Temptation to Google-Bowl Options

[randfish]

Noting that Jagger brought back the ability to have spammy links knock sites back in the SERPs, I'm having a very hard time resisting asking some friends to give it a shot on a particularly hated competitor.

I'm not the type to do this sort of thing, but I can see how many, many folks couldn't resist something so tempting... What do you know or tell yourselves that helps resist the urge?

[bragadocchio]

There are so many ways to leave your competitor in the dust behind you that it really just doesn't pay to focus on the negative.

That's what I tell myself.

And I think that it is the truth. When you work on building something, you have it at the end of the day. A sense of accomplishment, a chance to work with your hands and your mind, to create, and to engage others with what you have made.

When you act to destroy, you miss out on the opportunity to achieve those types of goals. You risk the possibility of collateral damage on unsuspecting bystanders, and risk raising some else's ire, with the possibility of retribution coming your way.

On the web, your competition isn't just the folks who share a niche with you. It's all of the other places, and all of the other ways that people might spend their money instead, online or off. If you market online, your competition isn't just other online marketers. It's print, radio, televsion, yellow pages, tradeshows, and more.

The web is still in its infancy, and it is changing everyday. By building and growing yourself, you stand a much better chance of success than by mounting a battle that may take up too much of your resources. By creating relationships, and adding value to many endeavors, you reduce the chance that you can succumb to something harmful, too.

[Ruud]

This is not my style. I like to feel good. Good as in happy, content, pleasant. This kind of thing doesn't make me feel good, it doesn't add to my quality of life but subtracts from it. That alone is reason for me to avoid it.

But more "down to earth"; it's not worth it. Those sites I do with an eye on the site itself and let the rest follow do best. Those sites I use to test the many different short-term techniques always proof to be just that: short term.

If those two reasons aren't enough by itself, add my final one: trust.

Next time that you need a developer quickly, would you seriously consider me for even a split second had I come to you to ask you to do this to someone's site?

[randfish]

Very true, Bill. But I have to play devil's advocate for a moment.

#1 - How could this type of activity ever be tracked to the actual client you were intending to benefit?

#2 - With the simplicity of automated spam linking, it's basically a "fire and forget" type task... If that's all it takes, why not "focus on the positive" but spend the 5-10 minutes getting your competitor blown away, too?

#3 - The Paranoids - what about those who think that everyone will try doing it to them, so they'd better start by doing it to others?

Besides, wouldn't you love to bowl www.state.de.us away?

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you on this issue and I don't think practices like it are of benefit to the web as a whole or to long-term bottom lines, but this stuff does fascinate me. I also have to wonder why search engines allow it work (despite what Matt Cutts might say publicly)?

[JohnMu]

Do you know who your best new customers are?

Those that tried the competitor, paid a lot of money, and were not satisfied with the results. if you make them happy, you'll have loyal customers and free advertising for life :-)

That's why I'm not really keen on knocking the competitors out, I know that many people go with the first best thing they find (or whoever cold-called them first, etc), but if I am absolutely positively certain that my services / products are so much better (and I continue to work on that), then I know that any customers the competitors get first, are going the be worth more to me when they come to me later on.

It also makes a great sales argument when I list the competitors products that we can all import data from, he he. But of course, I never say anything bad about the competitors, I actually give prospective clients the numbers to call them up and let them make sure they're getting the best product / service for their needs. Usually that alone works wonders, but sometimes people want to "learn by themselves" and feel the pain of their mistakes before coming to their senses :mrgreen:

[randfish]

Good points, Ruud. I particularly like this:

Next time that you need a developer quickly, would you seriously consider me for even a split second had I come to you to ask you to do this to someone's site?

That fits in very well with the idea that in the long term, it's not a positive influence on a firm's or individual's earnings.

[bragadocchio]

Besides, wouldn't you love to bowl www.state.de.us away?

I love state.de.us.

Besides the referrals from their list of registered agents, they sometimes show up in the rankings for certain terms ahead of us, and usually leave people with more questions than answers.

Folks are appreciative when you can then answer those questions for them. There are times when it helps conversions to be #2.

#2 - With the simplicity of automated spam linking, it's basically a \"fire and forget\" type task... If that's all it takes, why not \"focus on the positive\" but spend the 5-10 minutes getting your competitor blown away, too?

Because sometimes you can spend an hour on a site and increase traffic 40-50%. There isn't a magic bullet like that for every site, but it's nice when you see and can take advantages of opportunities like that when they present themselves. And besides, there will always be more competitors.

[gabs]

After targetting the top 10 what would be next... I think anyones time could be spent in better ways..

But then again if you used LV... its would take about 40mins to kill the top 10...

My LV test site hasn't recovered after removing lv links over 2months ago... (non competative terms.. a true penalty..)

