Can Your Site Lose Its Rankings Because Of Competitors’ Negative SEO?

Rand Fishkin Challenges You To Take Down SEOmoz With Negative SEO

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:

[ Search]

Rand Fishkin, the well known SEO expert and Founder/CEO of SEOmoz, has challenged the web to see if anyone can take down his sites’ rankings in Google by way of negative SEO – the practice of implementing tactics specifically aimed at hurting competitors in search, as opposed to improving the rankings of one’s own site. Fishkin tells WebProNews about why he’s made such a challenge.

Do you think negative SEO practices can be effective in hurting a competitors’ rankings, even if that competitor is playing by all of Google’s rules and has a squeaky clean reputation? Let us know what you think.

First, you’ll need a little background. There’s a thread in the forum Traffic Planet started by member Jammy (hat tip to Barry Schwartz), who talks about an experiment run with the cooperation of another member in which they were successfully able to have a hugely negative impact on two sites.

“We carried out a massive scrapebox blast on two sites to ensure an accurate result,” Jammy writes. I’m not going to get into all of the details about why they targeted specific sites or even the sites themselves here. You can read the lengthy forum thread if you want to go through all of that.

The important thing to note, however, is that the experiment apparently worked. BUT, Fishkin maintains that the sites in question weren’t necessarily in the best situations to begin with.

“In terms of negative SEO on the whole – I think it’s terrible that it could hurt a site’s rankings,” Fishkin said in the forum thread. “That creates an entire industry and practice that no one (not engines, not marketers, not brands) benefits from. Only the spammers and link network owners win, and that’s exactly the opposite of what every legitimate player in the field wants. Thus, I’m wholeheartedly behind identifying and exposing whether Google or Bing are wrongly penalizing sites rather than merely removing the value passed by spam links. If we can remove that fear and that process, we’ve done the entire marketing and web world a huge favor.”

“I’ve never seen it work on a truly clean, established site,” Fishkin tells WebProNews, regarding negative SEO. He says the examples from the forum “all had some slightly-seriously suspicious characteristics and not wholly clean link profiles already, and it’s hard to know whether the bad links hurt them or whether they merely triggered a review or algorithm that said ‘this site doesn’t deserve to rank.’”

“If negative SEO can take down 100% clean sites that have never done anything untoward and that have built up a good reputation on the web, it’s more concerning and something Google’s search quality engineers would need to address immediately (or risk a shadow industry of spammers popping up to do website takedowns),” he adds.

When asked why he would antagonize those who disagree with his view by offering his own sites as targets, Fishkin says, “Two things – one, I’d rather they target me/us than someone else. We can take the hit and we can help publicize/reach the right folks if something does go wrong. Other targets probably wouldn’t be so lucky.”

Perhaps there should be a Good Guy Rand meme.

Good Guy Rand (Fishkin)

“Two – if this is indeed possible, it’s important for someone who can warn the search/marketing industry to have evidence and be aware of it,” says Fishkin. “Since we carefully monitor our metrics/analytics, haven’t ever engaged in any spam and have lines over to some folks who could help, we’re a good early warning system.”

So what happens if challengers are successful at taking down either SEOmoz or RandFishkin.com?

“SEOmoz gets ~20% of its traffic from non-branded Google searches, so worst case, we’d see a 20-25% hit for a few days or a few weeks,” Fishkin tells WebProNews. “That’s survivable and it’s worth the price to uncover whether the practice is a problem. Our core values (TAGFEE) dictate that this is precisely the kind of area where we’d be willing to take some pain in order to prevent harm to others.”

When asked if he’s confident that Google will correct the problem in a timely fashion if he’s proven wrong, Fishkin says, “Fairly confident, though not 100%. I have my fingers crossed it won’t get too messy for too long, but my COO and community manager are a little nervous.”

Fishkin concludes our conversation with: “I’d say that the evidence on the Traffic Power thread is strong that if a site already has some questionable elements, a takedown is possible. But, it’s not yet proven whether wholly clean sites can be brought down with negative SEO. I hope that’s not the case, but I suspect the hornet’s nest I kicked up will probably answer that for us in the next month or two.”

Word around the industry is that Google is making SEO matter less, in terms of over-optimization. Google’s Matt Cutts talked about this last month at SXSW, and that discussion had led to a great deal of discussion and speculation as to just what this would entail.

