21 replies to this topic

[chuckfinley]

Is Google Branding Itself As The Founder Of Negative SEO?

seomoz issued a challenge at Traffic Planet to see if the Negative SEO experts there could work their Negative SEO Magic on his seomoz site.

Well, pixelgrinder and the gang succeeded. seomoz received the "unnatural links notice" on July 19th. --> http://www.seomoz.or...-links-warnings

seomoz tries to write it off saying that the terms of the new targeted links notice will apply and Google will just reduce the relevance of the spam links that were added to their site. That just isn't the case, though, because seomoz clearly recieved the old "unnatural links" notice because -- per matt Cutts, the original "unnatural links" notice arrives in WMT with an exclamation point marking the notice; the new notice does not. --> https://plus.google....sts/gik49G9c5LU seomoz clearly points out that their notice was marked by the exclamation point.

And, regardless, if you go to Traffic Planet and read the Negative SEO thread with some 448 replies, you'll see that what they do is way beyond spam links. They'll destroy your reputation by setting up Social Media accounts in your name and post dergoatory information and then use that to support complaints on the major review sites. They will also post fake reviews to your Places page until Google removes you from the index, etc., etc. etc. They post all the details over there.

seomoz probably will get out of this unscathed. Most likely Google will make a special exception for them and remove any penalty for seomoz so as to cloud the fact that Negative SEO is alive and well and possibly coming to your site --

Be nice to your competitors!

What's the difference between the notices?

The Original "Unnatural Links Notice"

1) Applies to the site overall so any penalty will affect the rankings of the whole site.
2) Requires that you remove unnatural links and doesn't tell you which links (if you have 200K links to your site, good luck).
3) It's marked by an exclamation point in WMT.
4) It reads as follows --

Dear site owner or webmaster of http://www.yourdomain.com/,

We've 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


The New "Targeted Links Notice"

1) Doesn't require action on the webmasters part, links are just devalued-- of course, Google waffles on this and says that it may require action, it depends.
2) There is no exclamation point marking the notice in WMT.
3) The action is only taken against the "unnatural links", not your whole site.
4) It reads as follows --

We've detected that some of the links pointing to your site are using techniques outside Google's Webmaster Guidelines.

We don't want to put any trust in links that are artificial or unnatural. We recommend removing any unnatural links to your site. However, we do realize that some links are outside of your control. As a result, for this specific incident we are taking very targeted action on the unnatural links instead of your site as a whole.

If you are able to remove any of the links, please submit a reconsideration request, including the actions that you took. If you have any questions, please visit our Webmaster Help Forum.


Bottom Line -- Negative SEO works and Google's "unnatural links" strategy unleashed it. Google will cover seomoz for PR purposes; they won't cover you or me. They are police, prosecutor, judge and jury. Moreover, Google won't allow any defense attorney or specific enforceable laws/rules for which they can be held responsible.

Edited by chuckfinley, 04 August 2012 - 01:18 AM.

[rustybrick]

Chuck, this looks like the new link notice. They received it on the 19th, with thousands of others in the same boat. They all had the warning sign. Google then decided to clarify and send out new notices but were unable to adjust the old.

IMO, this is clearly the new notice - where Google is ignoring the links as opposed to penalizing the site.

Shame on Google for communicating this badly, which is why you feel they were hit by the original link notification - but they were not.

[glyn]

Rand and Google share that same tub of vaseline so I would not consider any attempt to bomb his domain out of Google search as possible. But really an act of pure stupidity, verging on the impossible.

However to say that negative SEO is not present is also rubbish because I've done it to my own domains, so I know that a) it works and b) what steps to do it.

Currently there is no way to stop this, except to believe that it can't be done which is going to really be helpful if you get an unnatural links warning and no way to

a) check the links that are crappy
b) stop fiendish competitors doing it to you.

At least bing did something, but no-one uses it!

G.

[EGOL]

Google can not evaluate links. They are incompetent.

I have never seen so many PhDs pound away in public at something that is impossible to solve. They will not be able to do this job right even if they hire King Solomon to look at every link.

They need to move on to different types of data and keep their mouth shut about what they are using.

[Michael_Martinez]

Every one of these notices that I have evaluated for clients has checked out. I think Google does a pretty darned good job of evaluating links. They'll never be perfect but they have found a LOT of naughty links. Of course, "penalties" can be masked by improper goals. For example, if the links are targeting unuseful anchor text (as is the case more often than most people realize) then you may not see much of a traffic dip.

The ridiculous debate over negative SEO needs to end, however. It has been around for a long time, isn't going away, and isn't any more of a problem today than it was before Penguin.

[bwelford]

They'll never be perfect but they have found a LOT of naughty links.

... or in other words, they have found a lot of links that render the PageRank algorithm inoperative.

I guess they'll keep this nonsense going until someone at very high level in Google finally smells the coffee.

