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
  • Successful Negative SEO Case Study


    • This topic is locked This topic is locked
    179 replies to this topic

    #61 boxoun

    boxoun

      Advanced Member

    • Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 93
    • Joined: 23-March 12
      Reputation: 3

    Posted 19 April 2012 - 10:08 PM

    The problem with your logic is that I can replace your words with negative seo and it makes same point. Who cares if he points backlinks at a competitor he didn't sign no contract and its not against the law!

    #62 negativeseo

    negativeseo

      Advanced Member

    • Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 68
    • Joined: 18-April 12
      Reputation: 28

    Posted 19 April 2012 - 10:23 PM

    Well said people, not against the law.

    The real point is Googles does not care, if they did they would emply REAL people in Google Help Forums, hundreds of them. With training and manners. They would evaluate each concern asking them for contact details to verify their legitimacy so they are liable. This was legitimate businesses (and non profit/social/etc..) have a place to go to where they can get actual help! Not abuse. If google wants the best results but its kicks a site for bad practice, is that the best result? BMW got done for interlinking sites. Would the best course of action have been to send them a warning that they must respond too. Removing BMW from Google results is crazy, where did their search results go to instead? Its stupid.

    When people have to own up to somthing and be a real person over the phone or in some way that makes sure that Google can verfiy them it rules out a hell of alot of spammers and scammers. Blekko made a great statement on a video satying that its easier to list the Legitmate sites than ban the spam ones!

    #63 neil_patmore

    neil_patmore

      Advanced Member

    • Advanced Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 204
    • Joined: 29-December 11
      Reputation: 37
    • LocationUK

    Posted 19 April 2012 - 10:34 PM

    Who cares if he points backlinks at a competitor he didn't sign no contract and its not against the law!

    It's not against the law to swing a cricket bat. But you can do alot of harm if the intent is there.

    #64 brandonbaker

    brandonbaker

      Advanced Member

    • Active Seller
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 630
    • Joined: 16-December 11
      Reputation: 128

    Posted 19 April 2012 - 10:50 PM

    The problem with your logic is that I can replace your words with negative seo and it makes same point. Who cares if he points backlinks at a competitor he didn't sign no contract and its not against the law!


    I never claimed either one was illegal; I claimed that one of them was shady and unethical while the other one was just good business sense. There's a difference between stealing a man's paycheck and beating someone at a job interview.

    Anyway, we'll agree to disagree on this one. Still can't understand why you spend time on this forum if you think link building is unethical. There are plenty of other lines of work...

    Edited by brandonbaker, 19 April 2012 - 10:51 PM.


    #65 GodMode

    GodMode

      Advanced Member

    • New Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 117
    • Joined: 13-April 12
      Reputation: 14
    • LocationFirst Page

    Posted 19 April 2012 - 11:03 PM

    We are arguing too much about nothing. The point is , if google allow this, user experience is going to be even worse than before. Try to think about it, every kid will spam the hell out of their competitors site and this will ruin everyting more than black hat spam . This is not in their interests and honestly I'm pretty sure they will work out to fix this asap. Well at least that's what I hope, I doubt that they wonna put down search quality level close to bing & co
    Offering guaranteed ranking service , because I'm cool. [Penalized sites: X - Low quality sites: X] Check out my last rankings '-')v

    #66 negativeseo

    negativeseo

      Advanced Member

    • Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 68
    • Joined: 18-April 12
      Reputation: 28

    Posted 19 April 2012 - 11:18 PM

    Adwords adwords adwords

    #67 JasPets

    JasPets

      Advanced Member

    • Advanced Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 290
    • Joined: 20-April 12
      Reputation: 41
    • LocationKansas

    Posted 20 April 2012 - 01:50 AM

    Negative seo and positive black hat seo both affects business owners by moving legitimate small businesses out of the serps.


    There are 3 highly competitive / highly searched for phrases in my industry. All the companies listed in the top ten in google are engaging in some level of "black hat" SEO. I'm just a little guy going after phrases with less search volume / less competition. But my product is EXACTLY the same product. I have 20 years in the industry. We offer incredible customer service. I speak at national events. And my website is better than most of their sites. But there's absolutely NO way that I can dislodge them from page 1 on google without using a little black hat myself.

    I'm just disasppointed to find out that google will actually allow negative seo in the first place. Really hope that these threads catch on fire and that google is force do change its algorithm. I'm OK with passing NO value for bad links. But passing negative value sucks.

