Can Inbound Links Hurt You?

[lots0]

Moderator Note: This was split from Google Say Not Reporting All Backlinks (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2423) and covers the issue of whether inbound links can harm a page's ranking on Google WITH THE EXCEPTION OF INBOUND LINKS AS REDIRECT DONE TO HIJACK A LISTING. For discussion of that, please participate in this other thread: Let's Test Hijacking A Google Listing (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=3030).

Google counts all the html links it knows about. Some links are more valuable in a ranking sense than others, some can even hurt your ranking in google, but rest assured, ALL the html links googlebot discovers are counted.

[bobmutch]

lots0: "Some links are more valuable in a ranking sense than others, some can even hurt your ranking in google" You seem to be saying here that some inbound links can hurt your ranking. If this is what you are saying here I would have to disagree. Nothing that is not under your controll can harm your rankings. No inbound links can harm you Rankings!

[Dave Hawley]

Reggy, I would suggest reading this from Google (http://www.google.com/webmasters/facts.html) in context with what lots0 has said;

Fiction: A competitor can ruin a site's ranking somehow or have another site removed from Google's index.

Fact: There is almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index. Your rank and your inclusion are dependent on factors under your control as a webmaster, including content choices and site design.

[Chris_D]

Nothing that is not under your controll can harm your rankings. No inbound links can harm you Rankings!

Yes - I believe that RECIPROCAL links to a 'bad neighbourhood' - WILL harm your rankings. i.e. you link to them and they link to you. i.e. the linking strategy is under the webmaster's control as it is reciprocal - and it is the OUTBOUND link from your site to the bad neighbourhood which causes the problem.

Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.

http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html

Note it says 'links to' and nothing about the 'link from'.....

[Fran Fernandez]

"Nothing that is not under your controll can harm your rankings"

I think is possible in Google.

When you have a page in one language most of links you receive are in pages in that language, your page has a boost for that language because most of links are in that language. If a competitor achieve more links for you from pages in other language, you can lost positions. It's no difficult for no competitive sites.

I have webs sites in spanish, if I achieve most of links from pages in english i always lost my boost like a spanish site, and my rankings are harmed.

[lots0]

You seem to be saying here that some inbound links can hurt your ranking.
I am.
As discussed, in the thread this was split from;
Inbound links that are reciprocated can harm your ranking, IF the page that is linking to you has been penalized or banned by google.

A page can be hijacked by the use of links that are not under your control, and that will hurt your rankings.

In the quote from google "There is almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index..."( I added the bolding)

I remember the word "almost" was added to this sentence by google, some time last spring (if I remember correctly). I got a big laugh from the addition of this one word "almost", because we had been watching pages drop like bombs on Bagdad from people hijacking them for about five months before this word was added, some were inadvertent hijacks, some intentional.

I think the addition of that one word "almost" to that sentence in their FAQs is about as close to an admission from google that something is wrong as we are ever going to get.

[Dave Hawley]

Inbound links that are reciprocated can harm your ranking, IF the page that is linking to you has been penalized or banned by google. The inbound link will do no harm at all in this case. It is only the outbound link to the page penalized or banned by google that may harm you.

[glengara]

* Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank.*

G may well have a wider view on what constitutes a "links scheme" than our commonly held one.

In two recent replies from "The Google Team" to ranking drop/disappeared queries, they stated as a possible reason, "Buying or selling links for the purpose of increasing PR", this with a link to the guidelines containing the quoted warning.

[hugo guzman]

you can't substantiate that...

I could say that the "google team" told me the opposite via e-mail, but neither of us can prove or disprove it.

What is fairly substantiated is that SE representatives at recent conferences have encouraged "buying" links (in the form of paid inclusion directories or "static" advertising spaces).

The reality is that all seo based linking strategies are designed to "increase your site's ranking or pagerank". That's what SEO is in a nutshell.

Buying a text link is no different than purchasing a pay-for-inclusion directory listing or participating in reciprocal linking. All of these forms of promotion drive traffic but the byproduct is a boost in SERPs or pagerank.

