| "That he stuck to his guns is imo a mistake, that google can be manipulated into dropping sites from their rankings at the behest of others is a serious problem." There are two main ways of dealing with issues: * Prevent them from happening * Mitigate the risk so the fallout is minimised if it does happen Because there are flaws in the first way doesn't mean the second hasn't been explored or carried out. We mitigate risk all the time. Seat-belts, looking both ways before crossing the street, insurance. The entire banking system. So you get hit with a manual penalty for spammy links. Deal with it. Document it in great detail, publish it, share it with Google. Then SEOers will have both the data they need and a Google rep to talk to. Plus, if it is as terrifying as SEOers keep telling us it is, the news headline boost alone will make up for the link profile damage. I think I know why SEOers are in an uproar about this: they'll have to collaborate with Google on a new level of openness. Effectively, recipients of negative SEO attacks, who then notify Google, will also have a nice shiny Google light shone on their SEO tactics leading up to the negative SEO attack. And I guess almost all SEOers have done something they are not entirely proud of, or wish to be forthcoming about. It's the fear of being seen as something other than completely white-hat. The ways to avoid reaching that uncomfortable point is: * Hope their fellow SEOers don't hit them first with a negative SEO attack * Hope Google reverses this decision, so they don't have to venture down that road. It's a bit like that Simsons sketch where the whole family are in a shock therapy session: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP4INdt_-fk The SEO fear is one of their fellow SEOers pressing the button. Hopefully it will make them more forthcoming in cleaning up their industry. A bit of public naming and shaming would be nice. |