Yet another Negative SEO attack question.

[ExploreConsulting]

I need help reconciling two points of view on spammy links.

On one hand, Google seems to say, "Don't build spammy links to your website - it will hurt your ranking."  Of course, we've seen the consequences of this from the Penguin update, of those who built bad links got whacked.

From the Penguin update, there was then lots of speculation of Negative SEO attacks.  From this, Google is saying, "We're smart enough to detect a negative SEO attack.", i.e: http://youtu.be/HWJUU-g5U_I

So, its seems like Google is saying, "Build spammy links to your website in an attempt to game rank, and you'll be penalized; build spammy links to a competitors website, and we'll detect it and not let it hurt them."

Well, to me, it doesn't seem like Google can have it both ways, can they?  Really, I don't understand why Competitor A doesn't just go to Fiverr and buy a boatload of crappy exact match anchor links to Competitor B in an attempt to hurt Competitor B.  Sure, Competitor B can disavow those links, but that still takes time and effort.  Furthermore, the analysis needed for an unsophisticated webmaster could be daunting.

Your thoughts here?  Can Google have their cake and eat it too?

[irvingw]

If it can be proven that the intention was to cause harm to another companies profits I would think you could be held liable. There is enough documentation on the web to show that Google penalizes for bad links and that negative SEO exists, if there is proof that you were doing what Google tells you not to do against your competition and it results in a penalty that Google says will happen, it seems like bad intentions can be proven and in that case you could be found guilty in a court of law. I am not aware of any precedents though.

[ExploreConsulting]

Thanks,  your reply helps keep this in perspective.

if it is proven that you created these links my guess would be
you could be held liable in court.

This would be another interesting tangent discussion.  Of course, the defense would be the first amendment right of freedom of publishing.  In my feeble knowledge, I'm not aware of a court case that has encountered this issue, but it's an interesting legal question: Could you be held civilly liable for merely publishing links?

[irvingw]

I completely agree with your comments Steve. Especially when it comes to a niche where there are only a couple of big companies and it's seasonal. If you can knock out the competitor during their busiest month of the year you've done major damage to them and have benefited yourself greatly. It's a horrible, shady practice and even though Google initiated the penalty, if it is proven that you created these links my guess would be you could be held liable in court.

[ExploreConsulting]

Why is competitor A spending their time and money trying to harm Competitor
B whenthey can simply protect themself with the Disavow Tool  Why not
spend those time and money on building quality links.

Buying links on Fiverr = $5 and five minutes.

Disavowing links = a couple of hours of analysis or paying someone a bit of cash for the analysis.

So, it's easier to create the havoc, than to clean it up.  I'm sure we're all on the same page that such a technique isn't ethical, doesn't help you build up your business, is bad business karma, and so on.  But, is it feasible?  Apparently so.  Especially when the stakes are high, for Commerce sites, it seems like this would become a tempting strategy for the less ethically inclined.

[irvingw]

There is no way that Google can know (unless you are intentionally transparent about it)  if someone you paid or someone a competitor paid built those links for you. Negative SEO is very real but it takes time and money to get a site penalized, and now it's easier than it ever was to disavow links and get a site back which helps take some of the punch out of the negative SEO business.

[TommyTan]

Hi Steve,

I think I see your point.  However, if Competitor A buys low quality links to Competitor B, yes, they can use the disavow tool to remove the links and it will still take time for them to do so and effort but what is the point in this.  Why is competitor A spending their time and money trying to harm Competitor B when they can simply protect themself with the Disavow Tool  Why not spend those time and money on building quality links.

Competitor A is simply wasting time and money to buy links where Competitor B is spending time and effot to remove them.  I don't see why anyone would do that.