34 replies to this topic

[Jill]

"SlightlyShadySEO" has an interesting post on Why Negative SEO is Becoming More Common.

I've been enjoying many of SSS's posts that I've found at Sphinn, and can tell he's a sharp cookie who appears to be an up-and-comer in the SEO world.

In his post he says:

There’s little question that Google Bowling or “Negative SEO” is gaining a lot of popularity lately. While I myself have never done it(beyond a tests I did on my own domains that weren’t pulling their weight), I was able to talk to a few people who are experienced in it, and was able to get some insights as to why it’s becoming such an epidemic. And yes, those people gave me permission to post on what it is they do.

If what he's saying is true, then the things we've heard in the past about Google Bowling, where you can knock down other sites (mostly newer, less established sites) it pretty much sucks.

Is Google really allowing competitors to ruin perfectly legitimate websites? And if so, what can we do about it, if anything? Are we at our competitor's (and Google's) mercy?

[piskie]

Frightening Jill.
I remember some time ago quoting I think MC saying someting like "There is almost nothing a competitor can do to harm a site in Google SERPs"
At the time, I emphasised the almost however this possibility was at the time jumped on but here we are with signs of it becoming an effective black hat tool tool.

[harpsound]

(from a previous posting of mine in Dec 2007)
Today this particular page dropped 20 places to 28 and 37 for 2 ultra competitive local phrases.
The smoking gun is that there is an obvious paid link from a #2 position for the same phrase to this exact page URL.
None of my other site pages show a similar drop

This looks like a text book possibility to see if a buyer penalty has been applied to me the buyer of a link from a higher SERP site for the same keyphrase.
The link is on a popular local directory which is 5-10% paid links at each page top and the link is identified as paid without a no-follow.
The directory does not seem to have any penalty at this time.

I picked up what I thought was a 20 place penalty out of the blue for a textbook "paid link for PR" situation.
After unsuccessfully trying to get a hold of the directory owner I went to a Google blog on the topic and made public noise.
The penalty disappeared overnight.

All of the above allegations cannot be substantiated.
It was very seductive to believe G did the penalty given the flagrency of the situation.
HR types said as much and the killer argument against was if G did this there would be negative SEO everywhere.
A very logical argument against my paranoia.

But I still feel I tripped something in G and they were willing to take the risk IF they were not caught.
I called them out and they dropped the penalty rather than be outted.

And now there is starting to be negative SEO in noticeable quantity.
I think G is taking the risk.
I think they are doing it manually on a case by case basis whenever the algo trips a specific circumstance.

S

PS: I actually think that no-follows for paid links makes sense long term for the web.
I got caught with my pants down because I was slow to get off the pot.

[Randy]

I think G is taking the risk.

And you'd be right Stephen.

The risk is that if any sort of Google Gaming becomes too prevalent, especially if it's gaming something that is applied automatically by their algorithm, it starts to hurt the quality of their SERPs. And if their SERPs start to see relatively major skew it harms their relvancy and user experience.

Since Google's entire income producing business model (read: Adwords) is based upon receiving massive amounts of traffic, even a perception that their SERPs aren't as good as they once were, or God forbid not as good as another search engine's, it's entirely possible for the entire house of cards to fall of its own weight. Quickly. FTR this is exactly why here at HRF you see us recommend people not rely on a single source for their traffic or income, because it truly is a house of cards that can get blown apart by the smallest of trouble.

You can however bet that Google is well aware of the precarious position they're in. It's something they've been in since the very beginning in fact, so they have to know it quite well. So as a practical matter one would assume they'd be watching it closely and take quick corrective action, even if they publically denied anything was happening.

The problem is it's a Catch 22 for them. Their algo and their entire approach to rankings has always relied more heavily than the other engines on backlinks and anchor text. This is what has always made them different, most would say better. So for them to rip this out of their equation to stop nefarious linking would be almost impossible. On the other hand, as long as they give so much weight to these few elements their SERPs are susceptible to significant manipulation.

They know this too, of course. The other thing they probably know better than any of us is there is no easy solution to the problem.

Edited by Randy, 02 March 2008 - 07:17 AM.

[piskie]

It's possible that because of "Google Bombing" and Now "Google Bowling", that G is rethinking the weight and interpretation methods of it's links and calculated PR enhancement (and denigration) of sites and pages.

Google is not one for standing still and I feel sure that they have been aware of these possible sabotage manipulations for some time. So to not have or be working on a fix would be inconcievable.

[Jill]

I think the bottom line is that there are hundreds of pages for any SERP that could all be relevant to the search query. In which case, why would they care if they knock 90 of them out? Some 90 out of 100 can't be top 10. So they'll use whatever signals they feel necessary to move the pages up or down.