“The idea,” he said, “is basically to try and level the playing ground a little bit, so all those people who have sort of been doing, for lack of a better word, ‘over-optimization’ or overly doing their SEO, compared to the people who are just making great content and trying to make a fantastic site, we want to sort of make that playing field a little more level.”

One thing’s for sure though: If negative SEO can truly impact clean sites, that’s not quite the level playing field Google is aspiring to create.

Fishkin’s experiment is going to be an interesting one to keep an eye on. If SEOmoz can be severely impacted from this, who’s to say your site can’t? Do you think it’s possible? Tell us in the comments.

Can Your Site Lose Its Rankings Because Of Competitors’ Negative SEO?
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • Amy B

    Just another example of Google being a defective product… Would be nice if Google focused on improving their search engine instead of trying (and failing) to compete with Facebook.

    • Robo D

      Soon it will be exposed that organic SERPS are by hand arranged by google employees/contractors who are thoroughly corrupt.

      Recently we are observing google employees/contractors “desperately” editing owner verified 100% accurate google place listing to mangle it by changing the address, phone numbers, map marker etc. Why should google allow low level employees to edit owner verified google place listings?

  • http://www.onerightclick.com Daniel

    I will wait to see how this plays out. As much as Google is trying to level the playing field, I can’t imagine that they would let these kind of tactics play out without doing something about. Even with Google looking into penalizing sites for over-optimization, SEO will still continue to be an important part of any well thought-out marketing campaign.

  • http://twitter.com/RobertE Robert Enriquez

    better title

    Rand Fishkin offers $10,000 to whoever can bring down SEOMoz site

  • http://www.click-finders.com Mike Glover

    I think everyone in the search industry owes Rand and SEOMoz a huge thanks for taking this on. If the initial indications we are seeing with link issues are true, this will bring it to light and hopefully Google will correct ASAP. If not, the worries will be quelled and we can all go back to work!

    Thanks Rand!

  • http://www.snappromotions.com Jason

    It’s very concerning that negative SEO can lower the SERPs for a website. Virtually NOBODY has a completely clean / white hat link portfolio to their site. There’s been an underground business for negative seo for years, but recent changes in google’s algo apparently makes it much easier to effect the SERPs of websites belonging to smaller and medium sized businesses. Matt Cutts has said in the past that it’s nearly impossible to negatively effect somebody else’s site. This is apparently no longer true. Everybody in SEO and SEM needs to read the post on Traffic Planet.

  • http://www.greenlaneseo.com Bill Sebald

    Ah, this topic again. I’ve never seen it hurt a site, but I’ve seen it backfire and help a site. Maybe Rand secretly believes that ;)

    I don’t think the over-optimization algo is going to change that. Google is conscious of this tactic. Can’t imagine they’d want this headache of throwing the babies out with the bath water. I give them more credit (this time).

  • http://www.360ecommerce.nl Oeds Hiemstra

    I wish Rand good luck against Google, who seems to be the real opponent. I’m also curious where the other visitors of seomoz come from if there’s just around 20% traffic from organic results.

    • Cyrus Shepard

      The 20% accounts for non-branded organic searches. In addition to that, there’s also a fair amount of branded organic search. Even so, total organic search traffic makes up far less than 50% of the traffic SEOmoz receives. The rest comes from referrals (including social media referrals) and direct traffic. A very healthy balance.

      Rand has published these stats in various blog posts, so I don’t feel I’m revealing any secrets.

  • http://www.seoimage.com/ Alan Rabinowitz

    Would be nice if he offered a site that does not have 1Mil backlinks according to MajesticSEO and 63,000 pages indexed in Google.

    As Google “may” calculate by percentages this would be a much harder site to take out than a typical non-authority domain. Seems a bit unrealistic to me.

    Additionally since Google “may” have manually positioned sites ranking in the TOP 10 for some keywords it is again not a realistic target IMHO.

  • http://www.highlyrelevant.com alex becker

    i think the bigger issue here is that search needs to be regulated. google is a crooked company, and honestly so is bing and all the other search engines. tv and radio went down the exact same path before the government came in and regulated them.

    my big problems with google stem from their subjectivity, them “playing favorties” with certain sites and their undeniable greediness.

    basically, what google is telling people to do is to buy a bunch of exact anchor match links with copied content and link back to their competitors site to hurt their rankings? because that’s what this seems like could be possible with a stupid update like this.

    go rand!