On top of all this, inbound links cannot harm your rankings because if that were true a virtual pandora's box would be opened...every spammer and their momma would start "manufacturing" spammy backlinks aimed at their competitors sites in an effort to harm their rankings.

Search engines just don't work that way.

[lots0]

The inbound link will do no harm at all in this case. It is only the outbound link to the page penalized or banned by google that may harm you.
Reciprocal links, the type of links I was talking about, when you quoted me, consist of both in-bound and out-bound links. There has to be an in-bound link for it to be considered a reciprocal.

[hugo guzman]

lots0,
yes, but if the inbound link (from a bad neighborhood) existed on it's own it would do your site no harm. It the reciprocating link back to the "bad neighborhood" that can give you problems...

I don't want to put words in Dave's mouth though.

I'm just assuming that's what he meant.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Inbound links can indeed hurt your website but I must admit that, so far, it dosn't seem to be a very widespread problem. However, I have, like others, seen real examples of several ways this can happen - on purpose or not. And, I am not talking about reciprocal links - I am talking about one way inbound links

[Dave Hawley]

I don't want to put words in Dave's mouth though. That is what I was saying. The statement 'as is' was ambiguous and could be taken to mean the link in from the "penalized or banned" site was harmful, which of course is not the case.

[glengara]

*Inbound links can indeed hurt your website..*

I've noticed the same, though rarely on their own, there's usually some type of "links scheme" involved...

[Dave Hawley]

Probably, but not in the context that is being used in this case. I.e reciprocal links with a banned or penalized page/site.

[lots0]

lots0,
yes, but if the inbound link (from a bad neighborhood) existed on it's own it would do your site no harm. If it existed on it’s own.... It would not be a RECIPROCAL link then would it? Reciprocal links are what I was talking about.

Mikkel is completely correct, a single INBOUND link can remove your URL from google’s index. We are in the process of a public experiment of this in another thread on this forum.

[glengara]

* Inbound links that are reciprocated can harm your ranking.*

As most reciprocals are usually links page to home page, are we now accepting G is no longer simply page-centric but rather site-centric in how they view links?

[hugo guzman]

...inbound links cannot harm your rankings because if that were true a virtual pandora's box would be opened...every spammer and their momma would start "manufacturing" spammy backlinks aimed at their competitors sites in an effort to harm their rankings...

Search engines just don't work that way.

I promise you guys that Google (nor any other engine) would open the pandora's box by allowing inbound links to adversly affect rankings. It would simply be too easy for spammers to have their competitors sabotaged.

Search engines cannot penalize sites for something (an inbound link) that cannot be controlled by the webmaster of the site.

[mcanerin]

Hugo, the point is that they would not allow pure, non-affiliated incoming links to harm your site ON PURPOSE. I think everyone agrees about that.

But what happens by mistake (software glitch) does not have to be good, fair, logical or in accordance with company policy. It's a mistake.

Ian

[glengara]

I wouldn't promise anything in this game, Hugo ;-)

[Marcia]

In another sense, inbounds could possibly hurt indirectly. Say someone deliberately sets up a bunch of tacky inbounds to the site of someone they're "out to get." Those tacky links show up in backlinks, some white hat caped crusader catches it and starts digging further - and lo and behold, finds some questionable tactics being used on the targeted site. Crusader runs and reports said site as spam to get it removed from the index.

Indirectly, though not directly responsible, those inbounds can draw unwanted attention to a site for detailed scrutiny and if it isn't clean as a whistle to begin with, it could be a goner.

[hugo guzman]

The devil is in the details folks...

The nature of search engine technology does not allow for such a thing.

This may be an extreme example, but if google's search algo allowed for penalties based on inbound links, ambitious hackers would eventually manage to ban any and all sites (including google's own directory).

What google can (and does) do is limit the impact of certain types of inbound links (sitewide text link ads come to mind).

