Since Google’s “Penguin” update, hysteria over negative SEO has exploded, with people blaming it for every problem from falling rankings to their hands turning orange (Pro Tip: Check to see if you just ate a bag of Cheetos). I feel roughly the same way about post-Penguin negative SEO as I do about aliens. I’ve created the following graphic to illustrate my beliefs:
Ok, maybe that sounded a little harsh, but here’s the point – while I believe negative SEO is possible – and I’ve seen a handful of cases where I’m pretty sure it was effective – it’s usually not the root cause of a ranking drop. In other words: most people who think they’ve been hit by negative SEO haven’t been. This post is an attempt to ease your fears and help you find out if you’re one of the 0.1% who really saw that UFO.
What Is Negative SEO?
Broadly defined, “negative SEO” can mean anything malicious someone does to harm your site’s rankings. Rand’s recent video on negative SEO covers many examples and is a great recap. Within the context of the Penguin update, though, negative SEO really only means one thing – that someone has launched an organized effort to make your link profile look bad. This usually means that they’ve hit you with a ton of low-quality or clearly black-hat links across a large number of domains.
I don’t want to downplay attacks on your site. If you’ve had a security breach, such as a DDoS that is taking down your site or an SQL-injection attack that has modified your content or added outbound links, take it seriously and handle it quickly. With link-based “attacks,” though, the situation can get a lot trickier, and the cures can sometimes be worse than the disease. If you just start hacking at links or throw all of your time and money into fighting a perceived threat that’s not the root cause of your problem, you could set back your SEO efforts months.
What Are The Signs?
Let’s say you wake up one morning to find that your cat’s gone missing and your rankings have dropped. Does that mean that your competitors are up to no good? It’s possible, but I think it’s critical in 2012 SEO to step back and assess the problem. Solving the wrong problem can be catastrophic – at best, it’s just a waste of time and energy.
Even if your competitors are trying to cause trouble, that doesn’t mean that what they’ve done has caused your problems. I’ve seen people do ridiculously ineffective “negative SEO” – one client’s competitor hired a low-rent firm to create a copy of the client’s site. That copy sat on a staging server in India with no links and all but the home-page blocked in Robots.txt. Was it malicious? Sure, but malicious idiots are still idiots. It wasn’t worth an international incident to take that one rogue site down. Real negative SEO takes a concerted effort and a fair amount of know-how.
When someone is really attacking your link profile, and if that attack is going to be effective, you’ll typically see unexplained, low-quality links from a variety of root domains. Just slapping your link in the footer of one bad site isn’t going to bring you down – low-quality links happen in the wild all the time. You need to see a large-scale pattern. Typically, you’ll also see a sudden spike in these links. An aggressive attempt at negative SEO isn’t going to happen over years – it’s going to be done in weeks. When you see massive, unexplained growth in low-quality links, then you may have a problem.
I’m not going to dive deep into the tools, but there are multiple good ones for getting different views of your link profile (and using more than one is generally a good idea):
The new Bing Link Explorer replaces Yahoo! Link Explorer and seems promising, but you’ll need to sign up for their webmaster tools. Both our paid campaign management tools here on SEOmoz and Majestic's tools will track historical data about your links. Keep in mind, though, that link counts can spike for a lot of reasons. You’re not just looking for a jump in the numbers – you’re looking for a clear pattern of malicious links.
Even if you do see a spike in malicious links, the impact of an attack is often temporary. Many times, people use methods that get quickly removed or discounted (such as injecting links on other sites). When the links go away, the problem often goes away. It’s not of much comfort in the short-term, I realize, but it’s easy to be so aggressive that Google spots the attack and devalues the links. Getting the balance just right isn’t easy – many attempts at negative SEO fail.
Are Aliens Among Us?
About 70-80% of the time someone comes to me having just spotted a bunch of unexplained low-quality links to their site, a little digging turns up that it was the result of bad SEO by either their own team or someone they hired. If it’s your own team, that’s good news (even if it doesn’t feel that way) – you might be able to undo those links more easily or even have a record of them. If you hire an outside link-building firm, make sure you get a record of what they’ve done. Once you realize they’ve trashed your link profile, it may be too late. Monitor new link builders closely and insist that they track links. If they refuse, fire them. It’s that simple.
Can You Prevent It?