[Michael_Martinez]

They do seem to be emotionally invested in a mathematically failed concept. Nonetheless, they are making billions of dollars in profit each year so I don't expect them to change their system that much any time soon.

[iamlost]

The ridiculous debate over negative SEO needs to end, however. It has been around for a long time, isn't going away, and isn't any more of a problem today than it was before Penguin.

Very little is 'new' except that every generation and 'news' cycle has to rediscover it for themselves.
What is most irritating - and entertaining - is identifying the snake oil salesfolk by their huffing and puffing the silliness. Same folks every year - think the idjits would eventually clue in but apparently not.

-SEO has been around for years and years, as glyn says it can work, as Michael says it no worse now than before (except for those running on the front to be seen to lead the parade)... get over it already.

[chuckfinley]

Chuck, this looks like the new link notice. They received it on the 19th, with thousands of others in the same boat. They all had the warning sign. Google then decided to clarify and send out new notices but were unable to adjust the old.

IMO, this is clearly the new notice - where Google is ignoring the links as opposed to penalizing the site.

Shame on Google for communicating this badly, which is why you feel they were hit by the original link notification - but they were not.

Sounds like your right. I'll post a comment over at seomoz and see if I can get a response.

If you are right, this may signal that google (out of dis-respect for google, I'm no longer capitalizing their name) is willing to give up the ridiculous "unnatural links" notice tact that vicitmizes websites because there's no way to know what links google is talking about and what's worse, it's nearly impossible to get webmasters to remove the links you're guessing may be the problem.

The latest development, in addition to negative SEO, is webmasters are charging $25 to $100 or more for link take down. Hmmmmmm......what if you have 1,000 links to remove.....and your just guessing which ones are the problem.....hmmmmmmmm.....what would you do?

If they are backing off, that's "big news". I think it's more likely that they will do this for seomoz and not for the average business owner.

I'll let you know what they say.

Edited by chuckfinley, 04 August 2012 - 02:25 AM.

[chuckfinley]

Rand and Google share that same tub of vaseline so I would not consider any attempt to bomb his domain out of Google search as possible. But really an act of pure stupidity, verging on the impossible.

You are so right about that.

Currently there is no way to stop this, except to believe that it can't be done which is going to really be helpful if you get an unnatural links warning and no way to

a) check the links that are crappy
b) stop fiendish competitors doing it to you.

Be nice to your competitors

And, anyone from Traffic Planet, LOL!

Edited by chuckfinley, 04 August 2012 - 01:27 AM.

[chuckfinley]

I didn't get a response to my comment at seomoz. Their site was down for a good part of the morning so I couldn't get on. I wonder why?

But in a comment at Search Engine Roundtable,

Russ Offord asks -- Did they get the 'followup' Google Webmaster Tools notification that says Google is not taking site-wide action, but rather just discounting a sub-set of URLs?

and Ruth Burr(from seomoz) answers -- Hi Russ - Ruth from SEOmoz here. Yes we did!

At Search Engine Roundtable, Barry Schwartz asks -- Did Negative SEO Beat SEOMoz? -- http://www.seroundta...-seo-15518.html

The answer is -- Yes, Negative SEO did beat seomoz. The Negative SEO'ers tripped a google flag and a notice was issued.

The real question is -- what does this new notice mean?

Everyone knows that google shows a bias to Brands; it's been developing since the Vince update in 2009 so no one ever thought that Negative SEO would bring down seomoz (to include the Negative SEO'ers).

google has many reasons to want to protect brands and we can only speculate as to what they are. I would guess they are at least 2 fold -- 1) What if you searched for BMW and found no search results -- how much credibiltiy would google have? 2) Eric Scmidt (when he was CEO) said, "Brands are the solution, not the problem...brands are how you sort out the cesspool." I'll let you decide who he thinks the cesspool includes. Here's a good infographic on the topic --> http://www.seobook.c...ding-brands.php

So what is the purpose of this new notice? -- 1) Is it issued to Brands instead of the "unnatural links" notice (which in theory will result in a site wide penalty) because google doesn't want to affect their rankings? 2) Is this what everyone will receive from now on? 3) Is this a repudiation of their old "unnatural links" notice strategy that, in theory, affects the whole site and results in a penalty? (Maybe. However, there are many sites waiting for the other shoe to drop -- of the ~ 1 million notices issued, most have never been penalized and requests for reconsideration haven't been responded to.) 4) Is the new notice tripped algorithmically based on evaluation of the site's link graph? 5) Other?

What This Test Proves -- That a notice can be generated through Negative SEO, even on a site with a broad link graph.

The Fear -- Your E-Commerce site won't get the same treatment as seomoz because the nature of E-Commerce doesn't allow you to generate the kind of link graph that an information site can. Based on google's actions towards E-Commerce sites in general, I think you should be worried that you won't get the seomoz treatment, i.e., that, instead, you'll get a penalty. Afterall, google says you're not their customer, they're not interested in providing customer service to you, and they want to sort out the cesspool -- their Branding and PR proposition, not mine.