So in essence, while no inbound link will cause harm in and of itself, many inbound links will do no good either.

taking it to a psuedo mathematical/scientific level... there are positive (+) inbound links and neutral (0) inbound links, but no negative (-) ones.

(cue the sneaky google rep laughing at this post while sipping on his Seattle's Best mocha latte)

[mcanerin]

That can also happen if you stuff comment tags with keywords, and other useless and ineffective "optimizing". The SE will ignore it, but it can draw attention to your site by a competitor hoping to get you banned for spamming. They will then take it apart looking for spam.

If your site is clean, no problem. But just because I'm not speeding doesn't mean I want a cop following me around in my car all day....

Ian

[hugo guzman]

In another sense, inbounds could possibly hurt indirectly. Say someone deliberately sets up a bunch of tacky inbounds to the site of someone they're "out to get." Those tacky links show up in backlinks, some white hat caped crusader catches it and starts digging further - and lo and behold, finds some questionable tactics being used on the targeted site. Crusader runs and reports said site as spam to get it removed from the index.

Indirectly, though not directly responsible, those inbounds can draw unwanted attention to a site for detailed scrutiny and if it isn't clean as a whistle to begin with, it could be a goner.

So you mean people actually look at look at those spam reports that I send into google? Could of fooled me...

All sarcasm aside, that is a valid point Marcia. Unfortunately, the reality is that the sheer size of the "internet" makes manual regulation of search engine results virtually impossible.

That's why so many truly "spammy" sites manage to maintain top rankings for a plethora of competitive search terms (I always wanted to use that word in a sentence!).

[mcanerin]

The nature of search engine technology does not allow for such a thing.

I had a client who had his site treated as a duplicate because a directory used links with a redirect on them for tracking purposes. I reported this to help@google.com on Tue, 08 Jun 2004 23:31:26 File number#10786453

In part, the message to Google read:

We have tried resubmitting these links, we have asked the owners to remove the links, we have set up a system that deliberately blocks the googlebot from visiting the site from these domains, we have tried to find answers on google groups and the SEO forums, and we have run out of options.

Please correct this behavior - a redirect link should not be considered the authoritative result for a website page. Particularly when the information stored for this resource is out of date and misrepresents the proper website. It is a bad result. This is not even a case of a duplicate page with a higher PR being shown first - it's a case of a redirect being treated as a page when it is not. This is not the only site that has experienced this error.

I got a canned response. And no help. I eventually "solved it" through brute force. In this case, my client submitted his website to a well regarded directory and lost his rankings over their click tracking system.

BTW, directory owners, this is why I do not submit to sites with click tracking in place, unless it is known to be safe (Like Yahoo's). I don't care how nice your directory is. I spend 100's of thousands on paid inclusion, and I'm not interested in getting "redirection bombed" for my troubles.

Real example, not theory. Real customer. Real loss of business. Real issue. Real problem.

Ian

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

The nature of search engine technology does not allow for such a thing.

I do not agree with that at all. I have seen, and confirmed, that this has indeed happend. You a free to believe otherwise but it is certainly not a fact.

[hugo guzman]

how exactly did you confirm this?

The only folks that can confirm any of the assertions in this thread (including mine) are employed by Google.

Do you work for Google?

If you do then I'll definitely change my tune, but if you don't then I'm going to stick to my guns on this one...

I would however enjoy taking a look at a "real world" example and analyzing it in depth with you and anyone else that is interested.

(P.S. this thread is becoming vaguely reminiscent of an extremely long and intense thread that resides over at webmasterworld...I hope that nobody gets nasty while defending their stance)

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

how exactly did you confirm this?

A very prominent engineer at Google looked into the case in question and confirmed the results as described - and manually fixed it. So, to make it clear: This website got a PR0 because of one single link from the wrong website - no links back!

However, my goal is not to convince you, hugo. I couldn't care less if you believe me or not. I have never seen a good forum discussions like this as a competition about "who win". Sorry if you feel that way. All we do here is share experience and ideas.