  • http://www.evandavis.org/ Evan Davis

    Google’s recent updates remove value from bad links so they no longer give a benefit and the site that depends on them drops off the search map. There are no negative indicators attached to links. However if Google perceives you are doing something shady, they will manually remove you until you repent. The new online religion, pray to Google!

  • http://www.searchsatisfaction.com Josh Steele

    The problem is that the “experiment” would be way to public.

    Too many eyes for Google to allow a screw-up.

  • http://www.macgizmoguy.com Russell Baer

    Aside from the fact that the crew at SEOMoz are master Link Baiters and and have the klout to generate buzz on ANY SEO topic they wish to… Well go ahead, Rand – be the ‘Sacrificial Lamb’ who gains a ton of backlinks and buzz just by putting your head on the imaginary marketing chopping block. Even if Negative SEO could ‘bring you down’ – you’re so high-profile anyways that a courtesy call from Matt Cutts telling you everything’s been ‘fixed’ and the rankings you clearly deserve have been restored wouldn’t be surprising.

    As for the rest of us LITTLE PEOPLE… I’m quite capable of inflicting -50, -200 and total deindexing penalties *on myself* as I’ve proven time and time again. I’m sure any good Black Negative SEO professional could do the same, far more quickly and efficiently.

  • http://twitter.com/abeen abeens

    bad links are bad links ! bad links should not be a ranking factor,

  • http://www.grow-sun.com Tom Hargrave

    Since I rely almost exclusively on my web presence for marketing this would be a good data point to know.

  • http:/www.Identifind.com Lauri Johnson

    This new theory would certainly explain WHY our site has really gone downhill in orders! It’s not just lately, this has gone on for months now. Our site has been up for years, all rules have been followed, and yet we’ve almost disappeared on the face of the earth. Just figured the ‘paid ads’ took major precedence over small business like ours, but this explanation certainly explains why such a dramatic change in orders!
    In Friendship ~
    Lauri A. Johnson, Owner & Co-Founder
    IdentiFind Iron On Labels

  • http://www.frannleach.com Frann Leach

    I thought this immediately when I heard that google was penalizing sites with links from sites they don’t approve of

  • http://www.fernandoveloso.com/ Fernando Veloso

    Well, I am anxious to see what Google will then answer about all those TRAVEL spammers – Yes, those same big brands creating backdoors and no-content just to create more internal links. This has been going on for years, and Google seems to avoid this subject like the plague.

    If Google is so interested in a “clean up” or “level the playing ground a little bit” they could start by some of the biggest search engine spammers: airline/travel companies.

  • http://www.boostyourleads.com Glen Kowalski

    My concern with these changes, is for the small business owner who had no idea of what SEO really is. They just knew that they needed it in order to justify the cost of their new $2500 website. They hired an SEO company for 6 months or a year or two, and just left it at that.

    Chances are many of these companies have at least some questionable link building, etc, done. In the early days of a website, its not going to get a lot of organic links. Some may have even gone really overboard when a friend told them they could get 10,000 links for 5 bucks, and they didn’t know any better. Or they responded to a link builder ad from India in their inbox. Maybe they even did those activities a long time ago, and have since stopped.

    So, these companies are trying to “market” their site for a few hundred bucks a month. They have very few links (because they are a small local company), and then the big Walmart of their industry comes into town with a $100,000 marketing budget they are going to dedicate to removing all the little guys in the industry with some negative SEO. It would be very easy for them to “tip the scales” on ratio of good links to bad.

    Do I think negative SEO can hurt SEOMoz, probably not, they are very well established. But Joe’s Widgets? I think it is more of a concern, and they have more to lose.

    Thanks for doing this study, I know we are all waiting to hear the results.

  • joe david

    Let’s not be naive, Google is simply the “new” Yellow Pages. You would never expect to get a free featured ad in the Yellow Pages, so don’t expect a free ride from Google. Search is just a by-product that makes no money for Google, to wit the first 2 years of their existance, where they made zero money. In fact no VC wanted to buy all of Google for $750k when it was pitched by Kholsa (look it up). Search is tweaked ever so exquisitely so that you get decent results–not great most of the time. This forces the rest of the 90% of sites to use AdWords. Google could improve their search by a factor of 200% if they wanted, but they don’t. SEOmoz is just another cheap publicity stunt, the likes of Ashley Madison, where the media goes crazy when they “reject” their ads for the Super Bowl, knowing in advance that they would be rejected anyway, and grateful for the free publicity worth millions. I’m not impressed, as SEOmoz is the wrong site to test this, as it has way too much weight.

