[Jack000]

I've submitted threads like this to the google webmaster forum, and standard response boils down to:

- negative seo doesn't work, google can tell the difference between spam links/sites

- it's probably an issue with your own site (ie. the deranking is justified)

- changes in rank are likely due to an algorithm update

I'm not sure if the mods on that forum are even google employees - they seem to just be random users, not sure how they are selected. I've never seen anyone on that forum acknowledge that negative seo is effective.

[apankrat]

GWF is utterly useless for any non-trivial issues.

They have a mob of high-ranking posters upvoting each others' replies, patting each other on the back and ultimately ganging up on anyone who doesn't accept their replies.

We had an issue with a site incorrectly flagged as carrying malware. Submitted multiple review requests through the Webmasters console, all had no effect and produced no replies. Completely baffled by the situation, posted to GWF. GWF top rated reply and their "general consensus" was that we were morons who don't know our way around basic server administration.

A couple of weeks later we discovered that the Webmasters' console was plainly broken in the browser that we used to submit review requests. You'd click on "Submit", it would go "inactive" and the page was reloaded in a bit, but nothing got sent out. Re-submitted the request with a different browser, it worked, issue got resolved in a matter of hours, but the GWF interaction left a very bad aftertaste. F-, won't do it again.

[jacquesm]

GWF is utterly useless, the only reason it is there is to provide the impression of support, not to actually give support. An actual support channel has a means of escalation, all the way to the top if that is what it takes to get a problem resolved. With GWF it's luck of the draw at best, and in most cases just a placebo.

[effingwewt]

I will sound like a broken record but all google products have forums with these issues. You get nothing but cut and paste answers by regular users chasing internet points for validation.

[acje]

You seem to be accusing a social media company of creating YASEC (Yet Another System of Echo Chamber). I do not see the controversy. This is what they normally do to solve their problems. Or are we in some new context of not accepting that any more?

[tyingq]

"negative seo doesn't work"

That position is utterly silly to me.

How can Google defend the idea that "blackhat SEO" you do yourself will tank your site, while saying others doing the same exact thing to you won't work?

Are they claiming some magical ability to discern ownership and intent?

[PeterisP]

They're claiming that their tools allow you see the 'blackhat' links and disown them, and if you do that then there's no effect, so in the end (as long as you're putting in that work) the negative SEO campaign would be worthless.

I have no strong opinion whether that claim is true or not in practice, but that's what's being implied.

[Jack000]

Actually in most of these threads (I've read through a lot of them trying to diagnose my own issues) the google product experts say not to use the disavow tool, lest you accidentally disavow links that may have been helping you. (ie. presumably google is smart enough to ignore those links)

This runs counter to my anecdotal experience, which is that disavowing spam links has an almost immediate effect, if the rank fluctuation is caused by those links.

[tyingq]

The "disown" bit is interesting. I do wonder about their ability to discern "oops" versus "someone is targeting me". And the idea that negative SEO is even happening in the first place.

[judge2020]

Forum posts by G employees will show "Google Employee" above their name as seen here (the recommended answer) https://support.google.com/nonprofits/thread/13880126?hl=en

[walshemj]

No one who is a SEO pro interacts on there.

I have seen unintended negative SEO a site got hacked and thousands of pages of spamy porn links added.

I suspect its harder these days but Google isn't perfect - they are only human and they make mistakes just as well all do sometimes.

[vosper]

I couldn’t quite tell from your comment: is your opinion that negative SEO is effective?

[xwdv]

I used to build negative SEO campaigns for clients a few years back and they were fairly effective, though I don’t know if that’s still the case today. I’m sure it probably is.

[Jack000]

yes I think negative SEO is effective. Context matters though, it's probably more effective against newer sites, sites with a weak backlink profile, and sites with more "naturally spammy" content like SEO.

[sharkweek]

Exactly - a negative seo campaign against... REI’s website as a random example won’t do much.

But it’s not impossible to nuke a new-ish domain or a small business’s domain with tons of bad links through spam services if you know what you’re doing.