If someone really is out to get you and wants to spend the time and money, there’s no doubt they can do a lot of damage. In most cases, though, it’s just not cost effective, and building up a wall of defenses and monitoring your links every hour isn’t cost effective for you, either. So, what can you do to prevent the most common forms of attack?
Probably your best defense is to have a clean, authoritative link profile. Google is looking at your entire pattern and history of links, and if your site is strong with generally high-quality links, it’s a lot harder to do you damage with a short-term attack. The most vulnerable sites are new sites or sites that already have engaged in too much low-quality link-building. If 80% of your links are junk, it’s not going to take that much for a competitor to push you over the edge.
At the risk of oversimplifying: do good SEO. I’m not trying to downplay the possibility of negative SEO – it does exist and it can do real damage. I’m trying to drive home the point that it’s still very rare, and most people are spending far too much time and money on tinfoil hats. In 99% of cases, the SEO problems of websites in 2012, even after Penguin, are self-inflicted. Start with what you control, and build a better mousetrap – it’s still your best protection from anything the competition can throw at you.
Hi Pete,
another good tool to add is Ahrefs. It presents very fresh links, so - in case of Negative SEO analysis or "de-breefing" external link builders job - it can help quite a lot.
Ahrefs is probably the best tool out there for this kind of job. I love the new and lost links features, if only MajesticSEO had this feature it would probably be perfect.
I wish there was a way to combine Ahref's interface + Moz's Metrics + Majestic's freshness/index-size. For now my clunky Excel workbook will have to do.
Agreed! Ahrefs is great
thank it is good tool
I just wanted to say that alien life probably exists somewhere in the verse, but I haven't seen any yet. Not even while drunk. Well, maybe one.
LOL
Far too many people using "Negative SEO" as the sole excuse for poor SEO...
Couldn't agree more. I have yet to come across a site owner that says they were hit by negative SEO that didn't actually do it to themselves. If your site tanked one night it probably means your less than stellar SEO has finally caught up with you.
when I think of the effort that someone would have to go to just to MAYBE knock your site off the top of the SERPS, surely only a few sites would even be targeted by such tactics. im thinking high CPC or high traffic terms only. for the vast majority of sites, would it even be worthwhile?? I dont think so.
I don't think it's worth the time and money to launch a negative campaign. Instead take the time and effort into building quality links and sharable content!
Completely agree. If you have a finite amount of resource (everyone does), then use it to pull yourself up, not push your competitors down...
right on!
absolutely right..
To be a victim of negative SEO - suspect would either need to be in a very profitable area to make the expense worthwhile, via gaining enemies or unlucky.
Obviously the more risky tactics used on own sites, the more likely negative SEO could work, however from my client base so far, Google seem to have got it spot on, only sites that have suffered have been because of duplicate content errors or over aggressive on page optimistation.
If sites themselves are good, etc rank has stayed stable.
Long may it continue...
Nice post, Pete. I agree that too many people are quick to blame negative SEO for a drop in ranking. However, negative local SEO can be just as deliberate and a lot more personal. Leaving fake negative reviews for competitors, adding bogus locations in Map Maker, and altering NAP in G+ Local listings are common practice in some of the most competitive local industries.
Although these methods don't necessarily pollute your backlink profile, the incorrect information included in these citations is taken into account by Google when determining relevance and authority. So the intent and effects of this form of negative SEO are roughly the same.
Hi Sir Pete !
Nicely executed . But I'm very much astonished watching the aspects from some blog / websites that they encourage negative SEO practices fully to get rid of Google penguin penalty. More surprising news is there is no description or reference about black or negative SEO . Then people would start to practise for negative practice. And the certain results would be ............... ? Completely devastating ? Never I do think so . I feel the mixing or adulterated process structure between white hat and black hat .
I believe that if one creates quality content keeping users in mind & not search engines simultaneously taking steps as to make one's website more & more search engine friendly using "honest ways" no animal update can hit you :-) the angels will take care of you.
Sooner or later black hat seo techniques have to pay their price!
So the 7 down-thumbers represent the 0.1% who have indeed seen aliens while they've been sober?
Ha Ha Ha! I wish I could give you more thumbs up for that! Too funny :)
3 hints
* Duped Content
* Buying Link
* Stuffing Keywords
- Alien status
Great post, Pete. The simplification in the end is justified. Do good SEO early and often and you greatly diminish the chances of negative SEO to work against your site.