    #68 miked

    miked

      Advanced Member

    • New Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 124
    • Joined: 07-March 12
      Reputation: 26

    Posted 20 April 2012 - 01:57 AM

    I am very uncomfortable with NSEO practices, but I have to say that "negativeseo" is also very good at SEO and would be an asset to TP.

    #69 JasPets

    JasPets

      Advanced Member

    • Advanced Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 290
    • Joined: 20-April 12
      Reputation: 41
    • LocationKansas

    Posted 20 April 2012 - 01:58 AM

    We are arguing too much about nothing. The point is , if google allow this, user experience is going to be even worse than before. Try to think about it, every kid will spam the hell out of their competitors site and this will ruin everyting more than black hat spam . This is not in their interests and honestly I'm pretty sure they will work out to fix this asap. Well at least that's what I hope, I doubt that they wonna put down search quality level close to bing & co


    Slamming somebody's website with bad links to hurt their SERPs is despicable. But I'm with GodMode. The point is it apparently works. And the mess is likely to get bigger before it gets better. The truth is, this is an easy fix in the aglo. Do not pass negative value for ANY link.

    Matt Cutts has said in the past that it's almost impossible to negatively impact somebody's site. They need to stand behind this and make it so.

    #70 MarkAse

    MarkAse

      Advanced Member

    • Advanced Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 258
    • Joined: 28-September 11
      Reputation: 28

    Posted 20 April 2012 - 02:07 AM

    Almost impossible simply doesn't cut it anymore. It needs to simply be impossible.

    Anything else and negative SEO is the new reality.

    How many businesses are likely to do negative SEO? How many affiliates? Does the risk/reward really make sense any more?

    Slamming somebody's website with bad links to hurt their SERPs is despicable. But I'm with GodMode. The point is it apparently works. And the mess is likely to get bigger before it gets better. The truth is, this is an easy fix in the aglo. Do not pass negative value for ANY link.

    Matt Cutts has said in the past that it's almost impossible to negatively impact somebody's site. They need to stand behind this and make it so.



    #71 miked

    miked

      Advanced Member

    • New Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 124
    • Joined: 07-March 12
      Reputation: 26

    Posted 20 April 2012 - 02:10 AM

    Slamming somebody's website with bad links to hurt their SERPs is despicable. But I'm with GodMode. The point is it apparently works. And the mess is likely to get bigger before it gets better. The truth is, this is an easy fix in the aglo. Do not pass negative value for ANY link.

    Matt Cutts has said in the past that it's almost impossible to negatively impact somebody's site. They need to stand behind this and make it so.


    The problem with not passing a penalty is you really open up the spam gates, then you have link spamming on a more massive scale than you have now. Just build links like crazy and benefit from the ones that stick would be the strategy.

    #72 Fishingman1

    Fishingman1

      Advanced Member

    • Advanced Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 447
    • Joined: 04-October 11
      Reputation: 45
    • LocationThird Star on the left and straight on until morning

    Posted 20 April 2012 - 07:00 AM

    If your #1 or # 2 for any niche.
    Pay attention, to current events
    I always thought that the rules were, the site with the most links wins.
    So if links are not allowed ! whats the metric?
    Quality of content .... really blogs 7 years old at #1 is quite common.
    Fresh information (see above)
    Fuckn over the white hat dicks banging on about do it naturally !
    Do a search, go to page 10,000 and you will find the NATURALS.
    Stop bleating about your ethics and morals ***** off!
    You just don't have what it takes to preach philosophy to me.
    This is business all is fair, nothing illegal is being done sue for loss of business.
    Which particular clown came out with that *****.
    Google made this happen not SEO'S
    It's what they want .
    New rules new day get over it, get on with it.
    When it all turns to Crap Go Fishing

    #73 Glassy

    Glassy

      Advanced Member

    • Advanced Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 206
    • Joined: 23-December 11
      Reputation: 29

    Posted 20 April 2012 - 08:14 AM

    So some of you guys out there think it's evil to bring down an individual site but don't seem to think it's evil that Google brings down millions of sites with each algo tweak? Think of the billions of dollars that are lost when you combine the losses from all the sites after each algo update. Google have the monopoly and they are toying with everyone to their advantage and yes, I truly believe they are doing everything they can to funnel web masters to use Adwords.

    If Google cared or was serious about stamping out negative SEO, they would just disregard crap links with no penalties and reward sites that have unique well written content.

    Edited by Glassy, 20 April 2012 - 08:15 AM.


    #74 Fishingman1

    Fishingman1

      Advanced Member

    • Advanced Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 447
    • Joined: 04-October 11
      Reputation: 45
    • LocationThird Star on the left and straight on until morning

    Posted 20 April 2012 - 08:23 AM

    If Google cared or was serious about stamping out negative SEO, they would just disregard crap links with no penalties and reward sites that have unique well written content.

