Live data from Hacker News

Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

searchenginewatch.com

101–110 of 172 posts

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#101
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their job is to show the best results for a given search query. If my website is the best but it doesn't appear at the top because a competitor has attacked it, Google isn't doing its job.

> Their job is to show the best results for a given search query. No. Google is not there to help you, me or anyone find better cat pictures. It is not a charity. Google's job is to make money. It makes money primarily by selling ads. It can sell ads better if it can target people better so they provide free email and then also parse all the email contents. Ads show up in search and by providing good search results t…

> but I don't see at all how this their "job".

You are ignoring Google's customers, those of us paying for advertising. If Google's content (it's search results) goes south, then the value in advertising goes down.

This is how advertising works. People don't go to Google to see advertising. They go to find things. I pay to appear when the best the web has to offer isn't good enough. It also works wonders when someone is searching for something because they trust google's content, and is actually looking to buy, so they specifically look at the advertisements knowing these are places they can pay for a service.

And yes, I'm giving money to Google, essentially hiring them to provide that service. And that service is not merely to show advertisements, but rather to show advertisements beside excellent search results. The same way the rest of advertisement works in every other medium. I pay for advertising on radio at certain times because of the reach, and this reach is based not on advertising, but on the quality. So I have a direct monetary incentive to ensure the quality of the content my advertising surrounds.

Of course, that also means Google has a directly responsibility to ensure the quality of the search as well, because that's what they are selling to me.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#102

The solution here is dead simple. Shitty links should have no SEO value, rather than a negative value. That eliminates the problem of people using bad links to hurt their competition.

But it also means there's nothing to lose and everything to gain by buying links for your own domain. Which would probably make the practice much more widespread.

Initially it would. If Google is any good at scoring links webmasters would quickly figure out the non-benefit and would stop.

And Google could feel free to be overly harsh in making links neutral in value. Better to miss to the middle, than to miss to the negative and punish good sites being bombed with spam links by competitors.

Aka first do no harm.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#103
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense; that is Google's one and only job. My parents run a small e-commerce business that has supported them for years; a team of a dozen people run everything from the little website to the shipping. All of their sales come from (mostly accidental) SEO and Amazon. The scary reality is that right now that entire operation could be destroyed by a competitor in a couple minutes if they knew how. It's not hard to fin…

> Nonsense; that is Google's one and only job. Why? You're not paying them to list your website. Meanwhile I am paying them, in ad impressions, to look at your listing. If you want reliable returns, buy an ad instead. EDIT: What I am trying to say is, it doesn't matter to me if I see "Jack's Pastries" or "Jill's Pastries" in my search results. Your livelihood is not Google's responsibility, unless you buy ad space fr…

If you buy ad space, the quality of the content does matter. No one buys ad space devoid of content of some sort. Good content does more than attract eyes, but advertising next to good content elevates the advertised product. People associate it with the quality of the content.

So no, Google has ever incentive to provide high-quality content precisely because paying customers are being sold on that as a major part of advertising with Google.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#104
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, last week. So it really is news. That's when their help page went from saying, "There's almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index." to "Google works hard to prevent other webmasters from being able to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index." In other words from saying, "Don't worry about it" to "We're on it".

No, go read the comments. The first change was made 10 years ago; the change you're referring to apparently happened sometime between March and April 2012[1]. Moreover, there's absolutely no information about how you could penalize someone's site. The article's speculation is exactly that. Honestly, if it were as easy as buying a bunch of spam links to a site for $20 and get them penalized or delisted, there would ha…

Oops, I was believing what the article said. You're right, the comments are worth reading in this case.

That said, I have not experimented either way. But I've known enough people who accidentally hurt their own ratings that I don't see why it wouldn't be easy to hurt someone else's.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#105
post #100
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google gives instruction on how to do it in bulk [0]. You can: - Download your links from webmaster tools. - Edit the file so it contains just the undesirable links. - Use the disavow tool [1] to upload the file. (If your livelihood depends a lot on organic traffic, that is one scary red button. The wording on the page coupled with the button text makes it sound like you will disavow all the links to your website.) […

Not really a "bulk" solution at all...

"- Edit the file so it contains just the undesirable links."

That's the part where intensive manual labor comes in, weeding through those links one by one.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"...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..." I saw this very thing happen in real life, actually... though it wasn't a competitor... A well meaning team member on a project which I was previously affiliated with decided "Hey, I know how we can get this project some exposure! FIVERR!"... Yes, I k…

> weeks of organic link building

There is no such thing as organic link building. It is either organic or you're building links.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#109
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, last week. So it really is news. That's when their help page went from saying, "There's almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index." to "Google works hard to prevent other webmasters from being able to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index." In other words from saying, "Don't worry about it" to "We're on it".

No, go read the comments. The first change was made 10 years ago; the change you're referring to apparently happened sometime between March and April 2012[1]. Moreover, there's absolutely no information about how you could penalize someone's site. The article's speculation is exactly that. Honestly, if it were as easy as buying a bunch of spam links to a site for $20 and get them penalized or delisted, there would ha…

Somebody posted a link to a detailed expose' on HN a few weeks ago detailing a successful negative SEO campaign to destroy a competing car dealer's rankings. I'll see if I can dig it up, but this kind of stuff is definitely going on - and people are specifically being paid to do it.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#110
post #83
post #3

Matt if you read hackernews. This is bullshit. Spam links should count for 0 value not negative value.

That's idiotic. If spam links counted for 0 (when caught) there would be no disincentive for everyone to use them. The appropriate way is for them to count negative but have some way of legitimate sites disavowing them at some kind of time or effort cost (oh wait, that's what the system currently is). If you have a better system let's hear it.

There's a huge number of replicated Chinese spam sites (xyz123.com, xyz456.com, mob123.com) that link to my site. I don't know why or when they started linking to my site, but I know that i didn't have anything to do with it. Your position seems to be that it's legitimate that I'm penalized for this. It's hard not to take this issue personally. It's like being falsely accused of a crime and having to pay a fine.
Post reply on HN