Google and Yahoo! offer even fewer clues about the extent of negative SEO practices, leaving them a subject of speculation and doubt. Some search marketers question whether tactics like Google bowling even exist. Google's Webmaster Central site, designed to answer search marketers' queries, says merely, "There's almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index." But Duke, and many search marketers, take that "almost" as a concession from Google that negative SEO does occur.
Matt Cutts, a senior software engineer for Google, says that piling links onto a competitor's site to reduce its search rank isn't impossible, but it's extremely difficult. "We try to be mindful of when a technique can be abused and make our algorithm robust against it," he says. "I won't go out on a limb and say it's impossible.
> Google and Yahoo! offer even fewer clues about the extent of negative > SEO practices, leaving them a subject of speculation and doubt. Some > search marketers question whether tactics like Google bowling even > exist. Google's Webmaster Central site, designed to answer search > marketers' queries, says merely, "There's almost nothing a competitor > can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index." > But Duke, and many search marketers, take that "almost" as a > concession from Google that negative SEO does occur.
> Matt Cutts, a senior software engineer for Google, says that piling > links onto a competitor's site to reduce its search rank isn't > impossible, but it's extremely difficult. "We try to be mindful of > when a technique can be abused and make our algorithm robust against > it," he says. "I won't go out on a limb and say it's impossible.
Matt Cutts mentions two items there: "- identity theft means that someone can steal your site out from under you. See for example the storied history of sex.com - someone could hack your site and put spam all over your site"
To the average website the first item is a non-issue. It's kind of far- fetched, but possible. The second one is something we see a lot here, but which is solvable (remove the hack, fix the hole, file a reinconsideration request).
Let's worry about the real issues first - like why people aren't buying our products as much as we want them to :D (but still check your site from time to time to make sure that nothing fishy is going on).
> Matt Cutts mentions two items there: > "- identity theft means that someone can steal your site out from > under you. See for example the storied history of sex.com > - someone could hack your site and put spam all over your site"
> To the average website the first item is a non-issue. It's kind of far- > fetched, but possible. The second one is something we see a lot here, > but which is solvable (remove the hack, fix the hole, file a > reinconsideration request).
> Let's worry about the real issues first - like why people aren't > buying our products as much as we want them to :D (but still check > your site from time to time to make sure that nothing fishy is going > on).
Actually it's very easy and quite common for domains to be stolen. According to ICANN rules from a couple of years ago, one only need request a one-sided transfer of ownership of a domain, wait one week, and if the true owner doesn't respond with an objection, then the transfer will go through. This was allwoed to happen because ICANN wants to discourage cybersquatter presumably, who buy up domains and dont' actively use them for a website. Rather than have idele domains tied down forever like that, they figured let whoever want that domain try to get it this way. if the original registrant is missing in action the domain gets released to a new owner. Except of course those who profit from it the most are overwhelmingly ... cybersquatters and big time spammers and scammers who now have an even easier and legitimate tool to acquire tons of domains whose owners are caught napping.
Registrars recommend locking the domain. But thsi doesnt' actually seem to truly work long term. I myself have managed to transfer a locked domain from one registrar to another on behalf of a client who had let her original hosting expire and that same hosting company was handling her domain registration. She was unable to access her account there at all to even rescue her domain. The domain had been under registrar lock too. I initiated a transfer from my own registrar and 8 days later it had gone through, I got the domain registered in my name with my own registrar with no problems, and at no time was she contacted and asked if she aothorized it (she would have as she'd asked me to handle it in any case, but the point is moot).
It's too easy, many people sign up for their domains with some email address which is no longer active. Back in the days before Gmail, if you wanted to be able to ignore spam which was certain to be sent to the registrant of a domain (especially withotu ID protection which is quite expensive), it was typical (and still is) to use a hotmail or yahoo addy. Hotmail still has a rule in place that if you don't access your account for a month or two they close it. This is how you end up not receiving any notifications of anybody's attempt at taking over your domain from under you. I see it to often happen to innocent people.
> Matt Cutts mentions two items there: > "- identity theft means that someone can steal your site out from > under you. See for example the storied history of sex.com > - someone could hack your site and put spam all over your site"
> To the average website the first item is a non-issue. It's kind of far- > fetched, but possible. The second one is something we see a lot here, > but which is solvable (remove the hack, fix the hole, file a > reinconsideration request).
> Let's worry about the real issues first - like why people aren't > buying our products as much as we want them to :D (but still check > your site from time to time to make sure that nothing fishy is going > on).
> Google and Yahoo! offer even fewer clues about the extent of negative > SEO practices, leaving them a subject of speculation and doubt. Some > search marketers question whether tactics like Google bowling even > exist. Google's Webmaster Central site, designed to answer search > marketers' queries, says merely, "There's almost nothing a competitor > can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index." > But Duke, and many search marketers, take that "almost" as a > concession from Google that negative SEO does occur.
> Matt Cutts, a senior software engineer for Google, says that piling > links onto a competitor's site to reduce its search rank isn't > impossible, but it's extremely difficult. "We try to be mindful of > when a technique can be abused and make our algorithm robust against > it," he says. "I won't go out on a limb and say it's impossible.
What you describe (8 days to transfer) sounds very much like an unlocked domain (or you were with the same registrar). In that case, the new owner submits a change request and the old owner has up to 7 days to deny it (usually signaled via email). If the old owner does not reply (eg broken email address) then the domain is transfered (provided it's not locked). The locking is (as far as I know) just a lock against transferring to a different registrar - locking it will not protect you from all kinds of domain transfers.