[DaveN]

from my little experience on the Internet i would have to say Yes Yes YES YES !!! bad links pass bad karma..

DaveN

[hugo guzman]

who said anything about winning? I simply disagree with you.

And how in the heck did you get a prominent google engineer to personally look into the specific situation, much less give a clear confirmation of the cause and effect?

I'm pretty sure that you can get fired from google, for doing such a thing.

Having a google engineer disclose that type of sensitive info is kind of like insider trading.

In any case, there is still no concrete evidence of such a phenomen that has been brought forth for public scrutiny.

Until that evidence comes forth I'll go out on a limb and say that inbound links can't hurt you...I wouldn't want any spammers to start messing around and pointing bad links towards their competitors based on your assertion. They've got better things to do anyway (cloaking, etc...).

[DaveN]

want me to test on seoproject

[seobook]

And how in the heck did you get a prominent google engineer to personally look into the specific situation, much less give a clear confirmation of the cause and effect?

I'm pretty sure that you can get fired from google, for doing such a thing.

Having a google engineer disclose that type of sensitive info is kind of like insider trading.
its called public relations. many SEOs also buy AdWords. it is much better for Google if we get along with each other. they still make ad revenue when I buy ads or when I click on ads or when I show my friend this cool new trick with Google.

want me to test on seoproject
it would really suck for him if he said yes.

[hugo guzman]

DaveN,
You know what's funny?... people already do (they do it to your guys sites all the time)

It's called unsolicited linking in the hopes of getting a reciprocal link back.

I have all sorts of black hat, spammy, duplicate content, cloaking, link farms, linking to all of my sites (not just my forum). I just don't link back them. You do too. But somehow none of our sites are banned, etc...

Hmmm...kinda makes you think

seobook,
Public relations is getting DaveN to drop the name of my forum without being solicited!!! Woohoo.

What's really funny is that Dave is quick to drop a cute threat on this forum.
Kind of like me saying that me and boys here in the MIA are going to pay him a visit this Christmas. I don't really mean it, but it's still quite juvenile and is better reserved for a pick up game or the spot up top (if you know what I mean).

Oh well...it is a public forum after all.

P.S. What's up with the "it would really suck for him" comment? You're better than that. Hell, you're a member on seoproject!

[lots0]

The nature of search engine technology does not allow for such a thing.
This may be an extreme example, but if google's search algo allowed for penalties based on inbound links, ambitious hackers would eventually manage to ban any and all sites (including google's own directory).
Hugo, statements like "The nature of search engine technology does not allow for such a thing.", is completely wrong, in my opinion. Search technology is whatever the programmer wants it to be, within the current
technology.

Hugo, you keep acting like this "glitch" is a deliberate act of googles part, I don't think anyone here believes that for one second. (note - this has been stated before in this thread - but it obviously needed repeating.)

I'm pretty sure that you can get fired from google, for doing such a thing.
LOL.... Really! I don't think google is going to fire someone for doing their job.

I have to revisit this statement by Hugo;
The nature of search engine technology does not allow for such a thing.
Hugo, when is the last time you coded a reverse index?
I am not talking about a Basic language bubble sort, but a full fledged C++ reverse index? If you have coded (or worked on) a reverse index in the last year, then I will bow to your experience, if not, your opinion about the limits of search technology is not valid, in my opinion.

[seobook]

seobook,
Public relations is getting DaveN to drop the name of my forum without being solicited!!! Woohoo.
and if he decided to drop the rankings then that public relations bonus is a bad deal for you.

What's really funny is that Dave is quick to drop a cute threat on this forum.

he is not really trying to threaten you...he is just letting you know it is possible.

P.S. What's up with the "it would really suck for him" comment?
if he wanted your site to go south he could make it happen. again, I doubt he would do that, but from what I know I would not want him angry at me or my site.

[hugo guzman]

Let me start by saying that I respect your opinion.

