Scrapers and negative SEO?

[Kay]

If you accept that you can't stop thieves and scrapers from stealing your content, then one little tactic against them was to pepper your content with links to your own site(s). They stole the stuff anyway, but were nearly always too lazy to edit what they stole. Therefore, you at least got some backlinks from them.

But now, if these type of sites are being zapped by G, and there's all this talk about negative SEO, what are you supposed to do if your content has been stolen? Do you have to go chasing after these guys asking them to remove your links?

None of this seems to make any sense. Really? You can take out your competitor by acquiring some dodgy links for them. Gee, the Indian link building companies will be laughing all the way to the bank.

[Clinton]

If stealing content works on Google, steal some of Google's content. Reproduce it verbatim or, better still, run it through some spinning software and flood your (non-money, feeder) sites with all this great content.

[JJMcClure]

But now, if these type of sites are being zapped by G, and there's all this talk about negative SEO, what are you supposed to do if your content has been stolen? Do you have to go chasing after these guys asking them to remove your links?

None of this seems to make any sense. Really? You can take out your competitor by acquiring some dodgy links for them.

Yes, pretty much, that's why everyone is so up in arms about this. As for hurting people with links, it doesn't make sense at all does it, that's why I've stopped link building in case I accidentally hurt a client. I could even end up getting sued maybe. Google have succeed with this update where they've failed for so many years with other updates and I've stopped trying to game them for the moment.

If stealing content works on Google, steal some of Google's content..

You're recommending that Kay steal content? Is this a 'if you can't beat them join them' philosophy or have you decided that stealing content is ok? If you steal it from Google, are you not actually stealing it from innocent webmasters?

Of course you're not seriously suggesting that but the sarcasm is somewhat blunted by the fact that you regularly accuse Google of having crap content which Kay probably wouldn't want to steal anyway

[grynge]

If you accept that you can't stop thieves and scrapers from stealing your content, then one little tactic against them was to pepper your content with links to your own site(s). They stole the stuff anyway, but were nearly always too lazy to edit what they stole. Therefore, you at least got some backlinks from them.

I annoyed G so much with DMCA requests, that these days people may steal my content and images but they don't turn up in the serps. So whilst they still could be used to make money from affil links and crap at least the content isn't bringing them any visitors

But now, if these type of sites are being zapped by G, and there's all this talk about negative SEO, what are you supposed to do if your content has been stolen? Do you have to go chasing after these guys asking them to remove your links?

None of this seems to make any sense. Really? You can take out your competitor by acquiring some dodgy links for them. Gee, the Indian link building companies will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Seeing as this is all out in the open now, and I think I said this before, I don't believe you can damage a site with dodgy links, what you can do is filter down any links that they do acquire legitimately. Competition site ranks for "exact keyphrase" you check to see what links they have with "exact keyphrase" in the anchor, you then hit as many scammy sites with that "exact keyphrase"

So google see Goodsite 1 "exact keyphrase" Badsites 1 through to Badsite 10000 "exact keyphrase" google think ok "exact keyphrase" must be bought, discount is applied.

[JJMcClure]

Seeing as this is all out in the open now, and I think I said this before, I don't believe you can damage a site with dodgy links, what you can do is filter down any links that they do acquire legitimately.

That was your position before Penguin. Now webmasters are getting 'unnatural link profile' warnings, you still think links can't hurt you? That they just dilute a profile?

[grynge]

That was your position before Penguin. Now webmasters are getting 'unnatural link profile' warnings, you still think links can't hurt you? That they just dilute a profile?

As I have controlled my linking for the past few years, I suppose I really don't know, but surely I am the kind of webmaster google is chasing as I game the serps by unnatural linking. My linking scheme doesn't seem to have hurt any of my sites? It seems to actually have helped a lot of my smaller sites. Only the larger sites I have that are using duplicate information have been hit hard by traffic loses, but even those sites are now back up to about -30% of the pre-panda-penguin updates, actually one of those sites is now about 1000% more traffic than before the P/P updates but that is due to non google traffic and its google traffic is up around 50%.

The sites I lost traffic on I only lost traffic from certain keyphrases and not all keyphrases. Have these sites hit with the P/P Updates lost all traffic or just most of their larger keyphrase traffic. What I am reading it they are losing their keyphrase traffic and not traffic across the board which seems to me, you can hurt someones linking, but you can't kill the site.