Discovering Spam SEO Links

**tke71709** · August 17th, 2010, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by hooperman

You know, that's what I would have thought ordinarily, but the site is merely a bunch of links to other sites! I've checked the wayback machine and it's always been a "resource hub" since it was born in 2003. I can't understand why people link to these sites.

Because those types of site are often useful to visitors?

A well maintained resource hub really is worth it's weight in gold to a user. Think of DMOZ when it was still relevant and useful.

**hooperman** · August 17th, 2010, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by tke71709

Because those types of site are often useful to visitors?

Yes, I can see that they might be. I suppose I'm just a little disappointed that there is no "meat" to this site, no real content to speak of. Just links. I guess it has more "potential" for that fact. The room for doing a bit of keyword research and expanding the content is certainly there.

**tke71709** · August 17th, 2010, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by hooperman

I guess it has more "potential" for that fact. The room for doing a bit of keyword research and expanding the content is certainly there.

Sounds like a potential good buy to me then

**hooperman** · August 17th, 2010, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by tke71709

Sounds like a potential good buy to me then

LOL I'm having no problems swinging from "buy now" to "run away now" without your help!

The decision is made: I have a max "bid" in mind and if we can't agree on that, it's over.

**tke71709** · August 17th, 2010, 10:41 AM

Sounds like a good plan to me.

The site sounds like it has a lot of potential, you can seed affiliate links in the content, create editorial style content, sell links, sprinkle in some Adsense, etc...

If you don't want it, send it my way

**mgallone** · August 18th, 2010, 06:13 AM

Slightly off topic to the rest of the thread, just a query.

How can 'spammy' links to a site hurt it? Surely this is a huge risk on Google's part, as in theory, we don't have control over the websites that link to us. Therefore, if sites could penalised for inbound links, it would be all to easy to get thousands of spammy links to a competitors site and lower their rankings, pushing you up.

**hooperman** · August 18th, 2010, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by mgallone

How can 'spammy' links to a site hurt it?

I'm not sure anyone said that in this thread. I know that some people believe it's possible for crap links to hurt a site, but I'm on the fence for the same reasons you gave.

Originally Posted by hooperman

I'm not convinced that spammy links can hurt your site in teh SERPs (though I'm open to the possibility). What I'm worried about is the possibility that those crappy links actually helped the site rank in the first place, but that Google will eventually discover them and remove their SEO benefit. I think there's a risk that rankings might drop.

**benitez17** · August 18th, 2010, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by mgallone

Slightly off topic to the rest of the thread, just a query.

How can 'spammy' links to a site hurt it? Surely this is a huge risk on Google's part, as in theory, we don't have control over the websites that link to us. Therefore, if sites could penalised for inbound links, it would be all to easy to get thousands of spammy links to a competitors site and lower their rankings, pushing you up.

The theory (as I understand it) is if most of the links to your site are from spammy sources, then Google can assume that your site is spam as well. I don't buy it personally, partially for the reason you mentioned, but I don't spend much time worrying about Google's every move. There are other ways that you can hurt your competition in Google's eyes, so it could be possible to do some damage with a spam SEO campaign.

**Clinton** · August 18th, 2010, 07:08 AM

Google used to say that there is nothing a third party can do to hurt your rankings.

Now they've amended that to say there is "almost" nothing a third party can do to hurt your rankings. The addition of that single word - and the fact that they thought it prudent to post a "correction" to their golden rules - is, I feel, quite significant.

Let's put it this way, I wouldn't challenge a top SEO to take my site down in the SERPS using purely off-site tactics.

**hooperman** · August 18th, 2010, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by Clinton

Now they've amended that to say there is "almost" nothing a third party can do to hurt your rankings. The addition of that single word - and the fact that they thought it prudent to post a "correction" to their golden rules - is, I feel, quite significant.

I accidentally saboutaged a site in the SERPs a few years ago. Nothing to do with spam links, either.