This Forum has been archived there is no more new posts or threads ... use this link to report any abusive content
==> Report abusive content in this page <==
Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why Negative SEO technique is condemned by Google?
06-11-2014, 12:25 AM
Post: #1
Why Negative SEO technique is condemned by Google?
Why is it condemned?

Ads

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 12:41 AM
Post: #2
 
Negative SEO techniques act against google's rules and even build spam to search engines. Google will penalize websites filled with negative SEO techniques. So, you should know well about Google algorithm update.

Ads

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 12:49 AM
Post: #3
 
In the interest of being comprehensive on our discussion of this topic, we would be amiss not discuss Google's position on link-based negative SEO. Google's position on negative SEO is that it is possible, but difficult, according to Matt Cutts, head of the Google webspam team:

Last year, Google revised its official wording about negative SEO, saying "There’s almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index" to "Google works hard to prevent other webmasters from being able to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index."

Cutts has essentially stated that all the claims of successful negative SEO attacks Google has looked into don't hold up.

So, at minimum, Google grants that it is possible to successfully execute a negative SEO attack. Furthermore, some marketing experts posit that because the Google webspam team has become more aggressive in controlling activities they believe are spam, that it is now easier to execute some types of negative SEO attacks. This is especially true regarding activities that fall under link schemes in the Google Webmaster Guidelines.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)