I'm not saying that google "can't" do such a thing (inflict a penalty based on an inbound link). I'm saying that they "wouldn't" based on the basic ideology of a search engine.

penalizing sites (or rather specific urls) for inbound links would seriously disrupt the SE's efforts to create relevant search results. Here's how (and I know this from real world experience):

I happen to work for a top 100 Alexa, fortune 500 site (they also host and develop another top 250 site) that deals with sports and is affiliated with a major television network. I am the director of SEO for this site.

This site has literally thousands of "spammy" backlinks from sites all over the world that use all sorts of techniques that violate google's terms of service, yet somehow, our site(s) manage to maintain solid rankings for 1000's of search terms.

I also manage about a dozen or so of my own sites. These sites also have many spammy insolicited backlinks, but they also rank well in SERPs.

Why? Because all of the major search engines understand that a specific url cannot be held accountable for the types (and number) of inbound links that come from other domains.

This is a rather basic principle.

So again, I'm not saying that Google is not capable of penalizing sites based on inbound links. I'm saying that they don't, because it would be detrimental to the quality of their search.

They can't have spammers inflicting damage on competitor's sites. It would not be good for business.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

One thing I am as certain about as I can posible be is that Google engineers have, at some point, programmed code, part of the algorythms, that look at inbound links independantly of outbound links. Such stuff dosn't magically appear by itself. However, as others have stated I don't believe it was done with the intend of having the results both I and others have seen with Hijacked or penalized pages. That is an error in the programming.

I have worked a lot on the technical side of search, with development and management, and these mechanisms are very very complex today. So many things influence each other that errors like this can easily happen - and do all the time. Fixing unwanted effects in your system is what a lot of the work with develoment like this is about.

What is so special about the redirect and hijacked pages issue is that its been around both Google and Yahoo for a very long time - much longer than usual.

[hugo guzman]

and if he decided to drop the rankings then that public relations bonus is a bad deal for you.


he is not really trying to threaten you...he is just letting you know it is possible.


if he wanted your site to go south he could make it happen. again, I doubt he would do that, but from what I know I would not want him angry at me or my site.

I'm pretty sure my members come by for the discussion, not my rankings. Most of my new members come over after reading one of my articles or because I've helped them out with a question on some other forum.

I'm a pretty big believer in word of mouth and karma. I try to stay on top of new developments and trends, and formulate controversial opinions to see what sticks, but most of all I try and help out newbies that are just starting out or have hit a plateau (just as several individuals did for me when I was just starting out).

In the end, I still disagree with DaveN. I don't think he can make my rankings go south by linking to me. Based on my main area of expertise, if that were possible, I would be real good at it. ;)

[dannysullivan]

I hope that nobody gets nasty while defending their stance
No, no one will get nasty. There's no need for anyone to do that -- and doing so will simply get your post edited and waste a lot of moderator time. So debate, but debate with respect for each other :)

And how in the heck did you get a prominent google engineer to personally look into the specific situation, much less give a clear confirmation of the cause and effect?
Google engineers pop up at various conferences, plus people form contacts with them via ads (you have a big ad account, problem with your site, ad rep might forward the problem to a Google engineer, who might come back and look at it -- no guarantees).

I'm pretty sure that you can get fired from google, for doing such a thing.
Not to my knowledge, nor is there anything wrong with this. Google engineers look at stuff all the time to improve the quality of the index. As some point, they also have to talk with people reporting problems. It helps to better understand what the problem is.

As for whether an inbound link can hurt you, I'm sure it is possible. I have no reason to doubt Mikkel's case, in particular. But what I also suspect is that it is very, very unlikely to happen to the majority of people with natural sites.

It would be, as Hugo says, incredibly stupid for a search engine to allow links that are not in your control hurt you without some control. It would mean that you just launch some crummy site, get it banned in Google, then start linking to people you want to hurt.

It makes much more sense not to count some links as much as others. Less reward, rather than more penalty. It is possible that you might let certain inbound links indeed carry a penalty, but a control would be to not hurt the site if you saw lots of other "normal" quality links pointing at it.

I'd also stress that this thread is not about being hurt by redirection links. That whole subject is another story.

