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

Negative SEO Does Exist

webmarketingschool.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 228 posts

Re: Negative SEO Does Exist

#181

Post by squeaky-clean »

Isofarro wrote: post #84
squeaky-clean wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you're saying the benefits of the new spam detection outweigh the negatives. I disagree. With the old system, a site could be scummy, and spammy, and get themselves to the top of Google by using questionable practices. This is still possible today (though only slightly more difficult than it was before), but it also gives a website the power to destroy a completely unrelated website's ranking. In attemptin…

"One I feel has the potential to be even worse than spamming and link boosting." In the short term, maybe. In the long term, no. How many times can this weapon be used before it leaves a nice juicy fingerprint, or sources of negative links become over saturated. This negative-SEO feels very much like bottom-feeding. Last scrabbling for tiny chunks of change, or an explosion of self-entitled anger, we just need to wai…

>How many times can this weapon be used before it leaves a nice juicy fingerprint, or sources of negative links become over saturated.

How many times can spamming and link boosting be uses before it leaves a finger-print, or the spam just gets over-saturated? Apparently infinite. If they haven't fixed positive SEO (and with these new updates spamming is still as effective as ever), I don't think they can add an entire new world of negative SEO and expect it to just work smoothly over time.

It hasn't stopped SEO from being a thing. We don't have a problem and solution now. We just have two problems. This one is definitely worse, because Google has now given other websites the ability to destroy your rankings. That just doesn't make sense.

Re: Negative SEO Does Exist

#182

Post by jacquesm »

graeme wrote: post #179
jacquesm wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting use case where search traffic and blog posts are an essential complement. Thank you for pointing that out.

There are plenty of other use cases. Tech is a bit unusual in that: * People stay in it permanently * People link to others freely * People have many non-commercial posts Many other niches are temporary. For example, I work in LSAT prep. The LSAT is an exam north Americans have to take before entering law school. For 3-6 months, people are extremely interested in the LSAT, then they forget about it. There is a consta…

So you as a user were well served in your searches. That's the bit that google cares about most I would assume. Whether or not you went to 'bible design blog', 'design bible blog', 'bible typography.info' and whoever else they compete with (I just made those up) is of secondary importance.

The problem sits there where you would not find good content to serve your needs. And if you feel that this update impacts that goal in a negative way then I think there is a good case to be made for this being a net negative. I see no evidence of that for now though.

Re: Negative SEO Does Exist

#183

Post by jacquesm »

rfergie wrote: post #178
jacquesm wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ask the business owners of X and Y which business is the better one then I'm sure that you'll get two different answers. I don't think it is so hard to see that value creation is something that can't exist without creation . So when you take a set of low value inputs and you combine them (say, raw materials + energy + labour) and you then get something that you can sell for more than the inputs were worth then…

Ok, let me be less vague: If business X is 5% cheaper than business Y then value for the customer is created if they go to business X rather than Y. In your example, no value is created at all if the product never sells no matter how good it might be in theory

Ok, Let me be more explicit:

Typically marketing is used to put more expensive inferior products in the hands of more people rather than cheaper, higher quality products in the hands of more people.

So in that example value is destroyed, which is a ton easier (and much more likely) as a result of marketing than creating value (even if it is possible it likely is not going to happen, those that engage in marketing are rarely philanthropists).

Re: Negative SEO Does Exist

#184

Post by jshen »

jacquesm wrote: post #158
jshen wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really shocked by your naive arrogance in this thread. You can't see beyond your own niche and use case. There is an enormous space of good content where the best method of finding that content is searching the internet, not having a previous relationship with a client/customer. In an earlier comment I gave one of many examples, medical conditions that people don't care about until they get it, and at that point…

The problem here is not that 'good content' is not going to be found, it seems to be that in spaces where there is a ton of competition that the competitors are all in some kind of state where they all feel they and they alone have a right to be the ones to engage with the searchers on topic 'x'. I highly doubt that in the use-case that you envision (which is indeed not one that I had in mind when reading the comment…

"you'll find that your information gets drowned out by content that has been SEO'd to the hilt. But even if that were the case I'd blame the SEO guys, not the search engine."

Maybe, but the part that bothers me is that if you listen to Matt Cutt's he basically says that you should make good content, make a good user experience, build a relationship with your audience, and not think about SEO explicitly. This isn't true for large swathes of content types.

"The fact that google is a monopoly is our collective problem, not google's, it's only a monopoly because we let them"

This is like saying that we don't need antitrust laws because it's our own fault if we allow them to become a monopoly or get into some other situation where fair competition isn't possible.