Along those lines --

“As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.” --Andrew Carnegie

What has google done to business websites in the past?

Edited by chuckfinley, 05 August 2012 - 05:10 PM.

[RuthBurr]

Chuck, this looks like the new link notice. They received it on the 19th, with thousands of others in the same boat. They all had the warning sign. Google then decided to clarify and send out new notices but were unable to adjust the old.

Hi guys, Ruth from SEOmoz here. Barry, you're correct - what we received was the new link notice, that went out en masse on the 19th. Here is the text of that notice:

"Dear site owner or webmaster of http://www.seomoz.org/,
We've 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."

Following this notice by a couple of days, we got the follow-up notice that Matt Cutts mentioned on Google+:

"We've detected that some of the links pointing to your site are using techniques outside Google's Webmaster Guidelines.
We don't want to put any trust in links that are artificial or unnatural. We recommend removing any unnatural links to your site. However, we do realize that some links are outside of your control. As a result, for this specific incident we are taking very targeted action on the unnatural links instead of your site as a whole. If you are able to remove any of the links, please submit a reconsideration request, including the actions that you took.
If you have any questions, please visit our Webmaster Help Forum."

It seems clear from the timing of these two notices, and Matt's comments on Google+, that the second notice is meant to supersede the first. This is in contrast to previous notices which should be taken far more seriously. Thousands of sites received these notices, and with most of them (as with us) no action was required. Google is attempting to solve this problem algorithmically rather than with manual penalties.

[bwelford]

Hi Ruth. Welcome to the forums.

It really is amazing that Google should show so publicly its own dilemma with the whole subject of links. Since this is a tarbaby that Google apparently cannot put down, I imagine we will see other crazy examples like this as this weary saga continues.

[cre8pc]

Hi guys, Ruth from SEOmoz here

So wonderful to see you here and help us out in this discussion!

Welcome

[chuckfinley]

It seems clear from the timing of these two notices, and Matt's comments on Google+, that the second notice is meant to supersede the first. This is in contrast to previous notices which should be taken far more seriously. Thousands of sites received these notices, and with most of them (as with us) no action was required. Google is attempting to solve this problem algorithmically rather than with manual penalties.

Hi Ruth,

Thanks for clearing this up. It's important for all of us to understand what google's intentions are so that we can develop business plans for our futures and that of our employees and families. It seems these days most people's business plans are to find a way to leave google behind.

There's all too much uncertainty in the economy now due to the world financial situation and the added uncertainty as to whether a business may become a victim of google adds an unconscionable burden.

It's too bad we have to compare notes like this to guess what google is up to rather than them being willing to be transparent and provide support structures to make sure they aren't victimizing innocent business people. Or, to help businesses that have bent the rules (usually through SEO's they trusted in regard to a topic they didn't understand) find a way to be able to make money within google's rules. The problem with that is google won't tell people what their rules are, most likely because they don't want to be bound by them.

That said, you've done your part for transparency and that speaks highly of your character. We need more people of high moral character in the business world today that are willing to be open, honest and work to create a win-win situation rather than trying to win while leaving a trail of dead bodies behind.

Edited by chuckfinley, 09 August 2012 - 05:34 PM.

[chuckfinley]

Rand and Google share that same tub of vaseline so I would not consider any attempt to bomb his domain out of Google search as possible. But really an act of pure stupidity, verging on the impossible.

Hey Glyn,

Wanna bet that google designed this notice specifically for seomoz and the next tub of vaseline is on seomoz?

[chuckfinley]

Looks like proof that Negative SEO will work on a large site with a broad link graph --> http://www.webmaster...gle/4481912.htm

[SolutionsSEO]

Its good to see Google making sure the battlefield is level and not only about how much money you have. The old days where anyone with money could buy links is long gone and damn right.
Its a pain how the goalposts are continually moved but if SEO was easy, everyone would be doing it, right?

<edited...so sorry!>>

Welcome to the forums

Unfortunately, links to our own articles is a big "no no", at least at first. When we all get to know you and trust you're here for the Community and not self promo, and you have at least 100 (good, non spam) posts, we relax.

Don't give up! You look ready to dance with us!

Edited by cre8pc, 10 October 2012 - 11:13 AM.
Being the evil Admin

[Black_Knight]

Its good to see Google making sure the battlefield is level and not only about how much money you have. The old days where anyone with money could buy links is long gone and damn right.

If only that were true. The fact is that big brands can always buy links most others cannot. They can buy links on news sites by spending money to make news. They can issue a product recall that links to information about the product affected (which may be faked and not affect any actual recalls) on their site. They can afford traditional PR and events to get links. And people will also link to them because they are the big brands.

[SolutionsSEO]

Black_Knight - good reply. However, the product recalls would only damage their reputation and would be not worth doing.
Any size company can make news articles too, just make them informative and post!