Google was forced into the negative SEO nightmare

The SEO community has been in a bit of a buzz over the last few weeks.  Google, dominant in so many territories, has begun to email tens of thousands of  site owners with warnings.

Google’s warnings include alerts of traffic drops, traffic spikes, out of  date software but also when the search engine is concerned about the quality of  the links pointing to the site.

This is significant. In the past brands and agencies had to work out from  changes to the search results as to whether Google was happy with the links the  brand site was attracting.


Bands and agencies have been affected differently. I’ve spoken to friends and  colleagues in a number of agencies and in-house teams who have not had a single  warning. Those SEO strategies which focused on getting good quality links,  earning them naturally through engaging content and remembering to take a  multi-signal approach have done well.

However, I’ve also spoken to people in other agencies and other in-house  teams who have had the carpet pulled from under their strategy. Some are at a  loss as what to do next.

There are complications. Firstly, if you paid (against Google’s guidelines  and possibly against UK Fair Trading and bribery laws) for links from bloggers  and other site owners then you may have created an expectation that link  requests are worth money. Some agencies are now paying for link removals. This  is a dark and dangerous road to go down. What next? Blackmail?

Don’t write off the blackmail concerns as scaremongering. A controversial and  unapproved ‘case study’ was posted on Traffic  Planet in which an SEO blogger had his rankings for impressive, important  and lucrative keywords destroyed by competitors who took a dislike to him. A  sample of one does not make a trend but this shows not ‘negative SEO’ is  possible.

There’s another catch. Google is not just going after “paid for links”. After  all, SEOs have known for years that Google strongly disliked bought links.  Agencies and brands still buying links knew there was a large risk.

The “low quality links” warning from Google also includes links from poor  quality sites. This is complicated for a wide range of reasons.

– Neither brands nor agencies can control when a site steals their content  with (or without) links in it. – Neither brands nor agencies have contact  details or relationships with sites that may be linking to them and which Google  dislikes. – The nature of “poor quality” is subjective and unlike paid links,  poor quality sites linking to you, is not currently a breach of Google’s  guidelines

In March, last year, Matt Cutts told that before the Panda update that his team did not deal with “low  quality”. While responding to a question about low quality sites, he said;

It was like, “What’s the bare minimum that I can do that’s not spam?” It sort  of fell between our respective groups. And then we decided, okay, we’ve got to  come together and figure out how to address this.

With this in mind there may well be branded sites who have never broken  Google’s guidelines and who may yet receive a warning of low quality links from  Google. These brands may have no easy way to do anything about their situation  at all.

Previously Google had been reluctant to share too much insight on links too.  Why? Simply put people trying to game the system would test with Client A, learn  that that scheme had been rumbled by Google and try something else for Client  B.

All this begs the question – why is Google now acting like this? The spectre  of negative SEO is a nightmare for some.

Why is Google doing this?


Many of these warnings are actually helpful. If your site has had a malware  injection, an unexpected traffic block or has fallen behind with its software  version then it is useful to be alerted to that.

In many cases webmasters and site owners would rather know than not know if  Google had a problem with possible SEO tactics being deployed for the site. This  is true even if the webmaster could not immediately do anything about it.

I think a significantly important aspect of these warnings comes from a  different angle though – I think Google is trying to protect itself.

Google grows through M&A activity and almost every recent acquisition has  come with watchdog scrutiny. The concern is always the same. Is Google being a  restrictive monopoly?

These warning emails are part of Google being more transparent and open (even  if they’re not always immediately actionable). Restrictive monopolies are more  often closed and secretive. Companies making fair use of their dominant market  share are more often open and communicative.

The anti-Monopoly concerns are not just restricted to the American watchdogs.  In Europe, Google is also in the spotlight. Reuters has been suggesting that  April might be the month in which a formal  complaint is made against the engine. This case concerns businesses like  Ciao and the UK property search engine Foundem. To this day the debate as to  whether Google was being anti-competitive or whether Foundem made an SEO mistake rages  on.

There seems to be little hope for Google being able to push onwards,  especially with M&A, while being as tight lipped as it has been in the past.  If it needs to show regulators that it is communicating enough in order to not  be anti-competitive then surely it needs to communicate.

Doesn’t it?

Read more from Andrew Girdwood

  • Duke Tanson

    Nice article Jerry.. there is still more that Google can do to help seo address issues. penalising a site purely because there are links from low quality sites gives  competitors a weapon against you. No matter what you do, many sites will link to you and some of them will be of low quality. the problem is even worse if you generate quality content. I’m sure if you pick a website like, you’ll find tons of low quality sites that are nuturally linking to them. where do you draw the line. I think the mix of low quality and high quality sites linking to you should be a sign of natural link building I think.

  • Thanks for the comment Duke.

  • Pingback: lån utan fast inkomst()

  • Pingback: låna 1000 utan uc()


The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Borda Media Ltd and whilst we endeavour to keep the information up-to-date and correct,
Read more..


1 Fetter Lane,
Contact me

twitter facebook linkedin email rss