Though I love Open Site Explorer, one thing that bugs me when trying to do link analysis is that PA and DA don't quite factor in spam very much (if at all). It's very common for me to see backlinks coming from sites that seemingly have good PA and DA scores, but take a closer look at those sites and backlinks and things get real fishy.
One thing I do to try to make up for that is grab a list of root domains linking to a site and run a bulk PageRank checker on them. Most of the time I would ignore PageRank scores... except when it returns a PageRank 0 for not-so-new sites. That score of 0 probably means that Google hit them back with a can of spam. I then look at those bulk results to see how many of the total root domains are coming from perceived spammy domains based on PageRank 0.
Again, would love OSE to have a good spam barometer :)
I can tell you that spam metrics are actively in the works, and our resident stats guru, Dr. Matt Peters will be present some preliminary research at MozCon.
woohoo! :)
I have found that most people who think they have been hit by 'negative SEO' have really just been hit in the face by their own low quality and spammy link building.
This was a very entertaining post! One of the funniest I have ever seen and this line alone made my day!"(Pro Tip: Check to see if you just ate a bag of Cheetos)"
I don't think most people will ever be effected by NSEO. However when rankings tank or stall it is easy to assume that what is most being talked about is what happened to you. The problem is less about NSEO and more about how to cleanly and clearly get your site to get visits. Depending on one source for traffic is what has caused a lot of problems in the first place. Not all links are going to be created equal. With low quality links you may get traffic, new visitors, and conversations. The problem is that most low quality links are simply used to get rankings in G.
While I also don't think it's legit for people who have dabbled in black hat then blame neg SEO on their drops, I have experimented with NSEO and succeeded greatly. Pretty much take your best competition and do tons of exact keyword match anchor text links linking to them, using a ridiculous quantity of links. It knocked a #3 site to #100+ in about 2 weeks.
But the truth is, if Google penalizes certain off page activity, it creates a new industry that is Negative SEO, and that is a nasty future for our industry. It also goes against what Matt Cutts' intention of reducing webspam is in the first place.
Disclaimer- No real sites were harmed in this experiment. Only sites built for the purpose of experimentation.
Great article, my website also hit by the “Penguin” update. I hope your article can help my website get the ranking again.
An idiot is an idiot is an idiot... And the chances that an idiot is pulling of such a focused and (let's be honest) enthusiastic online assassination seem to be rather minute to this casual observer. Penguin freaked a lot of people out - and that's what professional, white hat firms are here for. To right the ship when the ship falls to page 4 overnight.
Thanks - it's a tricky area sometimes trying to decide whether drops are a result of Google changes.
Thanks for the post! I found a pretty good inforgraphic on a case study done by tastyplacement. Pretty Interesting. Check it out! Negative SEO Infographic
[url fixed and pointed to original tastyplacement infographic by staff]
I have noticed some negative SEO on one of my sites - spammy links from forum profiles using exact match keyword anchor text on a keyword that I was raking well for - after the keyword disappeared I found 222 of these links - Anyone have any thoughts on reporting spam links on mass to Google? I haven't had much joy from previous attempts of using their spam submission service...used Bing's disavow which was great
I dont believe aliens are among us but i do believe the adult keyword anchor text linking from spammy sites is real for me :( .....i also wish Google could just let you block unwanted inbound links.
Why can't Google support something like robots.txt where webmasters can just block/disallow inbound links, so Google knows NOT to pay any attention to these links, that would serve us as well as the SE's so well
So far we haven't been affected or seen negative SEO in action and hopefully we won't!
Hi Dr-Pete,
a few months ago I noticed a decrease in my traffic. However, at the end of March I suffered an huge decrease in traffic (about 80%).I did not receive any information from Google and I am not using any back SEO tactics (at least that I know of), so I filled a reconsideration to Google.
I was informed that this was not a manual penalty, but a result of the change in the algorithm.
Can this be considered the "negative SEO" you mean? As I am not sure what caused this penalty (if I can call it that way), what can I do to identify the root-cause and solve it?
BTW, here is the site https://visitarnovayork.com
Thank you for your help.
I have read entire blog post and come to know about few solution which may help me to save my website during Negative SEO. Here, I want to share my experience and live data regarding Negative SEO.