  • http://www.medlawplus.com medlaw

    >>“I’ve never seen it work on a truly clean, established site,” Fishkin tells WebProNews<<
    This guy doesn't get around much. It's plain to the naked eye.

  • http://www.joyoga.org.uk Basingstoke Yoga

    Surely they would be better havng zero value on a bad link than a negative one? This leaves any site open to attack.

  • joe david

    Actually most sites, SEO suppliers, and millions of other jobs in developed countries around the world will be lost within a few years to sites that offer sufficiently adequate similar services for $5 from teen providers, who are quite technologically savvy, or other providers in under-developed countries where $5 is a day’s salary. Most of our skills are/will be simply commodities. Once millions of people in each country are out of a job because of the internet, they will demand access to it be restricted for scientific research and basic information (pre-adwords) days. I see this happening every day in conversations with people I’m involved with in several fields. The explosive growth of the internet up till now, was the result of going from zero to 60 in a decade, so it felt good as it created millions of jobs, however, the future is written on the wall. Google will all but disappear, Facebook will be the default virtual family nuclear unit, where everything happens and where in the absence of commercial search engines–word by mouth referrals will take place. SEO is dead, because it doesn’t make money for the search engines, it’s quite simply, actually. If I was head of Google, I’d kill SEO–(though I would pretend to support it). Seriously, what country in the world is going to be able to sustain itself when it can’t collect taxes on the teen computer whiz who remotely from Romani fixed your PC for $5? Don’t think “today”–think about this in 10 years. The exponential growth of remote services from regions where $5 is a lot of money will completely drain most professions that can be done abroad, such as: accounting, legal, design, architecture, engineering, tutoring, SEO, PC support, customer service, travel information, writing services, medical diagnostics, x-ray analysis, laboratory work, languages…ok, so I can’t get a haircut or buy an ice cream online–not yet anyway. Google is the least of your worries. The $5 per job sites is your real nemesis, and they can’t be slayed. I fear for the future of work, why, because I’ve personally seen how my own field has been totally decimated in a period of 5 years or less, and I’m just the canary in the mine.

  • http://www.duckduckgo.com Patricia

    the short answer is YES, in fact i know some companies doing this as a business for a living.
    I have been victim of this for a long time, but since i’m not an adwords customer i can’t get my voice heard from google.

  • http://www.metanym.com/milton-keynes Mark

    Sounds like an interesting experiment but SEOMoz could benefit from some ‘good links’ from this as well – sounds like a good strategy to me!

  • http://Krackalakin.com Dan

    I would be willing to bet that Rand is going to be sorry. I have two domains that I recently registered (my bad for not researching them), they were both previously banned by Google for spam. Try getting a hold of someone at Google to help you when its a new site that was impacted by someone else. Honestly it would be easier to get President Obama on the phone. Best of luck Rand.

  • http://topsourcemedia.com Rob

    I know for a fact Negative SEO exists. I personally own around 500 websites.

    I had a found a keyword that was blowing up on google insight. bought the EMD domain Made the site was on the 1st page 1 spot for a while.

    A few months down the road I notice the site just dropped like a rock for not rhyme or reason.

    Than a few months later again. I ended up meeting a few other people who do a lot of SEO. One guy was saying how he did negative SEO to a site to get his friend to rank for this keyword. I asked which keyword/site and ended up being mine. :/

    Mind you this was 2 years ago as well. With each Panda update I think it makes it easier to do Negative SEO where as 2 years ago it wasn’t nearly as easy.

    I’d personally like to see a Real Test. Not on a established site but one that is 2-3 months old. I could literally name like 10 things off the top of my head that could get that site knocked down past page 100+

    I personally would never do anything like that to a site though but I know tons who would.

  • http://lots0cash.com lots0

    Oh it works well.

    No one is going to go after Fishkin’s site, there is no money in it.

    The ONLY way to recover is to beg google to help and usually the googlers don’t bother themselves.

  • http://www.masteringyourwebsite.com/ John

    This probably will not work or even be a valid test becuase 1) the negitive activity and characteristics would have to out weight the positive activity and characteristics and with Rand’s sites this may take a good while to accomplish. 2) Most site owners who would ordinarily suffer from negitive seo do not have a massivly powerful site like Rands (maybe 1% of the authority), so I don’t think this test is going to be a worthwhile experiment IMO. There is a very good posibility that even with a brutal attempt, it will not be effected like an average site would.

