The shortest post on negative SEO you’ll ever actually read

I can prove that negative SEO exists without any fancy charts or data – just common sense.

1. Can regular SEO be performed? (Yes)

2. Can regular SEO be penalized? (Yes, when done poorly.)

3. Could I poorly do regular SEO for a competitor? (Yes: It’d be methodical, as though I was trying to rank them for real by using poor tactics.)

4. Could THAT be penalized? (Yes. Google won’t know or care who did it)

5. If penalized would that impact rankings? (Yes, making every site hit by penguin or a manual penalty a relevant case study on negative SEO)

Google doesn’t see “good guys” and “bad guys”. They see data and patterns.

Data don’t give a single solitary damn.

Thanks for your time, internet.

8 Responses to “The shortest post on negative SEO you’ll ever actually read”

  1. Dale Harries says:

    Short, sweet and completely true…..

    Worth a retweet anyday! If only Rand Fishkin was so sensible!

  2. Ammon Johns says:

    Perfect!

  3. Kevin Raposo says:

    Bravo Joel! I wish all SEO articles were like this. There’s really no need to type a 2,000 word essay with regurgitated tips.

    Amen brother!

    • Joel says:

      Thanks man! I also think there’s no need for Rand’s experiment. I respect where he’s coming from, but do we really need a business to volunteer to torch themselves just to prove it’s possible?

  4. Dale Harries says:

    I listed the reasons Rand’s daft ideas won’t work here: http://www.sudorank.com/rand-fishkin-wont-ever-see-negative-seo-example/

    TL;DR There’s basically too much money in this for the Black Hat crowd to spill the beans, not for at least another 12 months anyway.

  5. mattypants says:

    To keep the naysayers at bay, I’d include the word ‘offsite’ in there in a couple of places, but overall, I like this KISS principle. Often, less > more!

  6. Jon Dunn says:

    6. Could you inadvertently boost your competitors rankings?

  7. Tom says:

    The most honest post on negative SEO I’ve ever read (and, yes, the shortest too). Nicely put.

Leave a Reply to Kevin Raposo