Want to kill your competition in the SERPs?

As true as it may be, it is nothing compared to the multi-billion dollar company with the motto of "Do no evil" setting up a scenario that allows or even encourages this to be possible, ya know?

-Michael

 

That's not a valid comparison and you know it... Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

Sites that simply "use the color blue" and sites that are identified as paid-link providers are drastically different.

 

Perhaps, but why should we let another person or company's ethics (or lack thereof) sway us from the right and honest way?

 

I wouldn't do this, and have no need as i have the ability to hit page 1 for almost anything. However, this is a controlled test with willing participants and if Google is stooping this low people deserve to know about it.

 

Oh, I don't think he was talking about the test, he was talking about people who would actualy use this method to gain rankings.

Weren't you Jim?

-Michael

 

If you really want to bother your competition, you could try submiting to https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/paidlinks?hl=en

I think is better to work on your site than worry about others.
If you work better you will win in the long run.

 

Good use. I always enjoy a good 300 line.

 

Your correct there's actually a huge difference. I can control the color of my site, but have no say at all in who links to me. Which just shows how ridiculous this idea is, of Google penalizing people because of their links. The link itself will most likely be penalized to the point of having no value, but you'll see no effect on the target of the link.

 

I seriosly don't see how this works. Although not seeing how google would determine a purchased link from another link. Especially if content is there. On high profile sites maybe but that would seriouesly have to be a big name site.

 

I don't know any way to really test this accurately,
Maybe a paid link hurts a newer spammy website, does that mean its hurts a 10 year old authority site? When the site rises or falls, what really caused it? One factor or one factor in combination with many others?

Anyway, when google's algo determines one kind of link is more likely to be paid, people will simply adjust. For example buy natural looking links (in content), and put links to their competitors with spammy looking site-wide footer links...

 

That's correct. Not the test, but the actual use of this questionable tactic in the real internet world.

 

Good one .

Btw, this has already been discussed and Matt also knows about it .

Regards,
~G

 

You can try it on my wizah site, I created it specifically for the purpose of testing out new SEO theories.

Thanks for the google theory, I have a guy who bought a similar domain to my business, and he is stealing our deals. I would love to do this to him if we can prove it works

 

I don't think this can work

 

I don't agree with this.

 

Update on the test

He's already down a couple spots despite the fact I've been buying him links.

This is a site/keyword that has been "rock solid" in this particular spot according to him.

I now do believe Plinks is correct.

Wow.

This is insane.

I'm going to start buying links for my competition.

 

How many links of what PR did you by?

Edit - I just checked, and as far as I can tell the SE's are unaware fo any new links to that site.

-Michael

 

One PR5, one PR3. And yes, they're cached by Google.

The more I think about this, the more it makes sense.

But I have a feeling all hell is about to break loose because of this.

 

Ok, I might be off but I'm thinking that a 2 spot drop wouldn't be enough to be considered a penalty per se... although it might drop further, probably too soon to tell.

If that starts working pls do tell us more about it.

-Michael

 

Interesting, looking forward to the results. I'm doing the same test with 2 of my own sites, i reported it about 3 days ago now and no movement in SERP's from either the one i "bought" links on or the site the links are pointed at.