Someone is creating bad inbound link to my website. And, I come to know about it via Google webmaster tools.
Honestly, I have implemented certain solutions like Google disavow tool, contact to certain websites and many more.
But, I can see certain impact on organic visits. Organic visits are going down since last two months.
And, I am thinking, These bad inbound links are behind it.
You can visit following URLs to know more about it. Can you please share your experience on it? How can we save my website from Negative SEO?
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxyEDFdgDN-iR0xMd2FHeVlzYVU/edit
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxyEDFdgDN-iMEtneXU1YmhWX2s/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxyEDFdgDN-iSzNXdEJRdVJJVGM/edit?usp=sharing
I agree , but i think if somebody having low quality link pointing to us , doesnt make harm unless we are pointing to them
FWIW, we've got a few sites out of Penguin now for people that have randomly called! The one key factor is an inbound link from one site to the client's with multiple links. This is usually from either a directory listing or a sidebar or footer link from a blog with a monetised keyword. Once you know what you are looking for, quite easy to fix and the best source for identifying the naughty sites, Google webmaster tools bizarrely!
Hello Pete,
No doubt, Admirable Post!
But still we have little bit uncertainty that according to your blog post low quality can harm your search engine rankings and it justify a part of black hat SEO. Conversely we have a question that if a low quality sustains the niche then is it a part of black hat SEO?
That's great say Dr.Pete, very few likely to hit by negative SEO. The hype of negative SEO is too much because of the Webmaster messages that Google has sent. Actually Matt Cutts has also clarified that those messages sent by manual. Read here more clarification. Because of that, people started to blame that my competitor has done negative SEO.
Second thing is, I have seen so many people has built links using some sort of keyword anchor text, hence more than 50% of back links coming with same anchor text. Which is clearly insisting that these are definitely not earned links and so that got Penguin Penalty. They also started to blame negative SEO. It’s a case of negative SEO but done by yourself.
So these are two main reasons behind the propaganda of Negative SEO. Actual things are different.
Google has opened the door for negative seo as a way to remove a competitor in many scenarios. Small and medium businesses that make a large portion of their revenue from organic search could be negatively impacted.
Why would someone go to the effort?
If it works, the effort can be minimal. The scraping of a competitor's site and pounding Article Marketing Robot submissions to as many low quality, porn, pharma/drug sites(there are thousands) with their primary keywords. That's too easy. Even buying expired domains with very bad history and existing bad links and linking to a competitor is also easy. So it doesn't cost much time or money to do either of the above.
Whatever it is that works will be used more and more as long as negative penalties exist.
I'm not saying this is a strategy I would employ, but in a way its similar to athletes using steroids in professional sports. Is it wrong? Sure. Does it work? In many scenarios the use of steroids, proper nutrition, extreme workouts,proper rest and hydration can work very well for that some athletes. During the 80s and 90s steroid use was rampant in high school sports(may still be), professional baseball, and professional cycling and others because there were few obstacles or penalties for that use.
So if the advanced seo that wants to hurt a competitor decides to, not only is there not a pee test to check for that, but its a malicious attack enabled by Google.
Sometimes its the unintended consequences that hurt the most.
It's easy to dismiss Negative SEO as nothing more than something people moan about when excrement hits the fan.
The fact is there are outfits who can, and are, killing their competitors through malicious link building practices. If you operate within an industry which doesn't traditionally have websites that have extensive backlink profiles, then it's going to be fairly straight forward to manipulate the foot print to look unnatural and trigger automatic filters. The only sites unlikely to be affected by Negative SEO are those which are mid-large sized brands who have 100's of natural links. To manipulate those kinds of foot prints would be uneconomical even for the most skilled "nukers".
Also, why does everyone seem to think Negative SEO is all about "low quality links"? The most obvious method of choice is to attack specific anchor text. They aren't "low quality" links, just a lot of links of varying quality... more often than not the kind that other people would normally want to be acquiring links on anyway. By using the same anchor text it's easy to trip the filter and, to Google's eyes, it doesn't look like an attack as such because the links are the kind that people in that industry would normally acquire in any case.
I don't want to suggest that negative SEO never happens, and I apologize if this post turned into a rant. The message I intended was to talk down the many people who seem to be jumping at shadows and assuming "negative SEO" and foul play whenever they see a strange link in their profile. In most cases, that just isn't what's going on.
