Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Hey Guest, Welcome to Traffic Planet!

Sign up today in order to gain access to a vast range of features including the ability to create new topics, send private messages, Facebook & Twitter integration and MUCH more!

  • RSS Feed
  • [CASE STUDY] Negative SEO


    • Please log in to reply
    146 replies to this topic

    #1 pixelgrinder

    pixelgrinder

      Advanced Member

    • Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 73
    • Joined: 30-January 12
      Reputation: 23

    Posted 18 March 2012 - 11:15 PM

    I will be targeting an online store that is owned by a large online ecommerce conglomerate. I do not have a vested interest in this niche.

    My plan is as follows:

    1. Mass blog comments - I will begin by blasting this site with a single anchor text on millions of autoapprove blog posts.
    2. Continue comments for ~1-2 weeks
    3. If nothing occurs within 30 days, I will then switch to ALN.
    4. ALN blasts with the same anchor text
    5. Continue blast for 1-2 weeks.

    Just a note: I am very disappointed Google has forced the relevance of negative SEO. If Google wants to be aggressive and careless with their penalties, we need to show them this is easier to exploit than link building manipulation.

    #2 brandonbaker

    brandonbaker

      Advanced Member

    • Active Seller
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 612
    • Joined: 16-December 11
      Reputation: 125

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 12:47 AM

    Whether or not this case study works, you don't need to trip your competitors to win the race.

    Private Homepage Backlinks II

    10 OBL - Full Link Report - Zero Foot Print


    #3 pixelgrinder

    pixelgrinder

      Advanced Member

    • Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 73
    • Joined: 30-January 12
      Reputation: 23

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 12:56 AM

    Whether or not this case study works, you don't need to trip your competitors to win the race.


    This case study has absolutely nothing to do with 'tripping competitors'. It has everything to do with the glaringly obvious mistake of Googles recent algorithm change. If they're willing to penalize sites so easily, this is what the SEO landscape will turn into. And anyone touting the 'just focus on what youre doing' will simply lose to any disgruntled competitors.

    #4 brandonbaker

    brandonbaker

      Advanced Member

    • Active Seller
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 612
    • Joined: 16-December 11
      Reputation: 125

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 01:08 AM

    This case study has absolutely nothing to do with 'tripping competitors'. It has everything to do with the glaringly obvious mistake of Googles recent algorithm change. If they're willing to penalize sites so easily, this is what the SEO landscape will turn into. And anyone touting the 'just focus on what youre doing' will simply lose to any disgruntled competitors.


    The SEO landscape will turn to crap only if these kinds of "case studies" are seen as acceptable. There is a big difference between exploiting Google to rank your own site vs. exploiting Google to ruin the online businesses of others. People rely on their websites to pay their rent, pay their mortgages, even feed their children. Google is ruthless--no one will argue that--but should we bash them on public forums while at the same time imitating their practices in our own businesses, too?

    People spend thousands of hours developing their sites, they sometimes base their entire lives off of the earnings their sites bring them. I, for one, don't see anything creative or professional about doing so-called "negative SEO" on anyone's sites. If you're spending your professional hours trying to "prove a point" that it is possible to ruin someone else's website because of a loophole in another company's algorithm, I think it's best if you found a different profession.

    I'm acutely aware of all the "negative SEO" talk going around on forums and I know that 95% of people on these forums don't give a ***** and will applaud any effort to show that negative SEO does exist. Of course it exists. If you can negatively impact your own money site, you could obviously negative impact someone else's. It's not a secret.

    If you want to show that negative SEO exists, by God try doing it on a site that isn't monetized and doesn't pay someone's bills. Negative SEO will make SEO go from just a "questionable industry" into a complete and utter ***** show.

    Private Homepage Backlinks II

    10 OBL - Full Link Report - Zero Foot Print


    #5 Rainmak3r

    Rainmak3r

      Advanced Member

    • Advanced Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 141
    • Joined: 29-September 11
      Reputation: 24

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 01:18 AM

    Negative SEO will make SEO go from just a "questionable industry" into a complete and utter ***** show.

    I applaud your sentiments BrandonBaker, but I think the ire of the SEO community especially on TP, has already been raised.