The other thing you mention, however, is a ***BIG*** problem: if you register a domain with a fake email address, the domain registrar (through ICANN) has the right to take that domain from you. You are required to provide correct contact information and sometimes the registrar will check it for you and some registrars even provide links in the whois information to let 3rd parties complain about missing or bad contact information. You **NEED** to make sure that your contact information is current. This is still true if you use a proxy domain registration service - their information will be listed, but your contact information with them will have to be current.
Since you'll have 7 days to "complain", you need to provide an email address where you actively check the mail. This does however bring problems when you're on vacation :-). Sigh.
My concern is "page / site hijacking" either by proxies, or by "regular sites".
G says, there is almost nothing others can do to hurt your rankings, but for what I can see, and what I hear, the problem is more serious than G wants to admit.
> > Google and Yahoo! offer even fewer clues about the extent of negative > > SEO practices, leaving them a subject of speculation and doubt. Some > > search marketers question whether tactics like Google bowling even > > exist. Google's Webmaster Central site, designed to answer search > > marketers' queries, says merely, "There's almost nothing a competitor > > can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index." > > But Duke, and many search marketers, take that "almost" as a > > concession from Google that negative SEO does occur.
> > Matt Cutts, a senior software engineer for Google, says that piling > > links onto a competitor's site to reduce its search rank isn't > > impossible, but it's extremely difficult. "We try to be mindful of > > when a technique can be abused and make our algorithm robust against > > it," he says. "I won't go out on a limb and say it's impossible.
No, it was a locked domain - or so it showed up. That registrar was not responding to queries. FAIK they had closed shop too. It was not my registrar, not even close. They were under Enom, while mine is Godaddy. Enom did not help, saying it's up to the registrar to sort it out. The registrar was also a hoster. Probably a reseller of both services. Bad mix.
And indeed I was able to transfer with not a peep coming out from that registrar/hoster, and no help from Enom who washed their hands of the problem. The transfer simply went through in 8 days, with me checking every day to see what was happening until it happened.
ICANN requires valid registration details at the time of registering a domain. They might only check again once a year after that. I have seen quite a few domaisn with inacive email addresses - especially among those scraper sites.
Anyway, keep an eye on your property. I check them all before I go on vacation, auto-renew and all that. And I take my laptop with me LOL
> What you describe (8 days to transfer) sounds very much like an > unlocked domain (or you were with the same registrar). In that case, > the new owner submits a change request and the old owner has up to 7 > days to deny it (usually signaled via email). If the old owner does > not reply (eg broken email address) then the domain is transfered > (provided it's not locked). The locking is (as far as I know) just a > lock against transferring to a different registrar - locking it will > not protect you from all kinds of domain transfers.
> The other thing you mention, however, is a ***BIG*** problem: if you > register a domain with a fake email address, the domain registrar > (through ICANN) has the right to take that domain from you. You are > required to provide correct contact information and sometimes the > registrar will check it for you and some registrars even provide links > in the whois information to let 3rd parties complain about missing or > bad contact information. You **NEED** to make sure that your contact > information is current. This is still true if you use a proxy domain > registration service - their information will be listed, but your > contact information with them will have to be current.
> Since you'll have 7 days to "complain", you need to provide an email > address where you actively check the mail. This does however bring > problems when you're on vacation :-). Sigh.
I don't know if it is a case of a problem more serious than Google wants to admit or more of one of it being a problem that if it happens at all, has a devastating effect on the site it happens to.
I think though that if Google was given evidence of every time it happened, via the "Dissatisfied? Help us improve" link in the SERPs that it wouldn't happen for very long.
> My concern is "page / site hijacking" either by proxies, or by > "regular sites".
> G says, there is almost nothing others can do to hurt your rankings, > but for what I can see, and what I hear, the problem is more serious > than G wants to admit.
> On Jul 2, 12:53 am, cass-hacks wrn isote:
> > Forbes is known for having a negative bias against Google so I > > wouldn't take anything they publish too seriously.
> > > Google and Yahoo! offer even fewer clues about the extent of negative > > > SEO practices, leaving them a subject of speculation and doubt. Some > > > search marketers question whether tactics like Google bowling even > > > exist. Google's Webmaster Central site, designed to answer search > > > marketers' queries, says merely, "There's almost nothing a competitor > > > can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index." > > > But Duke, and many search marketers, take that "almost" as a > > > concession from Google that negative SEO does occur.
> > > Matt Cutts, a senior software engineer for Google, says that piling > > > links onto a competitor's site to reduce its search rank isn't > > > impossible, but it's extremely difficult. "We try to be mindful of > > > when a technique can be abused and make our algorithm robust against > > > it," he says. "I won't go out on a limb and say it's impossible.
> I don't know if it is a case of a problem more serious than Google > wants to admit or more of one of it being a problem that if it happens > at all, has a devastating effect on the site it happens to.
> I think though that if Google was given evidence of every time it > happened, via the "Dissatisfied? Help us improve" link in the SERPs > that it wouldn't happen for very long.
> On Jul 2, 2:26 am, Burt wrote:
> > May be.
> > My concern is "page / site hijacking" either by proxies, or by > > "regular sites".
> > G says, there is almost nothing others can do to hurt your rankings, > > but for what I can see, and what I hear, the problem is more serious > > than G wants to admit.
> > On Jul 2, 12:53 am, cass-hacks wrn isote:
> > > Forbes is known for having a negative bias against Google so I > > > wouldn't take anything they publish too seriously.
> > > > Google and Yahoo! offer even fewer clues about the extent of negative > > > > SEO practices, leaving them a subject of speculation and doubt. Some > > > > search marketers question whether tactics like Google bowling even > > > > exist. Google's Webmaster Central site, designed to answer search > > > > marketers' queries, says merely, "There's almost nothing a competitor > > > > can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index." > > > > But Duke, and many search marketers, take that "almost" as a