  • http://www.seo-websitedesigners.com/ Radko Aleksandrov

    Over the years Google has always stated that what others did, in particular, with bad links, can’t hurt your sites rankings. Many of us knew differently, but it was always kept somewhat behind closed doors. It wasn’t written about nor openly discussed. Discretion being the better part of valor and all that. That’s been changing though. Why? No idea. But it has.

  • http://www.captaincyberzone.com Cap’n Cyberzone

    Chris, I do hope you don’t drop this matter and report back in a month or so as to what transpired and please, Google aside, really report what happened (attack or no attack, fix or no fix).
    Thank you.

  • Dale

    No. It’s more due to things like this. Google creates programs to “look” at websites. A company trading close to $600 a share cannot afford to hire people to physically look at websites and determine if they are spamming or bogus. amazon and aws.amazon have already been caught by the FTC for deceptive things, but it was ignored. Wowrack works with Google and puts your business in a trap and tears you up.

    A fixed system for United States Corporation. Not small business. Wake Up.

  • James

    This ‘experiment’ is completely biased and the results will not prove anything. A very well known site like seomoz or, let us say, TheWhiteHouse, wouldn’t be manually taken down. The major issue here is smaller businesses which will become the target of spammers now that google are penalizing sites for backlinks which in many cases they never created.

    Rand is publicly asking people to target his site, which presumably waives most of his rights in this regard under law. Second, in the event that a review was triggered it will be immediately clear that he asked for it and why he asked for it. If anything he will get a bunch of new quality links to his site from this from valid news sources which google will index and merely ignore the spam. Clever stuff!

  • James

    BTW does anyone know how long these unnatural links penalties last for?

  • http://www.tipsinablog.com Daniel

    I have known of sites that seemed to be squeaky clean, yet, they were hit hard in the rankings by what seems to be bad links. Though, these are mid level sites, not ultra successful…

    Using tools like scrape box and blasting links in theory should have negative affect on a site(according to Google’s stance on bad link building methods–and/or linking to bad sites). Though, this and many other practices would have been used, both now and in the recent past, by established and non established sites.

  • http://life4care.blogspot.com adad

    I Need SEO

  • http://www.nufc.me brian

    If you are a SEO expert you would know how easy it really is to impact a site. I have seen sites get hammered in SERPS because they were being negatively affected by someone else. The frightening this is, this is so easy to do, and it works.

    I will not explain how to do it here, or every scriptkiddy would be trying to bring down sites.

  • MarcosSEO


  • MarcosSEO

    These is indeed a way to get SEOmoz delisted however very dangerous for whomever attempts this type of bowling. Furthermore, the site may only be delisted/taken down for a short period of time whilst the authorities investigate.

    Hey Rand, your challenge is definitely good PR

    All the best


  • http://www.InternetMarketingBusinessGo.com Jawad

    Guys, it’s holly possible that negative SEO can not only taken your site down although can kick you out from the entire Google search results. One of my site was outranking high authority sites Hubpage, Amazon and Google’s own shopping results and got #1 spot just with my own pure handed SEO. Yes, I have been doing SEO on that site myself and had placed every authority links manually to it and I was able to get top spot #1 position outranking everything. Then any of my BUSTED competitor HIT that site hard with negative SEO two/three weeks ago and from that day my site has vanished from #1 spot to nowhere in the search engines. Heck what Google is doing??? Can’t they monitor these kind of shit happening?

  • http://Wredlich.com Warren Redlich

    Congrats to Rand Fishkin on two levels:
    1. Great public service and
    2. Brilliant link bait!

  • http://www.herrickconstruction.net Gregg

    I have been managing my website since 1998. I have always been within the first three pages of google, bing, and yahoo. I follow all the rules and now my site is not even listed. Is it true the keyword meta tag is not even looked at, as far as placement. That would explain my why my site has fallen off.

  • Daniel

    I found this post because I have a competitor doing a negative SEO campaign to my sites. First I had a $40k offer for 2 sites I own, and when I refused the offer, I noticed tons of links being built to my site that wasnt from me!

    I had Then I sent a message to the competitor asking if they were building links to my site. They replied back and said “should have taken the offer ;)” They have built over 10k links to my sites in the past month. My traffic is now cut in half because I fell from the rankings. I have had very stable rankings for over a year now.