    Most, if not all folks here rely on SEO for their livelihood.

    Regardless of the shortcomings of PixelGrinder's experiment, I think, IMO, a revolution is fought by bringing the attention of people in power to a just cause.

    Having lived in a 3rd World country, I've seen the effects of a revolution; many die for the "just cause" and even innocent bystanders (aka the ecommerce site which is the target of this experiment) get hurt, all in the name of proving a point.

    I personally don't approve of any sorts of experiments against competitor sites (hear that Matt?) nor do I claim to understand, but as an observer, I empathize with both myself and all those losing rank as a result of an algorithm...

    I'll stop there.

    #6 brandonbaker

    brandonbaker

      Advanced Member

    • Active Seller
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 612
    • Joined: 16-December 11
      Reputation: 125

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 01:24 AM

    but as an observer, I empathize with both myself and all those losing rank as a result of an algorithm...


    I empathize, too, because I was one of them. My own SEO company's site was at one point #10 for the phrase "SEO Company" nationwide and it was slapped into nothingness, never again to return. I put my heart and soul into that site, and it was penalized and the site that replaced mine had an equally spammy backlink profile.

    But I won't mimic the unjust actions of another company in my own business. Study, learn, adjust, Study, learn, adjust. Don't cry and run around saying, "Hey, look! I can do the same to other sites, too!" As if this was some kind of revelation.

    I'm out of this thread. I hope the OP gets what he wanted, whatever that is.

    Edited by brandonbaker, 19 March 2012 - 01:25 AM.

    Private Homepage Backlinks II

    10 OBL - Full Link Report - Zero Foot Print


    #7 pixelgrinder

    pixelgrinder

      Advanced Member

    • Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 73
    • Joined: 30-January 12
      Reputation: 23

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 03:31 AM

    The SEO landscape will turn to crap only if these kinds of "case studies" are seen as acceptable. There is a big difference between exploiting Google to rank your own site vs. exploiting Google to ruin the online businesses of others. People rely on their websites to pay their rent, pay their mortgages, even feed their children. Google is ruthless--no one will argue that--but should we bash them on public forums while at the same time imitating their practices in our own businesses, too?

    People spend thousands of hours developing their sites, they sometimes base their entire lives off of the earnings their sites bring them. I, for one, don't see anything creative or professional about doing so-called "negative SEO" on anyone's sites. If you're spending your professional hours trying to "prove a point" that it is possible to ruin someone else's website because of a loophole in another company's algorithm, I think it's best if you found a different profession.

    I'm acutely aware of all the "negative SEO" talk going around on forums and I know that 95% of people on these forums don't give a ***** and will applaud any effort to show that negative SEO does exist. Of course it exists. If you can negatively impact your own money site, you could obviously negative impact someone else's. It's not a secret.

    If you want to show that negative SEO exists, by God try doing it on a site that isn't monetized and doesn't pay someone's bills. Negative SEO will make SEO go from just a "questionable industry" into a complete and utter ***** show.


    What a naive attitude. People like you who sit idly and simply accept what is given to them are whats wrong with this industry. If you haven't noticed, Google won't do anything unless it becomes problematic. Unless the industry significantly shifts towards taking action instead of simply accepting the current changes, no one will be safe.

    Your whole backwards, nonsensical, emotionally charged diatribe about people building sites and having them destroyed is exactly what Im trying to prevent - your inaction is only contributing to the problem. Do you really think that everyone shares the same morals and views? There are people in this industry that will do absolutely anything in their power to outrank their competition. You're delusional to think they won't burn anyone and everyone they can to get ahead.

    Its case studies like these that hopefully contribute to future changes. The only way we will ever see change is to make it extremely evident the short comings of these algorithm changes.

    And if you noticed, this case study is focused on a site that is owned by a company that has hundreds of ecommerce websites (noticed I said conglomerate). This will not destroy some ones life or cause them to be unable to feed their kids. And even if it were the case, if you completely rely on business from organic search you better know the risks and not be financially dependent on it.

    #8 JSP

    JSP

      Advanced Member

    • Senior Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 690
    • Joined: 27-September 11
      Reputation: 69
    • LocationAZ

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 03:34 AM

    Regardless of the ethics, it's going to be a great case study to follow.

