<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>SEO's our own worst enemies and Negative SEO</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/</link>
	<description>A Search Marketing Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:09:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>SEO's our own worst enemies and Negative SEO</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/comment-page-2/#comment-10129</link>
		<dc:creator>InterNet Age</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:38:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/#comment-10129</guid>
		<description>Its Karma, whatever you do will come back to you, or so I believe. It wont ever be me no matter what, but then you get all types of people.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Its Karma, whatever you do will come back to you, or so I believe. It wont ever be me no matter what, but then you get all types of people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>SEO's our own worst enemies and Negative SEO</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/comment-page-1/#comment-10100</link>
		<dc:creator>seo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:37:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/#comment-10100</guid>
		<description>I was just telling somebody to quit reporting his competitor because his competitor decided to register a .com version of the same domain and now ranks better. The dude was going crazy...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was just telling somebody to quit reporting his competitor because his competitor decided to register a .com version of the same domain and now ranks better. The dude was going crazy&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>SEO's our own worst enemies and Negative SEO</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/comment-page-1/#comment-10096</link>
		<dc:creator>phil b</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 06:13:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/#comment-10096</guid>
		<description>Is there any evidence that Google even pays attention to this report spam, etc.?  If I were Google I&#039;d stay out of the business of human arbitration, its better to develop code to determine these things.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there any evidence that Google even pays attention to this report spam, etc.?  If I were Google I&#8217;d stay out of the business of human arbitration, its better to develop code to determine these things.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>SEO's our own worst enemies and Negative SEO</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/comment-page-1/#comment-10094</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Hawkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:48:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/#comment-10094</guid>
		<description>until you have to explain to a client why a site like mine lost 400K pages, 90% of it’s traffic without changing anything about it?

That&#039;s link building for you!  Google are constantly trying to hide what their doing with inbound links (and there&#039;s a good reason for that!), I see it every time I link build.  It just shows the very close relation to links and getting ranked in Google.

Google don&#039;t have a personal vendeta against anyone - we all play on a level playing field in that to Google we&#039;re just a  site.  Maybe a good site they love, maybe a bad site they don&#039;t particularly like, but still a site.

Ultimately Google is a search engine it&#039;s not a company and it&#039;s not peoplen.  It&#039;s a massive network of computers that run&#039;s on an algorithm - maths to you and me, a very complicated formula but it&#039;s a formula none the less!

If Google has suddenly decided it doesnt like your site so much anymore then there has to be a reason (in the formula) for that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>until you have to explain to a client why a site like mine lost 400K pages, 90% of it’s traffic without changing anything about it?</p>
<p>That&#8217;s link building for you!  Google are constantly trying to hide what their doing with inbound links (and there&#8217;s a good reason for that!), I see it every time I link build.  It just shows the very close relation to links and getting ranked in Google.</p>
<p>Google don&#8217;t have a personal vendeta against anyone &#8211; we all play on a level playing field in that to Google we&#8217;re just a  site.  Maybe a good site they love, maybe a bad site they don&#8217;t particularly like, but still a site.</p>
<p>Ultimately Google is a search engine it&#8217;s not a company and it&#8217;s not peoplen.  It&#8217;s a massive network of computers that run&#8217;s on an algorithm &#8211; maths to you and me, a very complicated formula but it&#8217;s a formula none the less!</p>
<p>If Google has suddenly decided it doesnt like your site so much anymore then there has to be a reason (in the formula) for that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>SEO's our own worst enemies and Negative SEO</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/comment-page-1/#comment-10092</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:36:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/#comment-10092</guid>
		<description>Hey Rob, you have to laugh sometimes.

I enjoy posting here, it&#039;s one of the few blogs that I really have a good look round on and find multiple topics worth a few minutes to contribute to. I don&#039;t consider it to be any part of my SEO activities...however...

Just did my round robin of checking a few stats, factoids and figures and low and behold YackYack is screwing up one of my sites SEO! Brilliant! Actually that&#039;s a compliment to you Rob.  In my Webmastertools, &quot;What Google Sees&quot;, YackYack is all over it like a rash showing how well your blog is indexed. Only trouble is I didn&#039;t use relevant anchor text on my initial post as I didn&#039;t expect to be back here so often. Dooh! Any chance of a little tweak of your MSQL? Now that&#039;s an offer I bet you&#039;ve never had before!

Anyway, either I shall have to go cold turkey on YackYack or I will have to turn into a &quot;DoFollow with anchour text&quot; whore after the next 100 day rollover.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Rob, you have to laugh sometimes.</p>
<p>I enjoy posting here, it&#8217;s one of the few blogs that I really have a good look round on and find multiple topics worth a few minutes to contribute to. I don&#8217;t consider it to be any part of my SEO activities&#8230;however&#8230;</p>
<p>Just did my round robin of checking a few stats, factoids and figures and low and behold YackYack is screwing up one of my sites SEO! Brilliant! Actually that&#8217;s a compliment to you Rob.  In my Webmastertools, &#8220;What Google Sees&#8221;, YackYack is all over it like a rash showing how well your blog is indexed. Only trouble is I didn&#8217;t use relevant anchor text on my initial post as I didn&#8217;t expect to be back here so often. Dooh! Any chance of a little tweak of your MSQL? Now that&#8217;s an offer I bet you&#8217;ve never had before!</p>
<p>Anyway, either I shall have to go cold turkey on YackYack or I will have to turn into a &#8220;DoFollow with anchour text&#8221; whore after the next 100 day rollover.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>SEO's our own worst enemies and Negative SEO</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/comment-page-1/#comment-10091</link>
		<dc:creator>Igor The Troll</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:20:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/#comment-10091</guid>
		<description>Why don&#039;t you go talk to Matt Cutts. If anyone can help you, it will be him.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why don&#8217;t you go talk to Matt Cutts. If anyone can help you, it will be him.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>SEO's our own worst enemies and Negative SEO</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/comment-page-1/#comment-10090</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:17:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/#comment-10090</guid>
		<description>I hope you can hang on to your benevolent rose tinted view of Google as long as possible, perhaps until you have to explain to a client why a site like mine lost 400K pages, 90% of it&#039;s traffic without changing anything about it.

