The Negative SEO Debate Sparks Up Again

[Clinton]

Or confuse the bombing algo - if you're way down in the SERPs ...bomb your own site in exactly the same way that you bomb the site that's at #1. That you are being parallel bombed together with #1 may be a signal to Google of your own site's quality! (You heard it here first )

[Slowdive]

Or bomb everyone on page one including yourself and let number 1 site get blamed. The variables are endless and the serious BH guys will test it endlessly. So I am left with only a handful conclusions.
1. Googles move to just caring about brands is more sever than one might have thought and they are prepared to let us all fight out and mild the dependence on add sense.
2. This a temporary and calculated risk on Googles part that will allow them to de-index a lot of rule breaking sites and if a few law abiding citizens get caught in the spray, sacrifices have to be made.
3. This time they really screwed the proverbial pooch and we are in for some funny dancing while they sort it out.

I must make a confession though outside of the rather extreme side of things, negative SEO the recent updates have cleared a lot of crap. One of my sites was page one on G for a few terms, specifically targeted at that and below them were a lot of badly constructed and or shady type sites. Now I see that same site is appearing for a far more varied and realistic set of search terms and my actual competitors, guys I know in the industry are all around me for a change. So at some level, at this early stage something is working. Well I call it working as its in my favour, but as I know I build decent websites and my SEOed sites are squeaky clean for google it is encouraging.

[JJMcClure]

2. This a temporary and calculated risk on Googles part that will allow them to de-index a lot of rule breaking sites and if a few law abiding citizens get caught in the spray, sacrifices have to be made.

Yeah, I said that in a slightly different way earlier in the thread, that's where I am on it too. This is a crap clearout exercise.

I think to get 'caught in the spray' your site would have to be pretty borderline in the first place though.

[mikeb]

If you look at Jill Whalens article on high rankings about "negative SEO" - Dan Thies himself now comments that on analysis he does not attribute ( or no longer attributes) his ranking movements to negativeSEO

Makes an interesting read.

http://www.highrankings.com/forum/in...eo-is-working/

[JJMcClure]

If you look at Jill Whalens article on high rankings about "negative SEO" - Dan Thies himself now comments that on analysis he does not attribute ( or no longer attributes) his ranking movements to negativeSEO
/

Not sure what you're saying here Mike since that's what I said in the first post in this thread? Dan Thies has always denied it was negative SEO that bombed his rankings. The evidence would suggest otherwise.

I don't get Jill 'supporting' Google, like they care what she does.... How ever they use it, Google's one and only priority is showing good quality content to their own users so there is no way to manipulate that system without them trying to stop you. Make a liar out of her? LOL, she's an SEO, they want to put her out of business...

[mikeb]

Not sure what you're saying here Mike since that's what I said in the first post in this thread? Dan Thies has always denied it was negative SEO that bombed his rankings. The evidence would suggest otherwise.

I don't get Jill 'supporting' Google, like they care what she does.... How ever they use it, Google's one and only priority is showing good quality content to their own users so there is no way to manipulate that system without them trying to stop you. Make a liar out of her? LOL, she's an SEO, they want to put her out of business...

OOps - sorry - I missed the fact that dan had already denied it first.