Jump to content

Jammy

Advanced Member
  • Content count

    176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Jammy last won the day on April 19 2012

Jammy had the most liked content!

About Jammy

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. I'm looking for Tumblr blogs with lots of followers (5,000+). PM me your blog URL and price please. Thanks.
  2. Entertainment/Music niche. Price is $120. Email address used to sign up also included. Links in posts and sidebar are dofollow on Tumblr. Rubber neckers not welcome. You have the stats and full details.
  3. WOW, this thread has really been taken over and got way off the original topic! Rand is after the free publicity - he is desperate for anyone to try and do it to his site - and outing the site BEFORE the experiment gives google the chance to protect it. And as I said before, instead of begging other people to do experiments for you, do it yourself and make your own 'results' thread. I think the thing that most people have missed in this thread is how the recent changes at google have made it so easy to do negative seo on a site. It's been possible for many years but six months ago blasting a site with a load of spam links would increase the rankings, not get the site penalised.
  4. I missed that. Yesterday both urls were listed in google, not so today. Either Seer have just fixed it recently or it was a blip by google that somehow managed to index both urls? Either way it seems they are back
  5. And now we are going around in circles. Whilst I agree this is likely in Dans case, to state it as fact, and additionally hold a webinar to state it as fact, is just stupid. That was the whole reason I did not express an opinion in the post. I know sites that have only had wikilinks built to them receive the 'unnatural links' letter. I know sites that have only had bookmarks built to them receive the 'unnatural links' letter. The list goes on.
  6. They should probably sort out their onsite duplicate content issue before they 'blame google'. http://www.seerinteractive.com http://www.seerinteractive.com/index.php
  7. I'm really glad to see you managed to read the experiment thread properly before you jumped to cash in on someone elses hard work
  8. ?? Did you read the original experiment thread ?? The term targeted was NOT negative seo.
  9. From number 1, I see them at 19 now. Heck, I'm the one that did the experiment and I didn't 'declare' what made the sites drop. I just said what I did and charted the results. Whilst it may appear that the sites dropped due to link loss, it's a dangerous game to assume that without proof.
  10. and negativeseo.me? That had no blog posts.
  11. 1. Negative SEO has nothing to due with building backlinks, it has everything to do with removing backlinks. 99.9% agree. I'd like to say 100% but I can't prove it. It's my personal opinion. 2. Dan Thies' site lost ranking due to a short-term exploit in Google's Blog De-indexing's. This method is really not repeatable, so nothing to be worried about. 100% disagree. It's easy to get a ***** load of links that will be gone next month. Autoapprove blog comments can roll off the front page in less than a day, blog network posts that get indexed on the front page will be sunk so far down the blog in a month it's almost impossible for google spiders to find them. This is very repeatable. Give me your site url. 4. It's likely Google will reduce "link loss" penalties/sandbox effects. Neutralize, Not Penalize! You say that like it's fact. This is what we want, but it doesn't mean it will happen.
  12. The OTHER site in the SAME experiment also tanked. The links were built at the same time and that site tanked at the same time too. Even if it were due to a wp theme change, how does he explain the other site dropping? Negative SEO is possible. A lot of us here knew that, we've seen it, done it or whatever. But how often do you see it posted in full detail on a forum for proof? Everyone says 'I don't think' or 'I think' or 'I did' but they don't show the results so they can be seen. Too many people 'say' and not enough 'do'. That was the point of the experiment. To show that it can be done for Google and everyone else to see. Dan also says that his sites are ranking better now than before....... does he think we can't google the serps? His rankings are down. Full stop. Don't say it would be interesting to do the same experiment with better scientific controls. Do it. And post it here.
  13. Long time no speak! I was around with you in the early digitalpoint days, back when it was a quality forum (yes THAT long ago ) - shawn was active and remember nutter antonycea getting banned, and Donna (smyrl), cygnas and all the old gang. It's a small world. Much as your site would be a great target, outing it beforehand could allow Google to protect it. I appreciate that you disagree with the targets but we wanted something high profile that wasn't making money or that could benefit from the publicity. The last thing we wanted to do was ruin someones livelyhood. Dans site already had over 3000 links and negativeseo.me only had a few hundred links. We felt they were good enough for the experiment. Only a 301. Could be easily removed.
  14. Nice to meet you too Dan. I'm beginning to suspect your complete arrogance is just for link bait Whilst I appreciate you 'did this' and 'did that' to your site - you cannot deny that the other experimental site (negativeseo.me) was also hit in the serps also dropped the same day as yours - also seoresearchlabs.com was also spammed to death (not by us), and you've had your love letter from Google on that one too. Couple that with the further examples posted in this thread by other people and I think we have a case for negative seo. I appreciate it's not 100% certain that we affected your site but there is enough evidence to show that it's probable. On a personal note: As mentioned in the opening post, we hope that you do work this in your favour and profit out of it.
×