    Yes yes seems so simple
    When it all turns to Crap Go Fishing

    #75 luzie

    luzie

      Member

    • New Member
    • PipPip
    • posts 16
    • Joined: 20-April 12
      Reputation: 0

    Posted 20 April 2012 - 11:31 AM

    >>> We created a fake email account and politely
    >>> asked sites with good links pointing to the site to
    >>> remove them and in some cases a mention of a DMCA takedown.

    Yes, this is what made your day and is called fraud and blackmailing - if you wanna call it "negative SEO", go ahead. Raiding the server location with handgrenades would also be "negative SEO" then, as well as cutting network wires or hacking htaccess-files, bribing the junior webmaster into sabotaging - you name it. "Negative SEO" is nothing but nonsense.

    -luzie-

    Edited by luzie, 20 April 2012 - 11:31 AM.


    #76 Wrecked

    Wrecked

      Advanced Member

    • New Member
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 129
    • Joined: 21-December 11
      Reputation: 8

    Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:04 PM

    Good point Luzie.

    http://sfappeal.com/news/2010/12/online-impersonation-law-goes-into-effect-jan-1.php

    anyone who assumes the identity of another person to intentionally harm, intimidate, threaten or defraud may be charged with a misdemeanor.
    Offenders could face a fine of up to $1,000 and or spend up to a year in jail, the bill said.
    The law will also allow victims sue for compensation in civil court, Simitian said.


    It would seem that setting up fake email addresses to send DMCA threats and request for links to be removed with the intention of hurting another business would fit the bill, no? At least in California.

    Edited by Wrecked, 20 April 2012 - 12:08 PM.


    #77 princewally

    princewally

      Newbie

    • New Member
    • Pip
    • posts 2
    • Joined: 27-September 11
      Reputation: 0

    Posted 20 April 2012 - 01:02 PM

    And why the hell should I have to abide by some other company's TOS? I've never entered an agreement with Google of any kind regarding how I want to conduct my business.

    I'll create another business called Screwgle. In my TOS there will be a line that says, "Webmasters must not engage in SEO-related conversation via online forums for the purposes of improving ranking."

    Guess you're screwed, eh?

    Another company's TOS has no legal or ethical bearing on how I conduct my business.


    TOS aside, deliberately damaging another person's business is unethical as hell. This isn't competing for resources, it's an attack and it's clearly wrong, no matter how hard you rationalize it.

    #78 luzie

    luzie

      Member

    • New Member
    • PipPip
    • posts 16
    • Joined: 20-April 12
      Reputation: 0

    Posted 20 April 2012 - 01:31 PM

    ... and it's got nothing to do with "negative SEO". I understand that this so called "case study" was meant to prove you could undermine Google's ranking logic by certain blackhat tactics. It failed miserably in doing so by admitting it needed criminal methods outside the search engine sphere in order to achieve it's goal.

    Now they've even sent their agents to Google's own webmaster help forum to spread some "Angst" there too:

    http://groups.google.com/a/googleproductforums.com/forum/?hl=en&#!category-topic/webmasters/spjD0OGqUEE

    -luzie-

    #79 TerryKyle

    TerryKyle

      Administrator

    • Owner
    • posts 1,213
    • Joined: 25-September 11
      Reputation: 468

    Posted 20 April 2012 - 02:43 PM

    Well, the twists and turns in SEO in 2012 keep coming and the Negative SEO threads here on TP now further illustrate the contradictory, complex and often frustrating nature of the business.

    At the outset, I want to make it clear that I am COMPLETELY opposed to the philosophy of Negative SEO and the theft of other marketers’ WSOs/software etc from Blackhat sources – marketers who are not megarich corporations like Microsoft but ordinary individuals more or less at the same level of those other IMers who steal from them.

    Nuking other business owners’ sites simply to prove a point reeks of attention-seeking immaturity as does taking pleasure in it.

    However, Negative SEO is a fact of life in our business and – as the J C Penney controversy in early 2011 illustrated – the (financial) stakes are very high in the Google vs SEO war.

    As has also been pointed out previously in this thread, Google is basically an advertising company, not a search company, search just happens to be their delivery platform.

    In that sense, it actually serves Google to tacitly promote Negative SEO and continue to make SEO more difficult, more volatile and more unpredictable. Whether they get hit with massive lawsuits in allowing/promoting Negative SEO as a result, remains to be seen.