"The thing that could happen in your use-case is that someone would end up finding their information somewhere else or that they would engage with someone else. The only case where there would be a loss to them (your hypothetical visitor) is if they would not engage with anybody at all"

No, there is a loss if the only content they find at the top of google is demand media style content with no good information but that is SEO'd to the hilt, and people with good and real content can't outrank them.

"Demanding they do better is tantamount to dictating that an advance in technology be made, maybe the problem is harder than it seems?"

I mostly agree, but I think this is a bit too simplistic. I worked on search engines for years and fully understand how hard this problem is. I don't know the answer to this problem, but I see a clear problem or problems. One of which is Google's PR which says "hey, just make a good site with good content and the rest will take care of itself". They aren't really being honest here. For years they dodged the question of negative SEO.

Re: Negative SEO Does Exist

#185

Post by jacquesm »

rasz_pl wrote: post #173
tomp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This update doesn't change anything, really, it just reverses the effect; before, you were paying SEO black-hats to create links to your site, which should result in elevating your search rank, but now, you will be paying SEO black-hats to create links to competitors' sites, sinking them in the search results, and relatively elevating your search rank. The only thing search engines can do to stop SEO spam is to avoid…

Google, lets stop pretending we are talking about any other search engines, will learn in time to identify and penalize source of spammy links instead of recipients. Webmasters should be responsible only for the content they have control over.

The disavow tool is a step in that direction. But frankly, I suspect the only people that are using it are the blackhat SEOs and their customers trying to undo the damage hey caused, the rest of the world does not even realize it exists.

Re: Negative SEO Does Exist

#186

Post by normloman »

adventured wrote: post #128
normloman wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Negative SEO is part of the toolkit of any competent SEO professional nowadays." Yes, because sabotaging your competitors with shady spamdexing practices fits most people's definition of "professional."

Morally it's absolutely no different than Apple running PC guy ads targeting Microsoft, Windows, and PC makers in general. It was a negative campaign meant to harm the competition by making fun of it.

No it's totally different. Apple ran ads against Microsoft. They didn't prevent people from finding Microsoft's site on a search engine.

Re: Negative SEO Does Exist

#187

Post by jacquesm »

jshen wrote: post #184
jacquesm wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is not that 'good content' is not going to be found, it seems to be that in spaces where there is a ton of competition that the competitors are all in some kind of state where they all feel they and they alone have a right to be the ones to engage with the searchers on topic 'x'. I highly doubt that in the use-case that you envision (which is indeed not one that I had in mind when reading the comment…

"you'll find that your information gets drowned out by content that has been SEO'd to the hilt. But even if that were the case I'd blame the SEO guys, not the search engine." Maybe, but the part that bothers me is that if you listen to Matt Cutt's he basically says that you should make good content, make a good user experience, build a relationship with your audience, and not think about SEO explicitly. This isn't tr…

> Maybe, but the part that bothers me is that if you listen to Matt Cutt's he basically says that you should make good content, make a good user experience, build a relationship with your audience, and not think about SEO explicitly. This isn't true for large swathes of content types.

I'd go one step further and I'd say: stop making sites that only exist by the grace of search engines. Not that anybody will listen to that because after all it is easy money but it is very unwise from a business perspective. Do you see Apple spend time on checking their 'link profile' (new term I learned today)?

> This is like saying that we don't need antitrust laws because it's our own fault if we allow them to become a monopoly or get into some other situation where fair competition isn't possible.

No, anti-trust is about anti-competitive behaviour by a monopolist (or a de-facto monopolist), it is not about forcing companies to act in the public interest. They probably should but that's a totally different problem.

So anti-trust would be google squashing duckduckgo.com through some trick using their de-facto monopoly to get rid of a nasty little upstart.

> No, there is a loss if the only content they find at the top of google is demand media style content with no good information but that is SEO'd to the hilt, and people with good and real content can't outrank them.

Yes, and that's exactly the sort of thing that google is finally addressing. I loathe demand media and all the sites operating on that principle.

> I mostly agree, but I think this is a bit too simplistic. I worked on search engines for years and fully understand how hard this problem is. I don't know the answer to this problem, but I see a clear problem or problems. One of which is Google's PR which says "hey, just make a good site with good content and the rest will take care of itself". They aren't really being honest here. For years they dodged the question of negative SEO.

We agree on that they are dodging the question of negative SEO, and it is bad they do that but I can see that Google's image will take a nosedive if they admit that the issue is beyond their technical capabilities. They're essentially lying about this, but what else is new in corporate country?

I wished someone would find a way to make a search engine that uses a completely different aspect to rank pages than the link graph (maybe back to on-page?) and that that search engine would take away 50% of googles' share. That way the SEO dudes would be in for a much harder time.

