Web Guerrilla Takes Apart Some Schmuk's Link Network

19 comments

I passed by seoMoz and followed links to Greg Boser's new blog and started reading. Someone called Greg an idiot (apparently not a good idea!) and Greg decided to pick apart his link network. It's business reading about SEO, but reading Greg is better than the Comedy Channel. Read it for yourself. I keep getting distracted by the wise-ass quips:

Quote:
...Now that doesn’t sound like an email from someone running a link network that just got torched by Google....
Quote:
...there are also many phrases that even Doug Heil would have a chance ranking for...
Quote:
So I collected a sample of 50 keyword phrases being targeted by sites in the GotLinks directory. (all of them were found on the first page)

Thanks for the lift!

Comments

As SEO blogs go thats a

As SEO blogs go thats a killer, hats off to WG. [He does his own graphics too :)]

If he would add style="cursor: pointer; to the header image it would approuch perfection.

If that's all it takes to be perfect....

I'm there!

stop it NFFC - you're just

stop it NFFC - you're just encouraging him - hehehe

> graphics

Kudos to you - best designed blog I've seen (and the contents damn good too of course).

If it's really so easy...

I just have to say, if it's really getting to be so easy to kill a site in Google by pointing some smarmy links to it, my competition better brace themselves!

but that would be unethical

It would, right? ;-)

Nice headline by the way, Nick. I would never have tried to use "schmuk" myself... I just can't pull it off.

I'm not convinced

It seems far more likely to me that massive numbers of crap links would just be ignored. Now, if a site had been deriving some benefit from the crap and that benefit were removed, the site would certainly drop like a rock, but that's not the same as a penalty.

I don't know. I'd need really solid evidence before I started believing that it could be this easy to sabotage someone else's site.

And BTW, the standard transliteration is "schmuck".

Sorry but...

Quote:
Anyone who wasn’t asleep for the last month knows that Google’s last update was all about penalizing sites for reciprocal linking.

... no, it wasn't.

Great read though.

Did you run a report to check all the reciprocals (outbounds) it does have? Even if they were all quality at one point they may have been drastically changed, etc. This would be my first check outside of the link network aspects.

Was there anchor text variation or were all inbounds from this network using the same phrase?

all about penalizing sites for reciprocal linking

yes it was

Sort of agree with Dave

It obvously wasn't ONLY about reciprocal linking but that I think certainly had a large part in the changes.

right

notice the emphasized "all".

There was so much more to that series of updates that to home in on that factor in entirety is much too blanketed for my taste. Now, to pick apart the particulars of the push towards negating the value of reciprocal linking is interesting and worthwhile, but merely stating that the entire update was about fighting reciprocal linking is just too much.

but merely stating that the

Quote:
but merely stating that the entire update was about fighting reciprocal linking is just too much.

Dude, it's called sarcasm. I thought I was pretty clear about the fact that I think there's a bit more to the new filters than just calculating the ratio of reciprocation.

I also mentioned the fact that the site had already obtained top SERPS in Google before the links from the network were introduced. This is much more than simply not counting the network links any more.

Dude, gotcha!

Ok, sarcasm noted. Anyways, the fact the site obtained top SERPs in G before the link network does not ultimately mean that had the site not participated in the network scheme it would have never lost top positioning. I do understand that the site was deemed to be snowy white (hat) but there are factors that can affect once-strong rankings without any changes on-site or without any additional off-site efforts. Meaning, as I know you know, doing nothing can still result in huge drops.

but...

But how do you write about "doing nothing"? How do you even analyze that?

Obviously the site was good and now it is not. ipso facto it's hosed. Of course somebody did something. ;-)

Hehe

Yea, I know what ya mean. When I said "doing nothing" I guess what I meant was something "previously done".

I'm not sure Google really understands....

.. how much would be paid to knock out a few competitors :)

I know of quite a few sites

I know of quite a few sites that have been knocked out by sitewides, not paid by them, but by competitors. Sitewides on blogs - cheap.

2much

shhhh ... you will get my into trouble ... hahaha .. but it is true .. I said joking to a client well if they are going to Ban for sitewides put them for xxxxx.com hehehe just to test .. so they did .. poof gone lol

DaveN

Sadly

There's ways to do it without even paying! It's more along the lines of "re-sandboxing" sites that are barely creeping out. Sometimes this side of the game is even more fun as far as testing goes (our sites!).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.