    And, judging by Larry Page’s ‘forgetful’ testimony in the Oracle Vs Google court case over Android at the moment, Google will presumably plead ignorance on that one as well should it ever get to court.

    I don’t say that with any bitterness at all, these are typical mega-corporation tactics.

    So where does all of this leave us?

    I would suggest that it leaves us with a single choice (yes, the same one as 2011 and 2010 and before): Adaptation.

    But how should we adapt our SEO when Google allows/promotes Negative SEO, constantly changes the rules of the SEO game and generally makes commercial consistency online more difficult to achieve/maintain?

    Here are 6 possible adaptations (there are probably many more) – some of which I’ve written about before:

    [1] Make a conscious decision to Google-proof your IM business/es i.e. work towards building and expanding your non-Google traffic generation methods.

    One such method – depending on your commitment level – is to open a forum on your niche/sub-niche topic. Look at the membership that BacklinksForum attracted in about 18 months: just under 14,000 and at any one time, there were 1,000 people online on it. Traffic Planet opened in late September 2011, is now pushing towards 4,000 members and is on the radar of Matt Cutts (for better or worse), Dan Thies and Rand Fishkin.

    Forums are slow burners to get moving but in the long-term can be incredible digital real estate.

    If you are unsure about the diverse breadth of non-Google traffic generation methods available, check out Kim Roach’s Traffic Dashboard course here (non Aff link). We also have a non-Google Traffic Generation sub-forum here on TP of course.

    [2] Work much more on converting your existing traffic rather than expanding your traffic. In my experience, we SEOs suck at optimizing conversions but just trying to boost traffic without conversions improvement seems wasteful to me. We also have a Conversions sub-forum here on TP.

    [3] Consider using Domain Espionage, a new-ish tool that allows you to buy expired domains that ALREADY have good rankings. It’s a game-changer this service and Close-Outs/Buy It Now domains can be ridiculously cheap for their traffic potential.

    [4] Work on your SEO inside major traffic platforms: YouTube, Vimeo, podcasting directories, even ezinearticles etc. Get good at getting your stuff ranked for searches INSIDE those platforms (and others) and you’ll never bother with Google again.
    It’s still SEO, it’s just platform-specific SEO.

    [5] Use forum marketing, arguably the best type online today. Build a profile on your niche forum/s, run Classifieds there, run banner ads there, run sig links there. It’s a direct pipeline to your niche target market. I cannot emphasise how undervalued forum marketing is as an IM strategy. Done properly, you can make many times more money from quality forum marketing than the owner/s of those forums make from the whole thing!

    [6] If you DO target Google Organic search as your main traffic generation vehicle with say a brand new site project, [a] recognise that there are risks involved with (necessary) artificial linkbuilding (aged domains still work BTW) and possibly from the Negative SEO underbelly, [b] focus on a multitude of long tail terms for cumulative traffic rather than one or two big boys, [c] make sure it meets Google Human reviewer guidelines, [d] make your pages are as media rich as possible, [e] commit to building it as an authority on that topic, [f] properly monitor and track your traffic and conversions, [g] don’t spread your resources too thin over too many sites and [h] ultimately, really invest your ambition in it – don’t treat it like a ‘passive income’ MFA-type site (some of which still work of course).

    Now I’m not peddling that tired old cliché about quality content attracting links which we know largely doesn’t work but rather about focusing as much effort on building relationships with your target market as you do on SEO with Google.

    A bigger issue for us SEO/IM guys, and I totally include myself in this criticism, is the lazy desire for ‘Passive Income’. It’s a toxic myth best forgotten and serious income requires serious effort and commitment to creating great services/products.

    The above adaptations do require work, no question about it.

    However, that is ultimately the point of a place like Traffic Planet: to share, to encourage, to debate, to advise, to inspire and to help fight for your aspirations of financial freedom and greater lifestyle choices.

    Whether we do that with or without Google Organic search (and the threat of Negative SEO) is irrelevant.

    #80 brandonbaker

    brandonbaker

      Advanced Member

    • Active Seller
    • PipPipPip
    • posts 630
    • Joined: 16-December 11
      Reputation: 128

    Posted 20 April 2012 - 03:21 PM

    TOS aside, deliberately damaging another person's business is unethical as hell. This isn't competing for resources, it's an attack and it's clearly wrong, no matter how hard you rationalize it.


    You took my post completely out of context.

    Read our full conversation. I agree with you, of course.

    Private Homepage Backlinks II

    10 OBL - Full Link Report - Zero Foot Print






    Similar Topics Collapse

    2 user(s) are reading this topic

    0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users