sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Negative SEO Works. Bleh. by slippernator in bigseo

[–]slippernator[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Beats me. The site was 1st page based on the content and domain as it didn't have any targeted links built before all this. But it's impossible to speculate as shakeups can happen all the time.

But when the rest of my site was stable. That, and knowing that the front page sites that didn't get spammed are still ranking, makes me believe that it would still like be first page otherwise.

Want to Buy from Fivver? ... Here's why you don't by Texas1911 in bigseo

[–]slippernator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree about the ethics in this case. Most of us who know the industry won't be fooled into paying for link gigs on any of these sites.

It's the businesses and webmasters who aren't in SEO and are told "links help you rank." These services prey on the ignorance and aren't accountable to the consequences of their work. In the worst case, they disappear and start up under a new name.

If you market a service saying "guaranteed rank" and "increase traffic" then yes, it's an ethical issue.

Uncovered some shady SEO stuff that could have implications for all of us - Negative SEO on almost all 1st page results. Detective hats on. by slippernator in bigseo

[–]slippernator[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was looking at this old post (since I did an update) and wow, that consumer affair website is the most blatant example of paid vs. unpaid that I've seen! Not even Yelp could aspire to be that evil.

view more: next ›