Almost every case I've seen of negative SEO has involved low quality links. While you could theoretically use aggressively targeted anchor text on high-authority, relevant links, it very, very rarely happens, for two reasons, IMO:
(1) It's very difficult. Building a bunch of good links with exact-match anchor text is a lot harder than building a bunch of junk links.
(2) It could very easily backfire. If you're sending Google a bunch of positive quality signals about your competition and only one negative signal (the anchor text), you might actually help them, especially in the short-term. You're banking a lot on Google's opinion of one tactic, and you could spend time and energy boosting someone's link profile.
Unfortunately it has become more and more common, to the point at which services exist solely for this purpose. We have seen a couple of examples of it work in the wild, although most fail miserably.
That "Hire us" badge is surely a new form of advertising: "Avatising" :D
"Hire Us" - Love it. Eye-catching as well.
Off to register avatising.com to help people optimize their avatar ads....
"malicious idiots are still idiots" NICE!
I used to think it was wrong of Google to have bad links actually hurt you rather than just be discredited. But considering the extremely low-rate of NSEO that occurs in reality, I guess it's a good spam-removing strategy on Google's part.
"it's a good spam-removing strategy on Google's part"
How? I don't get what Google get out of it at all. I'm reasonably sure they figured out how to spot link/content farms a while back.
What I would understand is an option in WMT to let Google know a link is rubbish/unwanted. I'd have thought Google getting a message from a webmaster that effectively says "that website that just linked to me is trash" would be of enormous benefit to the webspam team.
Pete, I think you definitely need some holiday. You blog posts get more cynically and despairingly (though funnier I have to confess) lately. :-)
Sorry, I originally was trying to just talk people down from over-reacting and jumping at shadows, but instead this turned into a rant. I definitely need a holiday :)
Moving doesn't count as a Holiday? There isn't a lot of rants on SEOmoz. Your posts are much needed.
One of our sites (a very new site with few links) was attacked and destroyed in the SERPs.
Porn anchor text from porn websites. Even branded anchor text from just tons of spam. All of it from a variety of low authority spammy domains.
Is there anything we can do? Any action we can take?
Great article Pete. I am working to keep my SEO efforts simple, organic, consistent.
Hi Dr.Pete!! This is extraordinary that there are people who are sharing such a good quality information like this one!! It is difficult to be an expert on seo but if you manage to understand how search engine work then you can solve your ranking problems if you have bad issue !! Thank you for this information..there are many ways to rank high.. you can write for example internet marketing articles on an article directory and compete with the existing website...
I do agree that if your link profile is fair and genuine it would be hard for your competitors get you down. Even then I do accept the existence of Negative SEO and Google should come up with some tools and options to disavow links that we feel are irrelevant. just few days back Bing launched one of the tools that enable website owners disavow malicious and irrelevant links.
Well tremendous post! But after Penguin update many SEOs have changed their strategies as to save their sites from Penalty. Obviously we can explained Black hat SEO:-
Keyword Stuffing
Link spamming
Million$ quote “Monitor new link builders closely and insist that they track links. If they refuse, fire them. It’s that simple”. I agreed most of negative seo started by our own team with low quality links. Rand challenged to take down SEOmoz with negative seo but it seems impossible to accomplish this challenge. Because “Google is looking at your entire pattern and history of links, and if your site is strong with generally high-quality links, it’s a lot harder to do you damage with a short-term attack.” If we start building authority links in our starting phase none of the Aliens can harm with nagative SEO.
Thumbs up for you.
Where did Rand post this challenge? I'm curiouser than the mad hatter!
Theoretically I can agree with you that it’s almost impossible to take down a website with negative SEO and the reason to back this point is that Google does not really track the negative links but the history and link pattern of the website.
But practically I witnessed the cases where people spend budget on Negative SEO and actually pay to people to build negative links to their competitors…
I believe Negative SEO can work in few cases especially when they are already building low quality links since long… but again I have to agree that many time when people think that they has been attacked by Negative SEO is not true.
Negative seo is the black hat seo in google's eye so negative seo is the beneficial for any website.
why not google showing backlinks and internal links for my website on webmaster.?
Please help me in this matter
No its not completely true, Penguin update on link firm websites.
Thanks Dr. Pete for the helpful info.