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#31

Post by ebiester »

shawnz wrote: post #15

It's not Google's job to make sure every webmaster has a "fair shot" at rankings. It's their job to make sure the best results appear when I search for something. In Google's eyes, having false negatives is worth not having false positives, and that's just the reality of the web. Besides, it seems to me that these "problems" are only really thought of as problems by the type of people who put "search engine" in the t…

The question is, of course, what are the best results when it comes to "buy viagra?"

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#32

Post by magicalist »

damoncali wrote: post #25
shawnz wrote: post #15

It's not Google's job to make sure every webmaster has a "fair shot" at rankings. It's their job to make sure the best results appear when I search for something. In Google's eyes, having false negatives is worth not having false positives, and that's just the reality of the web. Besides, it seems to me that these "problems" are only really thought of as problems by the type of people who put "search engine" in the t…

The government may some day think otherwise. Google's monopoly on search is substantial enough that they risk much by eschewing fairness in favor of quality. I would tread very lightly if I were in Google's shoes.

Good luck defining "fairness". That regulation is going to go really well.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#33

Post by nivla »

shawnz wrote: post #15

It's not Google's job to make sure every webmaster has a "fair shot" at rankings. It's their job to make sure the best results appear when I search for something. In Google's eyes, having false negatives is worth not having false positives, and that's just the reality of the web. Besides, it seems to me that these "problems" are only really thought of as problems by the type of people who put "search engine" in the t…

>It's not Google's job to make sure every webmaster has a "fair shot" at rankings.

It is as much as it is the job of Microsoft to allow you to install 3rd party browser or OS on a desktop.

When you have a monopoly in an industry, you don't get to choose favorites else it will considered an abuse of power.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#34

Post by codeulike »

larrys wrote: post #17
arbuge wrote: post #6

The 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…

"The PageRank algorithm seems broken to me." Imagine thinking that the "honor system" would actually not be gamed! Pagerank was designed a long time ago and suffers from a way of thinking that academics such as Page and Brin have. The same thing happened with email once the cat got out of the bag on that. Or on craigslist.org - Bottom line is not anticipating what would happen when widespread use of a product occurs…

Designing things that are secure and un-gameable while still usable is actually very difficult.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#35

Post by sharkweek »

shawnz wrote: post #15

It's not Google's job to make sure every webmaster has a "fair shot" at rankings. It's their job to make sure the best results appear when I search for something. In Google's eyes, having false negatives is worth not having false positives, and that's just the reality of the web. Besides, it seems to me that these "problems" are only really thought of as problems by the type of people who put "search engine" in the t…

Besides, it seems to me that these "problems" are only really thought of as problems by the type of people who put "search engine" in the title of their blog.

Or anyone who runs an online business...?

Let's say you're a small ecommerce site, your site is growing, your blog is gaining readership as it's become a great resource. One of your nasty competitors who doesn't like that your rankings are going up for all this hard work decides to hop on Fiverr and buy tons of terrible links all pointing at your site and your rankings all the sudden drastically drop because your site is now viewed as spam.

That's a very realistic concern for a lot of webmasters and small business owners (the big guys suffer a lot less from negative SEO because their link portfolio is far more balanced out). I'd much rather have Google just give a ZERO value to low quality and shady links as opposed to a negative value.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#37

Post by ScottWhigham »

Somewhat of a sidebar, but what's to prevent the following:

1) You buy 1000 links for $5 [1]

2) You enjoy a brief rise in the rankings

3) Google catches on and penalizes you

4) You use the link disavow tool to effectively say, "We didn't do it! A competitor did it to us!"

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5813496

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#38

Post by benbeltran »

pfortuny wrote: post #29
benbeltran wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - (attributed to John Maynard Kaynes) The algorithm has changed. The web has changed. Naturally, google has changed.

It is not a problem of a change in reality. It is a problem of wrong statements: 'It is impossible' is certainly false on the internet for almost anything you can think. 'It is very difficult': See the sysjail fiasco [1]. Once something is deemed possible, it is not very difficult, on computer systems. So, it is not the facts that have changed, it is their perception by Google. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sysjai…

Or, the ranking algorithm was previously designed for this not to have an impact, and as real-world usage showed abuse, they changed it. Repeat this cycle until now. So the techniques to game the algorithm changed, hence the algorithm changed, hence the stance changed... Constantly, we don't live in a static web.

(EDIT: Also of note is the fact that this change was from a year ago, and the previous one was in 2003 ... So. Yeah)

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#39

Post by slig »

In the Google Webmaster's tools it's possible to download a list of all the new links that are linking to your site.

Using this tool I've been able to discover that someone has started to buy spammy links in wordpress comments linking to my website. Those wordpress blogs are full of spam, so I want to believe that Google is already ignoring everything there.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#40

Post by trevin »

skyraider wrote: post #12

Does anyone know if it's always the case that you can find spammy links to your site by using Google (e.g. link:mysite.com)? My link count in webmaster tools is an order of magnitude higher than the inbound links that I can find by using the search engine.

Google's WT index seems to provide a fair amount of the links. There are a few 3rd party tools that do a really good job of indexing nearly all of the backlinks to your site:

http://www.opensiteexplorer.org http://www.ahrefs.com http://www.majesticseo.com

Post reply on HN