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

161–170 of 172 posts

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#161

Post by snowwrestler »

jacquesm wrote: post #132
mattezell wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I got you... So you were stating your personal opinion on back-links, rather than stating a factual observation about organic back-links being similar to unicorns... You're stance definitely makes more sense as an opinion - unlike factual statements, opinions afford space for both fact and fallacy (i.e. "it is either organic or you're building links.")... When stating things in a matter of fact manner ("...There…

The confusion is in your head, but I doubt I'm going to dispel it. Google managed to improve over altavista because it used something that wasn't abused by spammers yet: links. As soon as spammers (like you) realized that they could game the system once again and reduce search to a game of who most effectively manages to spoil the soup by introducing untold billions of meaningless backlinks into the game page-rank's…

Links that represent real-world relationships are not meaningless, because a human being decided to create them. Those are exactly the sort of real-world "votes" that Page Rank is supposed to key off of.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#162

Post by mattezell »

jacquesm wrote: post #158
mattezell wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow... Just wow... Clearly you, my friend, are a very special individual... Let us just go ahead and reiterate this for the readers: Jacques incorrectly attempted to correct the usage of a commonly used phase and when confronted with this reality, he/she/it has derailed the discussion in an effort to assert it is about something that it was never intended to be about... Bad form and not constructive, mate. So, now on…

Interesting. Look, if you're not into spamming stop using terms like 'organic link building' as though they are somehow normal use of the words. To me organic link building is a thing only an SEO 'expert' would use as though those things have a normal meaning. People that are just focusing on the content of their website and that are being run into the ground by the SEO crowd with joe jobs and other nasties are defin…

Ohhhh, ok.. I got you.. So, 'organic farmers' just happen across natural fields of tomatoes and lettuce that animals have just been politely saving their poo for?!!!? Damn, dude - I never knew!!! That's so awesome!!! Heck, I think I want to be an organic farmer now that I know they don't actually have to do anything - it being 'natural' and all... That's so awesome - I never knew that's what 'organic' and 'natural' really meant... You're just so awesome - I am serious about patenting your logic... You clearly have it all figured out, with your accusations against strangers on the Internet and all, and I'm telling you, man, "The Holey Bucket" is GOLD! Just remember us little guys...

"...stop using terms like 'organic link building'..."

Na, I think I am just going to keep on trucking and just start ignoring argumentative, condescending know-it-alls a bit better... starting with you...

Lest you get into this territory: http://goo.gl/j7f1v

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#163

Post by mattezell »

snowwrestler wrote: post #161
jacquesm wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The confusion is in your head, but I doubt I'm going to dispel it. Google managed to improve over altavista because it used something that wasn't abused by spammers yet: links. As soon as spammers (like you) realized that they could game the system once again and reduce search to a game of who most effectively manages to spoil the soup by introducing untold billions of meaningless backlinks into the game page-rank's…

Links that represent real-world relationships are not meaningless, because a human being decided to create them. Those are exactly the sort of real-world "votes" that Page Rank is supposed to key off of.

I agree fully with this sentiment - this is the very concept that was intended to be encapsulated by the phase "organic link building"...

It's valid and valuable to have these sorts of links and they are very relevant when factoring SEO weight.

If a developer writes a web application for a client, links to the client's application from his portfolio page and then the client, so happy with his product, links back to the developer.. Well, this is exactly how the world should operate... and a large part of how SEO should be factored, imho. This didn't just magically happen - the developer and the client both had a role in the creation of these links, which will factor into their ranking... And while people 'had their hand in this creation' and despite the fact that this 'benefits' both parties, I consider this 'organic link building'...

But then again, it would appear that I am clearly spammer as has been demonstrated by the indisputable evidence presented in this thread and so am likely not to be trusted...

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#164

Post by jiggy2011 »

tomkarlo wrote: post #135
jiggy2011 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a bit scary that the entire internet (and by association a huge chunk of the overall economy) is effectively beholden to a company that "doesn't owe anybody anything"? I mean we wouldn't tolerate an energy supplier disconnected arbitrary supplies because they didn't feel like selling there any more.

In the case of subsidized, "merchant" (free-market, privately financed) energy suppliers, they do in fact disconnect when they don't feel like selling. If you have a gas-powered merchant plant, and the spark spread isn't good, you turn it off until energy prices rise again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_spread

Yes, but I mean they don't just come and disconnect your premesis.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#165

Post by jiggy2011 »

Silhouette wrote: post #156
jiggy2011 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a bit scary that the entire internet (and by association a huge chunk of the overall economy) is effectively beholden to a company that "doesn't owe anybody anything"? I mean we wouldn't tolerate an energy supplier disconnected arbitrary supplies because they didn't feel like selling there any more.

It is scary, in that you have a near-monopoly, operating in a market that affects almost everyone who goes on-line to some degree, without much regulation. Having said that, it's important to remember that without a site like Google, many of these small businesses wouldn't exist in the first place. For all the criticism, having a search engine that does a good if imperfect job is almost certainly a big net win for so…

Not sure how many wouldn't exist, many were doing mail order back in the day. But now they are forced online if they want to remain in the game.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#166

Post by [deleted] »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #151
dbarlett wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was http://trafficplanet.com/topic/2372-successful-negative-seo-... (Comment by trevin https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5701104 )

Since I've got some free time between meetings, I'll go ahead and debunk this one. http://trafficplanet.com/topic/2372-successful-negative-seo-... is a claim from April 18, 2012 that claimed that negative SEO worked on justgoodcars.com. Here's the problem with that: the site they selected was spamming, and Google had already taken action on that site. The site had been spamming for years; see e.g. http://growabrain.t…

[deleted]

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#167

Post by arbuge »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #151
dbarlett wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was http://trafficplanet.com/topic/2372-successful-negative-seo-... (Comment by trevin https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5701104 )

Since I've got some free time between meetings, I'll go ahead and debunk this one. http://trafficplanet.com/topic/2372-successful-negative-seo-... is a claim from April 18, 2012 that claimed that negative SEO worked on justgoodcars.com. Here's the problem with that: the site they selected was spamming, and Google had already taken action on that site. The site had been spamming for years; see e.g. http://growabrain.t…

Interesting back story to that one. Thanks for sharing those details.

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#168

Post by davak »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #152
TomAnthony wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matt - thanks for jumping in the comments. Can you confirm that the disavow tool is automatic? Or do people need to file a reconsideration request? Is the answer different depending on whether there is a manual penalty or an algorithmic decrease in rank/trust? I ask because you recommended it for people who are concerned about potential negative SEO, and I'm want to be clear on how that works. I think there is certai…

The disavow tool is automatic for any algorithmic rankings (such as Penguin and Panda). If you have a manual webspam action, then you should get a notice after you verify your site at google.com/webmasters . In the case of a manual webspam action, our advice is try to get any spammy links that you put on the web taken down. If there are some spammy links that you can't get taken down off the web, you can use the disa…

Matt -

I've never received a notice of bad or spammy links. Am I correct in assuming that there would be no gain in gambling with the disavow tool?

Re: Negative SEO: Looking for Answers from Google

#169

Post by flaktrak »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #123

Note: this article is over a year old. The article makes it sound as if this is some new pronouncement, but it's really not. I've been using the language mentioned in this article since 2010, at least: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/calling-for-link-spam-reports/... where I said "we’ve said in the past that we work very hard to prevent competitor A from hurting competitor B." The change on the official guidelines come…

Matt aren't you getting sick of having to constantly defend the actions of your employer? You seem like a positive guy but it must be getting even you down.
Post reply on HN