[gscott]

I have tested negative seo to force a couple of websites out of listing positions that I had once and it works fine. What you do is buy multiple 50k "xrumer" postings with "pingbacks" for that website you want gone. Add in some spammy Fiverr jobs plus buy some links for that website you want gone on Text-Link-Ads then report that website as having paid links. This method works 100% of the time. This creates such a firestorm of links a webmaster would have to spend a month trying to disavow them and a lot of times webmasters don't even know what disavow means. Google is so worried about spamming and punishing websites rather then just ignoring the bad data. Since Google is out to punish and Google... it's a computer program it can't tell one thing from another other then these junk links exist therefor the hammer must be brought down on the webmaster who has no idea of what is going on. This was a year or more ago but I promise that this would work fine today. The smaller the website the better it works. Try it against a mega website and this would be ineffective because of the ratio of good links that they have.

[Isofarro]

"This method works 100% of the time"

How many sites did you try this on? One?

In your existing setup, how many competitors could you take out now before Google notices the pattern you've adopted? Take a look at the footprint:

* Site suddenly acquires a new batch of incoming links

* Same site is reported for being a recipient of a paid-for links scheme

* Reporter uses the email address of (your email address here) -- I love the dichotomy of blackhats despising/hating Google, yet reaching out over and over again pretending to be a good citizen.

How many times and variations of that can you come up with before standing out? And when the pattern emerges, Google are in a position to re-address the balance.

This switch Google has done from inaction to penalty for spammy links has changed the spamming game. No positive benefit from spamming is a good thing. Spammers can only create negative damage with their existing setup, until they out themselves by being trackable/detectable.

[gscott]

I limited this to three websites, first being myself. There are a number of vendors who offer to promote your website but in such a horrific way that it blows your site up. That's is what I did with a site I was marketing I did it to myself, totally negative seo'd myself bad. It was awful and dumb too. So bad that Google didn't stop with just a notification they sent a special one saying "your site is harming the Internet" and they removed me totally couldn't find me by even searching a url.

I realized something powerful. I had the power to remove any website from Google. I could be a more evil Matt Cutt's. He can remove sites from Google and so can I.

It is a pretty awe inspiring power. It is like a terrible super power. I can "poof" a website gone from the source of around in my estimation about 90% of web traffic (Google's estimations are too low).

I was going to make a service offering my terrible super-power but decided not to. I relaunched the website I was working on and now never do anything dumb to myself. Now I pretty much only do social marketing because that is where Google is moving to. The days of lots of backlinks are pretty much over, I don't even bother except for making sure local profiles are all set up.

[bjterry]

You are being insufficiently creative. If there are 10 competitors in your niche (and many will have more like 100), you can do this to five of them at random and google would have no way of determining who the perpetrator was. When you report them for paid-links, you wouldn't use your real e-mail address, that doesn't make any sense. There is no way to tell self backlinks from competitor backlinks. Both are attempted to be carried out in secret and in identical fashion from google's perspective. I could imagine a scenario where google sees that a niche has a bunch of people being targeted with backlinks, and so stops applying the penalty, but still they would have no way of targeting the bad actor.

[Isofarro]

"If there are 10 competitors in your niche (and many will have more like 100), you can do this to five of them at random and google would have no way of determining who the perpetrator was."

For a pure blackhat operation, it would simply be the newest competitor. Blackhatters rarely play the long game, they are used to burn-and-churn operations. They wouldn't have the patience to keep an unprofitable site running.

It's harder when it's a white-hat SEOer who is also comfortable wearing a blackhat-persona, they may have the patience and guile not to make it too evident. Because they know the long term payoff.

"When you report them for paid-links, you wouldn't use your real e-mail address, that doesn't make any sense."

