Yes Virginia, There Is Negative SEO

I would dearly love to believe that so-called ‘negative SEO’ was not possible in this day and age of human editors, link checkers and auditors. Given my recent experience with a museum who were manually penalised, I can say ‘Negative SEO’ is alive, well and easily executed.

 

From thisseolife:

Proving Negative SEO Works Is Like

 

It all started when a museum launched a longer-than-average exhibition. They gave this exhibition its own domain and featured blogs from the curators. This was a significant enterprise for them and they worked quite hard on promoting it. My company gave them some support so we had a relationship with them and started helping ensure they could be found but we were not engaged to do SEO at this point or any sort of search support work. Everything was going along well until one day they were hacked.

 

The hack wasn’t too sophisticated so it was immediately visible that it had happened and they were able to flag it with their IT department. As these things go it was dealt with moderately quickly but the hack was up for awhile. Once resolved we went back to business as usual for them. Lurking in the background, unbeknownst to them or us, was a ticking time bomb.

 

Eventually we were contacted by them in a panic as they didn’t know what to do. They had dropped out of the rankings completely for their key terms (a phrase they invented). Upon examination we found they had dropped for their own brand term, their key terms and once we got Webmaster Tools access we found they had dropped for almost every key term and there was a message. They had received the dreaded “un-natural links” warning email. Disaster, but why?

 

Looking back over what they had done we could find nothing they have actively done which would explain the problem. They were a museum engaging in only the normal PR work – so what had caused the problem? Well, a few brilliant minds came together and one spotted it – the spammy links causing the manual penalty. Apparently once the hack happened, it caused a bunch of pharma links to be pointed at the museum site.

 

The weird thing was, those pharma links were irrelevant and should have been passing no value at all. So why did the museum, who were not selling anything like those links indicated, get a *manual* link penalty? The links were irrelevant and the anchor text was irrelevant so the links should have been passing no value.

What we have is an excellent example of how ‘Negative SEO’ works.

 

Manual checkers aren’t using common sense to check the sites it seems. How a museum could have been mistaken for a site benefiting from pharma links is unknown to me but it did clearly demonstrate ‘Negative SEO’ was still possible.

 

It only worked for a short time – eventually Google saw the lack of wisdom in the decision and when we contacted them they removed the manual penalty. This seems to me to be a really effective seasonal ping – throw the spammy links at a site just before a major shopping holiday, rake it in as your competition disappears and voila, you’ve won.

 

What should you do if you think you’ve been hit? Firstly check Webmaster Tools. We got a note, you’re likely to as well if you got a penalty. Next, check your back links. You can check Majestic SEO on your own site, Google Webmaster Tools, SEOmoz, and a number of other tools. Look at the anchor text of your back links – this is super easy in SEOmoz, Majestic SEO and a few others. Look to see if there is anything untoward or suspect. You should *never* have more keyword links than brand links and your keyword links should be on the theme of your site. If there are spikes on the Majestic SEO graphs around the time just before you got your penalty it could be due to volume of acquisition and in that case you might not have gotten an alert. We didn’t when we accidentally tripped a volume flag. Just dig using free or paid tools and see what is going on.

 

Once you find the errant links, if they are irrelevant as these were, use a WHOIS lookup and use the email contact to request that the links be removed. If it like it did for us, they will all bounce or be ignored. Once done, use that spreadsheeted list of the bad URLs and include them in your reconsideration request, stating that not only did you clearly not build them but they were contacted to ask for removed and emails bounced or went unanswered. It, of course, helps to be able to email a Google engineer but hardly anyone can. The above should work without extraordinary intervention.

 

Negative SEO is still possible, poisonous links do still exist and you can still harm an irrelevant site with bad links despite attempts to do so not always succeeding.

Tags:

Liked this? View all posts in Google

10 Responses to “Yes Virginia, There Is Negative SEO”

  1. TallTroll says:

    … and I can think of at least 3 or 4 other major methods to trash a sites rankings, depending on what vulnerabilities might exist in the technical details of a given target, that you haven’t even touched on. I know it sounds an odd thing to say, but I don’t think Search Engineers understand search very well, or they wouldn’t keep giving us these wonderfuls toys… I mean, dangerous techniques

  2. Matt says:

    The issue here is that the exhibition site probably had very few naturally occurring links, so the pharma links would have made up a huge percentage of the backlink profile.

    In a real world example, I’d expect negative SEO won’t work anywhere near so well. Rand Fishkin asked the SEO community to try and get his site penalised recently, and despite many SEO’s best efforts he didn’t see so much as a ripple in his rankings.

  3. Brad Dalton says:

    The problem here is you cannot contact anyone at Google whereas you can contact Bing.

    There’s a form you can use if you think you’ve been hit unfairly, but you won’t get a response so you don’t know if they have checked your site.

    I have found from my study into negative SEO that Google are clearly favoring U.S owned domains over non U.S owned domains.

    I have reported negative SEO to Google many times but they have never responded in anyway shape or form.

    This is the site which caused me problems

    modamusic.com 7,627 Links

    The host and domain manager refused to take down this site even though it was clear it had been hacked for negative SEO purposes.

  4. Luca says:

    @Matt, you can not compare SEOMoz to the small business website…

    I haven’t done any testing but I’m pretty sure with all the latest updates any standard website (without such a strong SEO as seomoz) could get hurt with $20 in fiverr…

  5. [...] the links were not knowingly purchased by the webmaster or someone acting on their behalf (e.g. a competitor deliberately trying to sabotage.) “Unnatural links” were therefore a death sentence, which may not have been entirely [...]

  6. [...] the links were not knowingly purchased by the webmaster or someone acting on their behalf (e.g. a competitor deliberately trying to sabotage.) “Unnatural links” were therefore a death sentence, which may not have been entirely [...]

  7. Zak says:

    Wonderful work! That is the kind of info that are supposed to be shared around the net.
    Disgrace on Google for not positioning this post
    upper! Come on over and seek advice from my web site .
    Thanks =)

  8. Michael says:

    The more natural and authoritative links you have the harder it will be for spammy links to influence your rankings and negative SEO will not be a big problem.I will never do it.It’s bad and unfair.I’m glad that you shared this.I’m now aware of negative SEO.Thanks.

  9. NSEO is not so easy and in most cases it needs much more fire power than it needs to rank a website..

  10. Mike says:

    This is a very good post, it is informative and a great guide for anyone who has be unfortunate enough to be hit by a Google penalty, thank you for sharing.

Leave a Reply