  • mcl

    not set to rules for website i will fine these website set website back to A+rules. no more pigging out from the rest of the othere’s websites, if your clean stay cool. if not i am only one person and time is time. but my only guide is google rules. The seo companies are the biggest golden rule changers. I am look to change there ways.

  • http://www.salegreenhouse.com Darline

    I would like to say, they may target a clean site, but I would pray that if everybody is doing their job it would not be taken down. At some point in time everyone will see negative comments about them because you can’t please everyone all the time.

    However, the negative comments, when addressed immediately and properly, will have a reverse affect. Therefore, ultimately will not have the negative impact that the person was hoping for and in turn create a more positive effect for the site attacked.

    Always be prepared for an attack and you’ll be safe with your counter-attack approach. It’s a war on the internet and I would pray the under-handed people have not gotten the upper-hand on the good guys.

    I will really be interested in following this study and learning the results. Also, thank you Fishkin for your help in this issue.

  • http://www.tvspiegel.com Wandspiegel

    Seriously it was a bold move by Rand and at least someone is willing to put up a strong domain for a test…

  • http://www.2meterpeter.com Pete

    Ranking penalty or not. If anything it’s just a clever way of getting loads of people in the SEO community blogging a ‘newsworthy’ story about the SEOMoz

  • http://www.brickmarketing.com/ Nick Stamoulis

    I agree with Rand. I think that if you’re site has a clean and strong reputation, it would be nearly impossible for negative SEO to hurt you. I think that most sites with a good online brand understand the need to continue their SEO campaign, even after they get the results they were looking for. Their white hat efforts would run counter to any negative SEO a competitor could feasibly do and help prevent a take down.

  • http://www.potpiegirl.com PotPieGirl

    Hey Chris =)

    I’ve been following along with that drama. While I do think it would make for an interesting case study, a true test of this nature can NOT be carried out in public. There are way too many variables that would make anything ‘proven’ by the study irrelevant.

    I don’t doubt that negative SEO is possible. If I can destroy a site I own with back linking, why couldn’t I do that to another site?

    The degree of difficulty and the success rate depends on the sites current link reputation. Rand’s site has an excellent link reputation…and it continues to build on a daily basis. It would take a LOT of cr@p links and a LOT of time to even put a dent in that.

    Oddly, I had someone attempt that with my PotPieGirl.com site. They had gone out and created a mass amount of p0rn forum profile links to me (yeah, you can imagine my face when I came across all that! lol!) But those links didn’t cause any issue to my site or my rankings. And that was about 2 years ago when my link profile and link reputation were both much weaker and more vulnerable.

    In the end, I think that a site with no reputation and/or a site with an artificially created reputation CAN be taken down – and probably quite easily.

    But a site with an organically strong reputation? No… I don’t see it. Their reputation will still continue to grow organically while the attacker is trying to destroy them artificially.

    Just my thoughts on all that =)


  • http://scholarshipsngrants.com/ Scholarship Man

    For those that don’t think Negative SEO is possible, you have some serious wool over your eyes.

    Let’s look at the facts.

    FACT #1: We now have irrefutable proof that Google penalizes for links (their new popular penalty message). We don’t have to speculate anymore, they send out the penalty message about links, and said site drops in rankings.

    FACT #2: Google has NO WAY of identifying who placed what link to a site. Unless they have spy cameras installed behind every person building links, they simply can’t identify who placed a link. They can guess, and some situations are more clear cut than others, but the bottom line is they can’t know 100%.

    Add those 2 FACTS together, and it doesn’t take a genius to realize negative SEO is possible.

    If links can harm you, Negative SEO is possible. It’s as simple as that.

  • http://scholarshipsngrants.com/ Scholarship Man

    Also, doing a case study on SEOMoz or Rand’s site is probably one of THE WORST sites to try this one.

    99.9% of websites do not have the clout or reputation his site(s) have.

    It’s analogous to doing a case study on a new heart medication, and administering it to pro athletes. 99.9% of the population are not pro athletes, so why would they do a case study on pro athletes?

    The same holds true for SEOMoz and Rand’s site.

    If we want to do a TRUE case study on negative SEO, gather a group of middle of the line, mediocre sites..with average clout and reputation – and see what happens. I guarantee the results will be FAR different than if we were to try it on SEOMoz.

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom