Comments on: After Deindexing, Negative SEO Becomes A Major Issue

By: Dan Thies

Dan Thies — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:30:58 +0000

I’ll believe it’s a major issue when I see real examples. Or when all the twits who are trying to knock my sites down with splog networks and all that junk actually succeed. They’ve been at it for years, but maybe it just takes time.

By: Jon Cooper

Jon Cooper — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 01:50:08 +0000

Thanks Brian! Good point. I don’t think it’s easy to do, because as you said, a penalty is a lot more than just a warning, but it’s still something we should at least educate ourselves on. I think the common misconception of a GWT warning & an actual penalty is something that hasn’t been talked about much at all, and I’m glad you brought it up.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:30:32 +0000

I think people are blowing negative SEO way out of proportion — in fact I haven’t seen a reliable & replicable report of it actually happening (the link in your article leads to a login page: I’d love it if you had any links to something I can read).

I think people are confusing webmaster tool warnings for penalties.

We have a couple of clients who were buying low-quality links (on their own & on the side — not something we do). They all got webmaster tool warnings, but none of them were penalized. One of them saw some rankings losses, but that was directly due to the fact that one of their link networks is now 50% deindexed — not a penalty.

Even Uri Lederman’s comment a couple up points to a post where they tested and ‘proved’ that negative SEO works — but also noted that their rankings did not drop at all. Believe me — if your site gets penalized, your rankings *plummet* — all of them. So just because a webmaster tool warning shows up asking you to fill out a reconsideration request does not mean that your site has been penalized.

By: uri lederman

uri lederman — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:58:10 +0000

HI Jon,

Great post,

We did a quick test on negative seo to see if it is a live and kicking. check it out here:
http://www.saasaffiliates.com/testing-negative-seo-has-google-opened-the-floodgates-to-competitors-hurting-your-web-ranking/

By: J

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:32:15 +0000

You guys keep repeating that negative seo isn’t illegal. Are any of you lawyers? If so, please explain why this particular form of sobtage is legal. Because to me it seems that the “it’s not illegal to link to someone” line wouldn’t hold much water in an actual court case, since that’s clearly not what is being done. It’s obvious that it’d be extremely difficult to get caught doing something something like this, but if you WERE caught and it could be proven that you were responsible for getting someone’s site tanked, I believe it would be foolish to go bed at night thinking you are free from any legal ramifications, especially if you caused financial loss. Unfortunately, negative seo is far too easy to get away with.

By: Jon Cooper

Jon Cooper — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 20:03:09 +0000

Agreed, it’s the best solution. Anything more gets too complex and comes with a lot of issues that need solving.

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:25:46 +0000

I totally agree with you Jon, it would be much better if they would simply ignore all these spammy links.

By: Jon Cooper

Jon Cooper — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:31:57 +0000

Thanks for the heads up Robert!

By: Robert Rowshan

Robert Rowshan — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 07:07:47 +0000

FYI the links for webpronews and forbes are going to mailtohttp:// might want to fix that

By: Jon Cooper

Jon Cooper — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 02:19:29 +0000

I don’t think you can just shut down people from doing something. Technically, it’s not illegal, so the only bone to be picked is between them and google’s search results. Google themselves or any other organization can’t do anything outside of banning them from the SERPs, and since they’re dealing with other people’s sites, and not their own, you really can’t.