Oh yes and it has no artificial links, no directory listings, no article exchanges, no reciprocal links, no key word stuffing, no hidden text, no mod re-writing.

I does have organically grown content, super relevancy and even backlinks from Google it&#039;s self! Your turn will come.

Google sometimes just plain screws up or screws you up because it has one priority only, REVENUE. as a publically listed company it can only ever now report rising earnings, profits, revenue per share, revenue per empoyee, roi whatever you want to quote, they all gotta go up. Your business and my business don&#039;t count one jot to Google, they are completely neutral to our fortunes. Being a good SEO&#039;er or not being a naughty boys doesn&#039;t come into it. It&#039;s the numbers that count. If a tactic pushes up your numbers ride it for all it&#039;s worth because that puts cash in your pocket.    

Being compliant to Google&#039;s whim won&#039;t protect you from chance and being wiped out in the blink of an eye.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope you can hang on to your benevolent rose tinted view of Google as long as possible, perhaps until you have to explain to a client why a site like mine lost 400K pages, 90% of it&#8217;s traffic without changing anything about it.</p>
<p>Oh yes and it has no artificial links, no directory listings, no article exchanges, no reciprocal links, no key word stuffing, no hidden text, no mod re-writing.</p>
<p>I does have organically grown content, super relevancy and even backlinks from Google it&#8217;s self! Your turn will come.</p>
<p>Google sometimes just plain screws up or screws you up because it has one priority only, REVENUE. as a publically listed company it can only ever now report rising earnings, profits, revenue per share, revenue per empoyee, roi whatever you want to quote, they all gotta go up. Your business and my business don&#8217;t count one jot to Google, they are completely neutral to our fortunes. Being a good SEO&#8217;er or not being a naughty boys doesn&#8217;t come into it. It&#8217;s the numbers that count. If a tactic pushes up your numbers ride it for all it&#8217;s worth because that puts cash in your pocket.    </p>
<p>Being compliant to Google&#8217;s whim won&#8217;t protect you from chance and being wiped out in the blink of an eye.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>SEO's our own worst enemies and Negative SEO</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/comment-page-1/#comment-10087</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Hawkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:52:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/#comment-10087</guid>
		<description>In terms of &#039;rules&#039; there&#039;s a fair chunk of advice in Google&#039;s help section in don&#039;t do this - look for an seo whole do this.  There is only really one rule - that is if your constantly playing the black hat game you&#039;ll get caught out, and when you get caught Google will hit you hard.

Should be noted you can always get away with a bit of spammy link building, it&#039;s built into the algo for negative seo reasons.

Our attitude at the company I work for is to look at the Google algo as a friendly guide not a brick wall to get around.  Any search engine algo has between 6 to a dozen key concepts in it, depending on the engine and who you&#039;ll talk to.  For me you can blow any black hatter out of the water by doing  the keyt things - by doing the key things successfully you&#039;ll always get far better results in doing what Google are looking for rather than cheating your way around the system.

Black hat will only get worse, which means the complaining will get worse and in my mind Google will get worse.

i don&#039;t think Google changes it&#039;s algo that much just tweeks it, the big changes in recent history is dealing with spam in whatever guise that may come across, wether it be spamdexing, keyword stuffing your alt tags or just getting nasty links of spam farms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In terms of &#8216;rules&#8217; there&#8217;s a fair chunk of advice in Google&#8217;s help section in don&#8217;t do this &#8211; look for an seo whole do this.  There is only really one rule &#8211; that is if your constantly playing the black hat game you&#8217;ll get caught out, and when you get caught Google will hit you hard.</p>
<p>Should be noted you can always get away with a bit of spammy link building, it&#8217;s built into the algo for negative seo reasons.</p>
<p>Our attitude at the company I work for is to look at the Google algo as a friendly guide not a brick wall to get around.  Any search engine algo has between 6 to a dozen key concepts in it, depending on the engine and who you&#8217;ll talk to.  For me you can blow any black hatter out of the water by doing  the keyt things &#8211; by doing the key things successfully you&#8217;ll always get far better results in doing what Google are looking for rather than cheating your way around the system.</p>
<p>Black hat will only get worse, which means the complaining will get worse and in my mind Google will get worse.</p>
<p>i don&#8217;t think Google changes it&#8217;s algo that much just tweeks it, the big changes in recent history is dealing with spam in whatever guise that may come across, wether it be spamdexing, keyword stuffing your alt tags or just getting nasty links of spam farms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  www.yackyack.co.uk/negative-seo/seos-our-own-worst-enemies-and-negative-seo/feed/ ) in 0.52533 seconds, on Feb 9th, 2012 at 8:34 am UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on Feb 9th, 2012 at 9:34 am UTC -->