Still I couldn't bring myself to do anything like that... No one has screwed badly yet...

[graywolf]

I also have to wonder why search engines allow it work (despite what Matt Cutts might say publicly)

I think you already answered that question, because most people find it a distasteful thing to do. From an academic standpoint you should be asking:


Will it work on everyone or just some people?

How much effort would it really take?

Is there a difference between bad SEO to your site and sabotage to someone else's from an algo's point of view?

[bobmutch]

Personally I think it would be nice if someone had a site that we could test this on.

What we would need is a site that is over one year old and ranks for a number of competitive keywords (plus 10k searches on Overture db).

It would need to be keep quite what site it as and what sites would be pointing ROS links.

This could be documented and the rankings line charted and when the test is finish we could present it to Matt Cutts and ask him what he is going to do about it.

It would be even better if we could do it on 2 or 3 sites. This would give the results more authority.

The person whose site(s) we use would get in pay back the rights to posting the study one of their SEO/M sites, which would get them lots of natural links and some good traffic.

We could get a number of SEO'er involved that could give some of their time of an honorable mention and I think I could get a Tony to throw in a PR to 190k nodes.

I would be willing to chart the rankings and IBL for G/Y/M. I have developed a simple charting app that could be used.
http://www.seocompany.ca/no-spam-in-aylmer...o.html#rankings

It would make for a very interesting study.

Rand you head it up. I am willing to put some time to maintain the charting and content under your direction. I can talk to Tony from Xeal and see if he will throw in a PR or give us a huge discount. We can document the whole thing and then put it in Cutts lap to fix.

I think we all could get some good PR from this, have some fun, and make the world a better place.

We could even do a follow up private test to make sure it has been fixed.

What you all think.

Er, "Project No GoogleBowling".

[JohnMu]

What makes you think we aren't testing it already ? :-) (I'm not, but the BHs are probably, maybe even the others)

Even if "we" are a small group here, word will get out and I could easily imagine that either Google or someone else would want to either watch (= change the experiment on accident) or change the experiment on purpose.

IMHO it will be hard to document in a way that will prove that Google's algo has a flaw, unless we have real insight into the algo and can aim our proof at certain known interdepenancies. Even if we knock a site like you mentioned out of the serps, Google / Cutts will be able to claim that it was a freak accident or that Google was going to "delist" the site anyway based on other factors, or who knows they might even mark the sites that linked to our test as "bad neighborhood"... :-(

What do you think? It would be fun to play with, but I think it needs to be done in a group of 2-3 people max in a very private way. And if that's the way it needs to be done, it might just be that a group here is already doing that. And if "they" tell us they're doing that then they might risk their running experiments. So ... if someone were to tell us that they were running a test, you would have to assume they aren't doing it properly (risking it) - if nobody tells us they're running a test, then somebody might be doing so and keeping it quiet. If this thread starty drying up then we would have to assume everyone here has gone to running experiments on this, ha ha, dang'd if you do, dang'd if you don't :mrgreen: (I'm stuck, lol)

[Wit]

bob is right though. If people need another test, it should be done with a good and stable top three site in a competitive field.

And history has shown that it should be tested "offline" (as in: not public on the boards, no in-between results, no snitching) LOL

[bobmutch]

>>>What makes you think we aren't testing it already?

Nothing. I was talking about testing and documenting it and that _hasn't_ be done yet.

>>>Even if "we" are a small group here, word will get out and I could easily imagine that either Google or someone else would want to either watch (= change the experiment on accident) or change the experiment on purpose.

I think if you get the right people involved it could be keep under cover until the results were in.

>>>IMHO it will be hard to document in a way that will prove that Google's algo has a flaw, unless we have real insight into the algo and can aim our proof at certain known interdepenancies. Even if we knock a site like you mentioned out of the serps, Google / Cutts will be able to claim that it was a freak accident or that Google was going to "delist" the site anyway based on other factors, or who knows they might even mark the sites that linked to our test as "bad neighborhood"...

That is why I suggested doing more than one site. That would give the project more authority.

>>>What do you think? It would be fun to play with, but I think it needs to be done in a group of 2-3 people max in a very private way.

That's what I suggested.

Wit: I have some coin and time to put in the project. The person that offers up the site(s) would get lots of good PR. I think that will be the key to making it happen.

Some one that is flush enought to take the chance of getting hit on a couple of good sites or a couple of people so the sites aren't related would be better. Getting the ROS links would be simple.

I say lets do it!

[randfish]

I might have a site for that... Let's talk after the holiday weekend. I'll try to remember to send out a PM on Monday.

[Fuzzlepop]

Get them! I would, I might try this on somone because I hate them:P

[Paul_H]

*mental note: always be very nice to Fuzzlepop