Can I get harmed by an inlink?
-
I can see the logic in that so I'm going to believe you. Thanks for the good answer
-
If someone reports the site that sold links and the one that bought links?
In this scenario, no links are bought. I'm keeping my business out of that.
**Thanks for the good answer Garry Pickles! **
-
It is certainly possible for a site to be harmed with manipulated inbound links from bad neighborhoods. It is a trademark tactic emplyed by black hat SEOs against competitors. Granted, a handful of links wont make a difference but a concerted effort on a negative link campaign can and will get your site hammered. This is especially true in highly contested market verticals such as insurance, credit scoring, mortgage, etc.
-
As this is a tactic often used by black hat SEO, how can Google know when to penalise?
-
Hi Anthony,
Just curious how you know this? for me I've never understood or agreed with all the mentions on here ( an other sites ) about being penalized by Google. It's like SEOs are afraid to create a link on a site that other marketers use for links ( article directories etc ) for fear of being "penalized". It's crazy to think that. Worst case scenario is that they are discounted ( I think you still get a little bit of juice ), even from abused methods like blog comments or forum profiles etc.
I have a personal site that's about 3 years old and been on the 1st page of G for 2.5 years that has nothing but links from "low quality neightbourhoods"
D
-
It's not so much that it is an oft used tactic but more in how the tactic is executed. It is precise in how it is accomplished. Placing inbound links on rotten c-blocks known for spam, spam rings, or malware hosts; placing paid links (i've known folks who have gotten hammered with just 10 paid links) on well-known txt link brokers, etc. All your competitor needs to do is find a sleazy corner of the internet to target you and it can be flagged by google with astonishing speed. There are black hat forums that post this sort of targeting information.
-
Thanks anthony, It's amazing to think that it's possible to do that with companies spending so much on SEO and online reputation management.tey can then be targeted by links from known spam c blocks. It's an interesting topic that I'd love to get m,ore clarity on.
D
-
Hi Derek -
Great question and thanks for engaging. First of all, let me say clearly that I don't engage in black hat tactics. I'm Dir of Search Marketing for a lead generation company and so must protect our properties from such attacks. It can be a very dirty business.
I've had many discussions with other professionals in our field and it appears that Google's web spam team (which is quite small, relatively speaking) doesn't have the bandwidth to police all market verticals at once and they can't rely on doing this algorithmically with 100% accuracy. So there are gaps in coverage, etc. They'll generally go after verticals that have had a large number of FTC complaints, abuses, etc. A lot of dark corners such as 'payday loans' are generally left alone... do a search and look at the link graphs for the entire 1st SERP... pretty amazing stuff.
I agree with you that there is a lot of bad information put out by the woefully misinformed. You can still rank sites using inbound links from forums and low quality sites (generally in concert with manipulated anchor text) with no problems. Some neighborhoods are worse than others - I dont know your site so can't really do anything more than speculation here. The kind of attacks I am talking about are highly targeted and with a very specific goal in mind: to burn your site.
-
It is extraordinary and thankfully it's an exception not the rule. Although Google claims that it is not possible for a malicious attack of this type to be successful, I've witnessed it first hand. Also, one just needs to read through the forums to a get sense of what is possible.
Be well!
-
Sorry to butt into the conversation again though your comment;
I don't engage in black hat tactics. I'm Dir of Search Marketing for a lead generation company and so must protect our properties from such attacks.
Are you suggesting that not engaging in black hat tactics protects you from black hat attacks. A sort of Do no Evil and no Evil will be done onto you?
(I do understand that competitors in a vertical can get upset if a competitor indulges in a lot of black hat seo to leapfrog them, then a tit for tat situation can evolve and descend)
-
Thanks for that Anthony, I apprecaite your reply. I'm not a black hatter either but when I got started online I started building sites for myself and did all the usual link type stuff, articles, blog posts, comments, profiles etc ( you know the drill ), and as you mentioned I ranked these sites and they have maintained their rank.
I've since moved to doing SEO for other people so now I am much more concerend and aware of building links from these types of sites. The last thing I want to do is damage my clients site, even though I have successfully used these types of sites on my own websites.
So, as a director of search, can I ask if your you and your tem use links for web 2.0 properties/article sites etc?
D
-
No, I'm not suggesting that at all. My company chooses to build sites with longevity. However the lead gen space is rife with churn and burn operations and all the scalliwags that go with the territory. We have indeed lost sites to pirates but we've rehabilitated sites too.
A lot of groups get into the tit-for-tat snitching on each other that ends up hurting all parties involved (in the eyes of Google)... most of our sites have enough authority, trust and age that makes it easier to fend off attacks. Developing new sites is generally a daunting task and an acquisition is usually a smarter move that starting from scratch.
-
Are you asking if we use content from article sites, etc? I'll try to answer as best I can but fel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted your question.
We have sites that use syndicated content but I am moving all new properties away from this practice and developing 100% original copy, etc in light of recent Panda updates.
-
Yes just looking at an email in webmaster tools right now
Dear site owner or webmaster of ....
We detected that some of your site's pages may be using techniques that are outside Google's Webmaster Guidelines.
Specifically, look for possibly artificial or unnatural links pointing to your site that could be intended to manipulate PageRank. Examples of unnatural linking could include buying links to pass PageRank or participating in link schemes.We encourage you to make changes to your site so that it meets our quality guidelines. Once you've made these changes, please submit your site for reconsideration in Google's search results.
If you find unnatural links to your site that you are unable to control or remove, please provide the details in your reconsideration request.
If you have any questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support.Sincerely,
Google Search Quality Team -
whoa, your title is so long it broke the layout. lol.
-
Hi Derek,
I deal with a site which has a lot of low quality links. The owner decided it is a good idea at some point and got a bunch of links despite their quality. What I notice is that this works while the site is still small. Correct me if I'm wrong on this one. Not all sites are treated the same way and it definitely depends on the local Google version we are using. You will be surprised what still works on Google.bg. Things that would never get a site off the ground on google.com or google.co.uk.
Regards,
Svet
-
Question number 1: No
There is a good rule of thumb:
If a competitor can do it to you then it is not harmful to you.
Here is why: There are many sketchy places you could get links to a competitor which would then give you control over their reputation without their say.
Question number 2: Also no but sometimes yes! (read below)
This one is a little different. Getting a link from a questionable source is not bad for you as described above, however if you reciprocally link back to that source then you may be vulnerable to being penalized by google if the site linking to you has been penalized. It is your responsibility to make sure you do not vote to bad neighbourhoods.
To further answer question 2, if you are reciprocally linking to a bad neighborhood and also linking out to another site your outgoing link can only be harmful if that site reciprocally links back to you.
So as long as your follow the answer above for question 1 then there will be no trouble
Hope this helps.
-
This is simply wrong. Never take what Google says at face value. Please read the following article from SEJ and then the comments from heavyweight SEOs who've been in the business for a while:
Unless your site has incredibly strong authority and trust metrics with hundreds of thousands or even millions of inbound links (like CNN, or WSJ) then it is absolutely possible for it to be harmed by a malicious link campaign with adult oriented anchor text (for example). This has been tested and proven.
-
so you are saying you could just beat all your competitors with a malicious link campaign?!
what is stopping anyone from just sabotaging any site then?
the good answer chosen for this is the same as mine and thumbed up a few times:
"
Short answer is no. It would be all to easy for black hat SEO's to knock down the competition by setting up links like these to competators. Google wouldn't allow such activity as it would make their SERPs all to easily gamed.
I wouldn't worry about it. Just keep link building high quality links from trusted sites and you should be totally fine."
I would be interested to learn more about this as the info in those posts is kind of limited.
JC Penny happened to lose out on a lot of its traffic because it lost links that used to be valuable after having been found out that the links they had acquired broke the rules.
Google is far to easy to game if a malicious campaign really could hurt current results though it would make sense to me if malicious links seemed to provide a boost which was then lost after the links are determined to be malicious.
I don't think my comment deserves a thumbs down when the good answer chosen is the same, I thumbed yours up for adding valuable points to my comment though
-
If you read the entire thread (from the aforementioned article) and know which voices to trust then you'll have a better sense of what is good info and what is bad info. Jason Lancaster, the writer of that story, made bad assumptions w/o any support. I dare say he's a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Unfortunately, there are too many misinformed 'experts' that either want the attention or lack the experience or both. The 'good answer' above was chosen well before an actual discussion thread had time to materialize.
If you read previous comments in this thread you will see that my answer is nuanced and qualified in meaningful ways. My response also has a staff endorsement (I mean, if we're putting our endorsement phalluses on the table
Also, just reading something doesn't make it true. You have to test. Then test again. This is only way to gain meaningful and actionable knowledge.Be well my friend.
-
05172
-
02106
-
05108
-
08112
-
07172
-
0281
-
15374
-
05333