[Robert_Charlton]

PS - Edit... I was posting while Danny posted, and my post is about redirection links. Mods can delete it as off topic, or let it stand. I think it still might be helpful in the context of other posts on the thread... just as a comment on relative sizes of sites we're discussing.

In the end, I still disagree with DaveN. I don't think he can make my rankings go south by linking to me....

hugo - It sounds like you work for a major site... an 800-lb gorilla, so to speak.

Leaving DaveN's particular twists on the linking issue out of it ;) , because you folks are so large, it's unlikely that a link coming into your site is going to hurt you.

But, because of the way the engines are currently treating some redirects, a redirected link from your site... say one that goes through a redirect page used to count ad clicks... could completely mess up the page you linked to.

You may not have seen this, because of the way the redirect bug problem works. It generally takes a site with PR higher than yours to affect you. (I've heard it mentioned that lower PR sites can affect you too, but I've never seen it). I don't know whether you can take credit for the PR that your particular corporate site has built up. I suspect you inherited it, as part of the mass of that corporation, and it's yours to work with... but you probably didn't build it up yourself.

But, trust those posting here, sites smaller than yours might be vulnerable to what appears to be a very innocent outbound from a large site or directory. Add to this malicious intent, and you've got a big problem... the one that a lot of people are screaming about on threads here and on WebmasterWorld.

As for whether your site could take on DaveN, I'll leave that to you two.

[hugo guzman]

I overshot a bit with the "getting you fired" statement. All that I meant is that it's highly unlikely (given the secretive nature of google) that an engineer would point out a specific offense that is not explicitly listed in their terms of service.

You bring up an incredibly interesting topic though, regarding redirect links.

Obviously, we all know that certain types of redirects can be harmful to a site (i.e. traffic power).

I've actually tried to expirement with the idea of a competitor "messing" with someone elses site by purposely setting up "spam" style redirects.

I think that google and the othe SE's have some sort of filter in place that recognizes that the redirect is not coming from the same IP. Of course, I can substantiate this in any way.

Again, the company that I work for, has had these types of redirects (from outside IPs) pointing to it from time to time, but has never been affected in a significant way.

[Dave Hawley]

And how in the heck did you get a prominent google engineer to personally look into the specific situation, much less give a clear confirmation of the cause and effect? While the first part of this question has been covered many times, the latter part (bolded by me) has not been. I too would be very suprised if "clear confirmation of the cause and effect" was given.

[DaveN]

From Googles FAQ :

Fiction: A competitor can ruin a site's ranking somehow or have another site removed from Google's index.

Fact: There is almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index. Your rank and your inclusion are dependent on factors under your control as a webmaster, including content choices and site design.

almost nothing that changed a few months ago

[glengara]

I'm new to this forum, but there seems a tendency here to shoot the messenger if any strongly held "opinions" are threatened.

I don't know Mikkel, but I've been coming across his name in this sector from I-search days, and so would tend to accept what he says at face value.

[Dave Hawley]

I'm new to this forum, but there seems a tendency here to shoot the messenger if any strongly held "opinions" are threatened. Aint that the truth.

[DaveN]

"clear confirmation of the cause and effect" depends on how friendly you are with the reps.....

sometimes you help them out :

Googleguy : I heard that at PubCon, DaveN suggested that Google should only update the visible PR and link: data once a quarter or so... ;)

That was to Matt Cutts the whole conversation last about 3 days lol, but we discussed i instead of showing just high PR back links make it random it would help the mom and pop sites out.. we also discussed other stuff too... but that for another day ... Favorite from Matt was "you spam your own logs, thats funny"

and If Googleguy is around he can confirm that Matt does discuss webmaster related problems, but can't say things like do "a b c and d" and you will rank #1 or what new filters are coming out....