And yet, using an email address that has zero previous visibility / fake-name generated looks suspicious too. Any thing where the sender is mostly anonymous is suspicious, particularly in answering the motive question. (Particularly silly would be using a free email provider, for example)

Again, Blackhatters aren't eager to put themselves on Google's radar, or any public spotlight. Only the naive ones use GMail / Analytics / Webmaster dashboard. They prefer operating behind the scenes and not drawing attention to themselves, because they have lots to hide.

It takes a bit of pre-planning, some good organisation, and a lot of patience to pull off a convincing online profile. Not really the hallmarks of the typical blackhatter.

Of course, if you're into identity theft, are you really willing to risk it ratting out a competitor. And you'll be in organised online crime territory

Plus the downside if the rest of the Blackhat community find out you've been snitching to Google. They may have loose morals and ethics when it comes to SEO, but they have some semblance of respect-earning.

None of this appeals to the blackhatter, seems an awfully contorted process to go through each time just to gain one ranking place (per competitor). Because it's a process that requires contacting a human at Google, it's also not something that's easily automatable or scriptable. Doesn't entirely fit the quick rinse and repeat / burn-n-churn of the typical Blackhatter.

Take out the scare-mongering of negative SEO, and examine what's left. Not much. In the wider picture, it won't even register a blip.

Now, the legal ramifications of someone being caught doing this. Motive and intent, destruction of business value, clear intent to deceive for financial gain. How many more elements are needed for this to be fraud?

Blackhatters may have loose morals or ethics, but they also know how to stay on the right side of the law. And also, not to drift too close towards the organised crime based operations.

Negative SEO won't be a regular tool for blackhat SEOers; too much risk, too much effort to pull off more than a handful of times without being spotted. Organised crime though, for extortion, most likely.

[gscott]

You can negative seo a site out of existence in about two hours and for about $75. It is actually super quick. Once you do it, it can take anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months for the site to loose it's position or be removed.

Just go to freelancer.com market. Buy several xRumer packages. Now do the same thing on Fiverr with some other various packages. Now go to Text-Link-Ads and buy some $8 dollar links and link them to your target website.

Personally, I do not do this except for a couple of years ago when Google first created negative seo. If you are trying to create backlinks to yourself it is too risky because Google will penalize you even if you are a small fry. I just make sure all of the local listings are set up (I only market small businesses that are local) and then do social marketing. Social marketing is the new backlinks. They don't last as long as backlinks and it is more effort, but that is where it pretty much is in my estimation now. To be successful in Google you can do it with about 10-30 backlinks and social marketing. Things have changed a lot since the Caffeine update.

[Isofarro]

"You can negative seo a site out of existence in about two hours and for about $75. It is actually super quick. Once you do it, it can take anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months for the site to loose it's position or be removed."

This doesn't scale without drawing attention to yourself.

It doesn't scale for an individual SEOer as a repeatable approach to ranking ahead of your competition. Most likely, it's mutually assured destruction - SEOers destroying each other, taking their clients with them.

It doesn't scale across the SEO industry. Too many people take this up as a tool, and the quality of Google search results suffer. That's when Google takes further action.

The one main way negative SEO back linking survives as a reusable technique is if it's used in small unnoticeable doses, and doesn't affect the typical Google user. Because when it does impact mainstream Google users, then Google takes the next step forward.

If the nightmare scenario materialises where SEOers destroy search quality results for mainstream users with negative SEO campaigns, Google flips the "spammy link penalty" off, all those sites affected bounce back immediately.

And then Google will comb through the data they've captured in that time period, and have an improved idea of what link sources are spammy. Google will have a much better idea of the network of sites you used (to benefit yourself before the penalty, and to negatively affect your competition during the penalty). It will stand out.

SEOers are in a classical prisoners dilemma.

[gscott]

I never said the idea was a good one, it's a bad one of course. One which I don't believe many people are doing thankfully. Myself I am not doing it because I don't want to reduce the quality of results from adding hundreds of thousands of spam listings. However, I was angry before about Google's actions on a site I was managing and acted out. I am calm and rational now.