Matt Cutts Says Next Penguin is Coming in A Few Weeks

It wont change anything for the people who dont do anything wrong, ...

 

Unless someone decides to point "bad links" to your site.

 

does this actually work?

if I point xxx links to someone elses site, will it drop on google?

and maybe use some irrelevant xxx keywords with it?

 

Not sure, but the business of "Negative SEO" seems to be booming.

 

Try it, my forum is in my sig we will test it!

 

I do have my doubts that it works. I go to Google's webmaster page and see many claims from people stating they are victims of a competitor hiring a Negative SEO firm to point bad links to them.
Needless to say, my thought is many of them paid for those links and now want help thinking it was those links which must have penalized and then are being directed to the Disavow tool.

My thoughts:

I have checked 3 sites from those making those claims and on their sites I have seen a lot of internal linking with keyword stuffing etc. which I have no doubt is more likely the reason that their sites have been dropped.

 

We could test to see!

I have this #1 result for example (among others for the site) and I don't mind losing it (the #1 result) testing to see if it works or not.

 

be prepare yourself for the next penguin update

 

Is that a message for Batman and Robin? Time to get the Batmobile out?

 

I wouldn't know where to begin Negative SEOing. But I wouldn't mind proving it to be a myth.

 

Can't say I really read that much about it tbh. I saw one or two names and the arguments between the ones doing the negative SEO boasting and all that, but it all got sorted as far as I could see and it seemed like other factors we're involved anyway to me when I went to investigate.

But as I say that fourm of mine has some page 1 results and I don't mind seeing if people want to see the effect.

I can't remember the forum where they we're all boasting about doing it or the guys names who brought it all out into the open, which at the time to me seemed like there was more going on than what appeared at face value. I could be wrong of course.

 

Yes it works, and it's not a myth and you can thanks Google for their updates, because the rise of Negative SEO had its genesis in Panda & Penguin. Before these updates, creating crappy links, or dirty content in order to destroy an opponent website was risky... It could even leads to have the opposite effect.

Nowadays ? The theory is rather simple, Google tumbles you if you have crappy links or a bad content. So if you are a negative SEO you just have to create crappy links and duplicate content everywhere you can (using black hat methods)

What's the answer from google ? Disavow your links. The Google’s link disavowal was introduced few weeks ago and its main goal is to...disavow links , when you don't want some links from external sites because you think they are not relevant. Google knows the effect of negative SEO and this is why they created an useful tool indeed, but damn, GOOGLE DO YOUR JOB YOURSELF ! Why the publishers have to do it from you, if you know a link is crappy then disavow it yourself. The truth is : their algorithm can't (yet) do this. So they are using us.

Negative SEO is effective if you are not carefully watching your links every day...

 

This makes no sense. If their algorithm can penalize a site based on a "bad link", then why can their algorithm not disavow that link?

 

It makes sense if you consider this thing :

When you are getting penalized, it's not in the following second, it's a long process. Google needs time to understand why a link is a bad one (related to your website). Their disavow link tool speed up the process. You give them a precious information. Moreover a single link won't get you down, spammers are becoming smarter and smarter...

A funny example :
A robbery in a bank with an unmasked thief. Calling the police will "make no sense" because he will get caught sooner or later. But it takes time and the harm is done when they will catch him. This is why you'll call the police to avoid the harm, same goes here

 

Do you make this stuff up from your own theories or do you have a source of authority for your, what seem like, assumptions?

The other day via PM you told me peole don't search for things with "UK" in search phrases, as they use England instead. I tried to explain to you that UK was likely first used as quite often US results proliferate but you told me Google adwords does not show this for you.

 

Google first warns you, then takes actions, it's not an assumption they have always worked this way with links.

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.fr/2012/10/a-new-tool-to-disavow-links.html

PS : SEO UK, not UK alone, or UK in other context

 

For my forum sites I've been seeing this domain consolidation happen for at least two years now, so they're already doing it where up to four sub-links are being displayed in a format very similar to sitelinks, but not the same thing as they're true links with descriptions.

 

I had a feeling you would quote somethig with a Matt Cutts video in it but it still doesn't add up to your theorising above as Blogmaster pointed out.

As for the UK bit I think perhaps something might be getting lost in translation perhaps

 

You were asking me a "a source of authority" what kind of source where you expecting ? It's the official website by google I don't have a better source of authority than that.

It does. Of course who knows how exactly is working their algorithm. Google doesn't spend millions in a tool if it's just for fun their goal is (like they said) "prevent google". We SEO call this : cheaper labor.

 

How exactly do we know the "real reason" why Google penalizes. A lot of sites have bad links pointed to them. Yet they are on top. Every site doing aggressive link building seems to do something else "wrong". So I have my doubts that the entire scheme is legit.