I was able to ban a site one day simply by submitting it into 2000 guestbooks..but the site did not have any backlink beside those, so I guess the proportion of bad backlinks could play a role
A lot of very well reasoned and logical comments here but it just illustrates the uncertaintly with all things Google. My advice is not to keep all of your eggs in the one basket!
Submission by you in 2k guestbook could not be the possible reason for his exclusion, There must be something else that made that site blacklisted.
Do you have any official statement from Google of any sort that this exists? I know there are site quality teams around the glob, but backlink checking?
A lot of my competitors have gotten straight from no-where to number 1 on Google, all from links from their postings in forums etc, (nothing to do with what their website is about either). I think almost everyone tries this, I don't think Google would blacklist a site unless it was very bad, like literally thousands and thousands of links from link farms etc?
Do you have a link to this statement by Matt Cutts? Interested to know if the site he was referring to was originally penalized because of spam/quality guidelines or because of 'said' backlinks. (My guess is the former) TIA Cheers James
If you have lots of backlinks from forum posts, when the forum is about the subject of your website, that's OK isn't it??
Most of the times, I check all the history of the site with whom I plan to link. I also delete most of the comments posted on my blog articles which has a link directing to any other site. I had also read somewhere that if you have any other sites' links in your comments, this might also affect your blog/site.
Many websites chase after free backlinks, attempting to climb the ranks of Google through the sheer volume of links collected. Unfortunately, not all backlinks will benefit your website. In fact, some back links can actually hurt your ranking. To get the most bang for your buck from your link-building efforts, avoid bad link building ideas.
That's interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I guess if you have an excessive amount of links from other people on your blog it could be seen as bad by Google.
We know that the reconsideration request team looks at backlinks, I'm sure you'll find Matt Cutts saying so if you look hard enough but I don't have time to dig out the quotes, but they say in this video they will look at your bad backlinks, and expect you to have cleaned them up: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35843 We also know Google does have manual reviewers checking the quality of results: http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Google-Optimization-Help/Googles-Quality-Rater-Guidelines-Leaked/ We also know Google has a form to report paid links, which a human will look at. So we know Google's reinclusion request team will check for bad backlinks, and we know human moderators check for quality in results, whether moderators will look at an un-penalized site and punish it in some way if they find lots of dodgy backlinks I'm not sure. From Google's actions and language I personally believe they would, but can't be sure, but its certainly a real possibility.
All Matt Cutts said was if a site has been penalized or banned by the webspam team, its better to start over. "Randfish" went on to say, in my opinion... So Matt Cutts didn't say anything about bad backlinks, Randfish assumed it's because of a spammy link profile.
I had a big time money making site on page one of G for a very competitive term. It was on page one for years. Site dropped to page three and I started doing some investigation. I found hundreds or thousands of new links to my site using my keyword phrase. I knew the broker who sold those links and my suspicions where confirmed- A competitor purchased the links to my site. These links were not cheap. The link broker had no idea that the guy who ordered them did not own the site. He confirmed that it was a competitor, but would not give me a name- he was worried about being sued. I was able to have the bulk of the links removed quickly and my site went back to page one. I think that the few dozen links that were not removed quickly actually ended up helping my site because it then ranked higher than ever for my phrase. Bottom line- links can hurt.
When the bad links pointing to one site appeared, there are 2 logics come for Google to think of it. 1. Site owner did that himself to gain a free and lot of backlinks without aware of the bad side effect in ranking and trust rank. 2. Competitors did that to put down that site intentionally and site owner know nothing about this. If Google count those backlinks as negative then it would be very easy for competitor to done a lot of them. If Google count them as zero value instead of negative then I think it does make more sense. However, I do believe Google also count on "another authoritative link" as a part to evaluate if whole link profile seems legit or not. The bad links can huer you if you have rely only common links without authorized one.
Let's not start rumors. Every site's situation is different. What you think might be an offsite backlink penalty could be something you will never have a clue about from big G's algo., your site or a combination of both. I have one site that has probably violated all big G's rules and the baby is still there ranking well with duplicate content, well known black hat tricks, doorways, and other crap. Matt Cutts is full of it. Do the opposite he or Seo Gods say and you'll do fine. Cutts has been proven to be a bullshitter many times. If I had a penny for every bullshit load he spits, I'd be a trillionaire by now. The guy is Google's Bob. He is Google's Lady Gaga. Sometimes you can tell he doesn't know crap about a question being asked but he still gives his load of bullshit anyway as facts. Sort of like "Wait, interesting question. Let me blow my nose for a sec. while I think of the answer". He uses scare tactics too.
If bad backlinks could hurt then seo firms would link "bad" links to their clients competitors I guess...