    Looking forward to it.

    1,000+ NICHE-RELATED BLOG COMMENTING SOURCES

     

    100% Niche-Related / 100% Open For Comments / 100% Free of Spam


    #9 pixelgrinder

    pixelgrinder

      Advanced Member

    • Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 73
    • Joined: 30-January 12
      Reputation: 23

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 03:34 AM

    I applaud your sentiments BrandonBaker, but I think the ire of the SEO community especially on TP, has already been raised.

    Most, if not all folks here rely on SEO for their livelihood.

    Regardless of the shortcomings of PixelGrinder's experiment, I think, IMO, a revolution is fought by bringing the attention of people in power to a just cause.

    Having lived in a 3rd World country, I've seen the effects of a revolution; many die for the "just cause" and even innocent bystanders (aka the ecommerce site which is the target of this experiment) get hurt, all in the name of proving a point.

    I personally don't approve of any sorts of experiments against competitor sites (hear that Matt?) nor do I claim to understand, but as an observer, I empathize with both myself and all those losing rank as a result of an algorithm...

    I'll stop there.


    Absolutely, 100% correct. Im glad some one understands the importance of this.

    In a perfect world, you should never be able to negatively influence competitors websites. I would HATE to see the industry turn into an all out brawl.

    #10 heyman

    heyman

      Advanced Member

    • Advanced Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 137
    • Joined: 27-September 11
      Reputation: 21

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 03:50 AM

    I'm okay with this as long as you're hitting an online store that isn't a mom-n-pop operation.

    #11 liquidone

    liquidone

      Advanced Member

    • Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 84
    • Joined: 01-October 11
      Reputation: 12

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 06:02 AM

    Now that Google has admited they read this forum I say bring on more of these negative SEO case study's. They need to see the unintended consequences of their actions and the monster that's it creating.

    Essentially they are starting to shut out the little guy from the SERPs. It's sad to see it go this way as the internet is one of the last bastions of entrpreneurship left.

    All you self rightious white hats better watch out as many of us who have spent years building our online businesses are not going to sit back and take it. Long live Xrumer!

    #12 Steve Backlink Energizer

    Steve Backlink Energizer

      Advanced Member

    • Active Seller
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 522
    • Joined: 17-December 11
      Reputation: 135
    • LocationSo Cal

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 06:15 AM

    I'm okay with this as long as you're hitting an online store that isn't a mom-n-pop operation.


    Why? Theyd rat your ass to google for artifical [ unnatural ] link building in 2 freakin seconds. Theyre doing negative SEO - snitching to Matt.

    Holier than thou SE Moz and Dan Theis and his gang of thieves is doing the same ... Negative SEO ... "hey this guy isnt doing it the way WE feel it should be... lets rat them out and ruin them financially."

    What "law" has been broken?

    Get RESULTS with Powerful S.E.O. - "Contextual Links In High PR Blog Posts" Rank Ascend Thread | RankAscend.com

    Featuring 100s of NEW High PR Blogs and Kick Ass New Back Office System To Manage Your Orders


    #13 Richar Green

    Richar Green

      Advanced Member

    • Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 119
    • Joined: 30-September 11
      Reputation: 18

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 06:17 AM

    Good case study, but don't target an innocent is all i'd say.
    Karma strikes back, always remember that. Play the game clean.

    #14 Rainmak3r

    Rainmak3r

      Advanced Member

    • Advanced Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 141
    • Joined: 29-September 11
      Reputation: 24

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 06:36 AM

    Karma strikes back, always remember that. Play the game clean.


    Speaking of which, what karmic law did the ALN or any one of us on this forum broken to earn the wrath of Google long before most of us have even ranked some sites?

    In my opinion, someone has more than enough time on their hands and is/are kowtowing to the whims of Goog to shun us. Wore to them I say!

    Edited by Rainmak3r, 19 March 2012 - 06:38 AM.


    #15 liquidone

    liquidone

      Advanced Member

    • Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 84
    • Joined: 01-October 11
      Reputation: 12

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 06:49 AM

    Good case study, but don't target an innocent is all i'd say.
    Karma strikes back, always remember that. Play the game clean.