>

Re: Negative SEO Does Exist

#188

Post by Isofarro »

bjterry wrote: post #172
Isofarro wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This method works 100% of the time" How many sites did you try this on? One? In your existing setup, how many competitors could you take out now before Google notices the pattern you've adopted? Take a look at the footprint: * Site suddenly acquires a new batch of incoming links * Same site is reported for being a recipient of a paid-for links scheme * Reporter uses the email address of (your email address here) --…

You are being insufficiently creative. If there are 10 competitors in your niche (and many will have more like 100), you can do this to five of them at random and google would have no way of determining who the perpetrator was. When you report them for paid-links, you wouldn't use your real e-mail address, that doesn't make any sense. There is no way to tell self backlinks from competitor backlinks. Both are attempte…

"If there are 10 competitors in your niche (and many will have more like 100), you can do this to five of them at random and google would have no way of determining who the perpetrator was."

For a pure blackhat operation, it would simply be the newest competitor. Blackhatters rarely play the long game, they are used to burn-and-churn operations. They wouldn't have the patience to keep an unprofitable site running.

It's harder when it's a white-hat SEOer who is also comfortable wearing a blackhat-persona, they may have the patience and guile not to make it too evident. Because they know the long term payoff.

"When you report them for paid-links, you wouldn't use your real e-mail address, that doesn't make any sense."

And yet, using an email address that has zero previous visibility / fake-name generated looks suspicious too. Any thing where the sender is mostly anonymous is suspicious, particularly in answering the motive question. (Particularly silly would be using a free email provider, for example)

Again, Blackhatters aren't eager to put themselves on Google's radar, or any public spotlight. Only the naive ones use GMail / Analytics / Webmaster dashboard. They prefer operating behind the scenes and not drawing attention to themselves, because they have lots to hide.

It takes a bit of pre-planning, some good organisation, and a lot of patience to pull off a convincing online profile. Not really the hallmarks of the typical blackhatter.

Of course, if you're into identity theft, are you really willing to risk it ratting out a competitor. And you'll be in organised online crime territory

Plus the downside if the rest of the Blackhat community find out you've been snitching to Google. They may have loose morals and ethics when it comes to SEO, but they have some semblance of respect-earning.

None of this appeals to the blackhatter, seems an awfully contorted process to go through each time just to gain one ranking place (per competitor). Because it's a process that requires contacting a human at Google, it's also not something that's easily automatable or scriptable. Doesn't entirely fit the quick rinse and repeat / burn-n-churn of the typical Blackhatter.

Take out the scare-mongering of negative SEO, and examine what's left. Not much. In the wider picture, it won't even register a blip.

Now, the legal ramifications of someone being caught doing this. Motive and intent, destruction of business value, clear intent to deceive for financial gain. How many more elements are needed for this to be fraud?

Blackhatters may have loose morals or ethics, but they also know how to stay on the right side of the law. And also, not to drift too close towards the organised crime based operations.

Negative SEO won't be a regular tool for blackhat SEOers; too much risk, too much effort to pull off more than a handful of times without being spotted. Organised crime though, for extortion, most likely.

Re: Negative SEO Does Exist

#189

Post by dllthomas »

jacquesm wrote: post #187
jshen wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"you'll find that your information gets drowned out by content that has been SEO'd to the hilt. But even if that were the case I'd blame the SEO guys, not the search engine." Maybe, but the part that bothers me is that if you listen to Matt Cutt's he basically says that you should make good content, make a good user experience, build a relationship with your audience, and not think about SEO explicitly. This isn't tr…

> Maybe, but the part that bothers me is that if you listen to Matt Cutt's he basically says that you should make good content, make a good user experience, build a relationship with your audience, and not think about SEO explicitly. This isn't true for large swathes of content types. I'd go one step further and I'd say: stop making sites that only exist by the grace of search engines. Not that anybody will listen to…

"Do you see Apple spend time on checking their 'link profile' (new term I learned today)?"

Honestly, I'd be a little surprised if they didn't.

Re: Negative SEO Does Exist

#190

Post by walshemj »

jacquesm wrote: post #2

I'm so happy google did this. For one tiny span of time the SEO world is given a taste of its own medicine. Let me explain: When I crawled geocities and re-hosted it under reocities.com I was trying to achieve something positive. I did not realize how infested geocities had become with spammers, linkfarms and other trash. Probably at least a few million of the accounts were either compromised or somehow tricked into…

Your scraping geocities for MFA and your trashing SEOs :-) a good example Cognitive dissonance -you certainty have a lot of Chutzpah.

golf clap

Post reply on HN