I guess the trick is to go to many conferences and build trust with these guys ..

good people to know :

Tim Mayer
Matt Cutts
Thomas Korte
Danny Sullivan
Greg Boser
Paul Gardi
Mike Grehan
Jake Baillie

to name a few these are all good guys which will if asked help you out some work for the SE's some are SEO's ... except greg he's usually too drunk :)

DaveN

[glengara]

IMO, these days most "unexplained" ranking drops on G are linkage related.

From what I've seen, Run of Site links are viewed as a potential "links scheme", and if substantiated by another "links scheme" such as inter/crosslinking, can spell disaster.

The common assumption has been pages are viewed as separate entities, a check on a "similar pages" search would show they are not.

[neuron]

We have here two truths:

The Universal Rule of Thumb Truth:
Incoming links cannot adversely affect your rankings.

The Universal Rule of Thumb Exception Truth:
In rare circumstances incoming links can hurt you.

As to the former, some links may not help you, but none will hurt you. This is the ideology behind link-related ranking, whose foundation is in the underlying matrix calculations regarding negatively valued iterations. Algorithmically, having links with negative values is taboo.

As to the latter, while the ideological goal may well be pursued at all times, there can be errors that occur, such as algorithmic glitches with redirects that can cause losses in rankings and in PR. And while they have existed for some time and are probably more often exploited today than in the past, it is still a rarity, and I would not wish a new webmaster reading this thread to go away with the idea that he has a better chance of having his site penalized for an incoming link than he has of being hit and killed by lightning, or that he has any chance of stopping such from affecting him if destiny should put such a link in his future.

That is, an incoming link that could negatively change your rankings will not happen, and if on the very rare off chance that it did happen, there was nothing you could have done to forcast or prevent it to begin with, so there is absolutely no reason to spend your time worrying about it.

[hugo guzman]

Nice post (I love it when folks agree with me!)

Seriously though, you make some very lucid points that will definitely help "newbies" out.

[dannysullivan]

I've split the discussion of run-of-site links to this new thread: Do Run Of Site Links Work? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=3136).

[Robert_Charlton]

OK... I'll re-post part of one of my posts that got split off...

Can hidden links from other sites hurt you?

One of the sites I optimize receives links that make me worry because they're hidden. The linking pages are always fake directory pages, generally with Toolbar PR0 or 1, with visible affiliate links and various advertising network links (generally not AdSense).

In addition to the visible links, though, there are hidden links to the top sites scraped from serps for the search this "directory" page is "optimized" for. No telling why they're doing this... whether webmasters have read somewhere that linking to top ranking sites helps... or whether they're trying to sabotage us.

While many of these scraper sites disappear as fast as they appear, some are around at least long enough for Google to show them as backlinks.

Should I worry about these, or should I just be happy for the anchor text while it lasts?

[glengara]

*Can hidden links from other sites hurt you?*

Tough one, common wisdom has been that hidden links can only hurt the page/site hiding them.

However, like with RoS links, IMO it may well depend on if any other "links schemes" are in play.

[mdd01]

This is a real world example of something that happened to a friend of mine. It took both of us about a week to find it and contact Google and correct it. They did.

Example.

My friend uses the Registrar Godaddy. Godaddy offers two types of redirects - temp and permanent. The temp redirect allows you to add meta tags. This means that it looks like a cloaked page.

He runs local web sites. For Example newyorksomelocalwebsite .com and bought a number of keyword URLs like newyorkrestaurantsandbars .com

He did it because people just type the URL in the browser and end up at his site. He accidently used a temporary redirect and not a permanent redirect for one of the URLs.

His site was listed and received good natural serp traffic, then the grey bar appeared and the site was delisted.

What happened. My friends site has great content and another site just decided to link to the temporary redirect. Google thought it was cloaking and delisted him. Note that the Temporary Redirect was at Godaddy not his server and he had no affiliation or outbound links to the site that linked to him.

This happened fall 2003. I am not sure if Google would still penalize a site for this. We did contact them and they did remove the penalty. This really happened. This is scary because it leaves open the possibility that someone could purposely sabotage another web site. I was very reluctant to even post this, but I decided what the heck. Let you guys tell me I am wrong.