    Richard, this is Karma coming back at Google! They are destroying peoples lively hoods with these constant algo shifts, while multi-nationals like Berkshire Hathaway/Geico continue to rake it in with doing little if any SEO. As soon as a little guy gets in and starts out ranking them all hell breaks loose. I have had it, enough is enough.

    Edited by liquidone, 19 March 2012 - 06:51 AM.


    #16 Richar Green

    Richar Green

      Advanced Member

    • Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 119
    • Joined: 30-September 11
      Reputation: 18

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 07:07 AM

    Richard, this is Karma coming back at Google! They are destroying peoples lively hoods with these constant algo shifts, while multi-nationals like Berkshire Hathaway/Geico continue to rake it in with doing little if any SEO. As soon as a little guy gets in and starts out ranking them all hell breaks loose. I have had it, enough is enough.


    I was talking about some random innocent guy's site, not about Google.
    Google can rot in bloody hell, and kiss the most fugliest part of my a$$ for their arrogant attitude towards us.
    Yes, they have destroyed my life too, but i was just talking about the experiment OP is going to do with random site.
    What if that experimental site is your money site @ liquidone? Ouch! That's what i was talking about. For Google? Bah, i give a damn!

    #17 RealEcon

    RealEcon

      Advanced Member

    • Senior Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 530
    • Joined: 26-October 11
      Reputation: 100

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 08:06 AM

    This is what "a certain internet marketer" was getting at in his little video he made a couple months ago.

    That the Web is dying, in its current form. It is consolidating quickly the same as Walmart did after they crushed the Mom and Pops.

    The economy of the world is de-leveraging (becoming smaller) and there is less money to go around. It doesnt matter what you do at this point in the game, unless you get a fundamentally new way of thinking about the Web and making money, your just a Mom and Pop and Google is the Walmart proxy that is going to help the big online box stores take your market share and crush you.

    Wake up, and stop wasting time with a dying way of doing business.

    Find a new innovative way to succeed online. ;)

    Edited by RealEcon, 19 March 2012 - 10:31 AM.


    #18 NightWolf

    NightWolf

      Advanced Member

    • New Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 49
    • Joined: 28-September 11
      Reputation: 2

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 08:51 AM

    I will be targeting an online store that is owned by a large online ecommerce conglomerate. I do not have a vested interest in this niche. My plan is as follows: 1. Mass blog comments - I will begin by blasting this site with a single anchor text on millions of autoapprove blog posts. 2. Continue comments for ~1-2 weeks 3. If nothing occurs within 30 days, I will then switch to ALN. 4. ALN blasts with the same anchor text 5. Continue blast for 1-2 weeks. Just a note: I am very disappointed Google has forced the relevance of negative SEO. If Google wants to be aggressive and careless with their penalties, we need to show them this is easier to exploit than link building manipulation.


    no profile link blasts?

    #19 pixelgrinder

    pixelgrinder

      Advanced Member

    • Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 73
    • Joined: 30-January 12
      Reputation: 23

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 09:03 AM

    This is what internet shiester was getting at in his little video he made a couple months ago.

    The Web is dying, in its current form. It is consolidating quickly the same as Walmart did after they crushed the Mom and Pops.

    The economy of the world is de-leveraging (becoming smaller) and there is less money to go around. It doesnt matter what you do at this point in the game, unless you get a fundamentally new way of thinking about the Web and making money, your just a Mom and Pop and Google is the Walmart proxy that is going to help the big online box stores take your market share and crush you.

    Wake up, and stop wasting time with a dying way of doing business.

    Find a new innovative way to succeed online. ;)


    Keep this crap OUT OF MY THREAD. I don't want to buy anything from him or any internet marketing 'guru'. Sling this garbage on other forums

    #20 pixelgrinder

    pixelgrinder

      Advanced Member

    • Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 73
    • Joined: 30-January 12
      Reputation: 23

    Posted 19 March 2012 - 09:03 AM

    no profile link blasts?


    I don't even think we will make it to profile blasts to be honest. If the site survives, we will smash it with some profiles as well.





    Similar Topics Collapse

    0 user(s) are reading this topic

    0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users