In the end, they really want you to click the sponsored links anyway. Their job at this point is to keep the organic results just good enough that people keep coming back, but not so good that they don't click the ads. I believe they do this now very well by having mostly informational sites show up in the organic for just about any search query. You have to often dig deep to find commercial sites, in which case, it's generally easier to click the ads. (I generally do if I'm actually looking to buy.)

[harpsound]

it's generally easier to click the ads. (I generally do if I'm actually looking to buy.)

You click the ads?
What a novel concept!
I trained myself years ago to ignore advertising and continue to do so on the web.
Kind of thought everybody did that.
I only look at the ads when I am really frustrated.
Which happens more now.

Maybe Google is picking up more on the frustration factor.
Like Goldilock's porridge SERPS have to be served just right - not too much information, not too much commercial.

They have to keep tweaking those link algo's using penalties, I do think.

S

[Jill]

I trained myself years ago to ignore advertising and continue to do so on the web.

I used to be same way, but when I couldn't find anything useful via organic results I figured I really didn't have much choice.

All part of Google's evil plot.

[Hyperformance]

I'm with you Harpsound -

I DO NOT click on sponsored results... also because that is exactly what has taken away what used to be quality search results and has turned into the guys with the biggest wallets are the guys on Top.

It used to be unbiased, or at least not results shown by the highest bidder. Sometimes our actions speak louder than words, and it's all we can do to NOT accept or "sponsor" these results that can have little or nothing to do with your query.

My opinion, - and if I still can't find it organically, I go to another search engine - (that'll show them - LOL)

- Scott

[Jill]

My opinion, - and if I still can't find it organically, I go to another search engine - (that'll show them - LOL)

Good luck with that! The other search engines are a million times worse with their organic because they're not even close to as good as filtering the spam.

[Hyperformance]

Well, not quite a million times worse.... but I will say a lot less filled with sponsored results being shoved down my results page.

Why don't they just make it what it is? An Ad.. like 100 x 100 pixel ads (graphics and text) down the right side... (I already know the answer)

The almighty dollar is more important than the organic results.

Like you said Jill - they are focused more on income than better organic results - making them just good enough to keep ahead of competition but not as good as they could be... that's a SAD thing (IMO) -

- S

[Jill]

I'm sure they don't see it that way though.

[Randy]

Like you said Jill - they are focused more on income than better organic results

Well, in G's defense a little bit they have to be more focsed on income than they did a few years ago. Now that they're a publicly traded/own company their #1 responsibility is to their investors, which means income and quarterly profits. Certainly not webmasters, and not even their users anymore. I guess we'll just have to wait until the next Google comes along and shows them up, since none of the others seem to have the Want To or the ability. Though I think it's a safe bet MS would be more than willing to lose billions per year to just be on an even plain, hopefully a little bit better on the SERP quality.

As far as clicking on ads go, not only do I not touch them, it wouldn't matter if I did try to click on one. Google's adwords servers is one of the many ad providers I have blocked in my HOSTS file. Even if I tried to click on an ad I'd go nowhere but 127.0.0.1

[ScottSalwolke]

I'm not sure why the bias against ads. As a SEO my focus is on organic rankings. But if I'm looking for a specfic product, I'll check out the first few listings and if I'm not happy with the results, I click on the ads. For example, if I'm looking for a bat one of my sons wants for baseball. Often they're about 300 dollars. But the pay per click ads are the major chains who often have better promotions. And besides the first listing is the manufacturer who sells the bats for the full amount. Same goes for high end audio equipment that I've researched and ready to purchase.

[oneofthe3lions]

Im really suprised that someone of high profile would click ads because the serps were not good enough.

I think it is a shame and surely can only lead to more of the same. If I find serps for a certain phrase not being very good. I am more likely to dig deeper and find the most relevant result to me. Then if possible I will bookmark the url i find i like , take a note of it etc and by the means available give my vote, if you like, that this result should actually be higher in the natural listings.

Surely the priority should always remain relevant results per individual searches. Not the generic results that this situation is starting to be?

We all know of wikpedia for example, we'd go there directly if we wanted it surely? We dont want google maps taking up half the serp space either surely? and ebay etc etc taking up another 3rd of those results.

In reality everything, as some of you mention above, is seeming to make the natural serps a cluttered repetitive area for the actual searcher and click on the ads instead.

We should see things as , yes google are the biggest search company out there but who is actually providing the best results nowadays in the non paid serps?

There always used to be tests run on this type of thing. They seem rare nowadays, instead only measuring only search traffic as to oppose to a million phrases being checked by an unbiased party. Id be very interested in seeing some of that. It used to be so interesting when we had about 12 different portals/engines to measure things against.

Okay admittedly Im a natural rebel, I cannot change that about myself but clicking on the ads because those good results are hard to find and then paying that company for that seems a bit of a crime against the whole internet ethos.