Negative SEO: What Happens When You Go To War With A Link Network…


I’ve picked up quite a few new links recently. In fact, in the past month I’ve picked up over 11,000.

Check out this graph from Ahrefs, which shows the total number of referring pages to top5seo jumping from 3,261 on the 12th June to a whopping 14,447 on July 11th.


Referring domains have jumped from 214 to 575 in the same period.

So, what’s the reason for this huge increase?

Well, you may already have guessed, but we’re looking at two words that are the subject of much contention in the SEO community at the moment: –

Negative SEO

And to really make this interesting, the negative SEO is being undertaken not by a competitor, but I believe* by one of the biggest black hat link networks in the world – the link Emperor Network (you’ll forgive me for not linking to them I hope!).

So What Could I Have Done To Incur Their Wrath?

Well, it’s all to do with a review I wrote about their service back in October last year. You can read the original post here, but in a nutshell I was warning webmasters to steer clear as building links through automated services such as this will get your site penalised/banned.

I didn’t/don’t have anything against the Link Emperor network in particular, more this type of link building in general, but I had seen a lot of other SEO bloggers promoting their service (Matthew Woodward for example) and I wanted to make sure that the ‘other side of the story’ was out there.

Why would my review annoy them so much? Well, I happen to rank at position 2 for a branded search (below their site) and have done for the last 6 months or so (see below).

link emperor search results

Additionally, anyone who searches for ‘link emperor review’ (and a load of other terms) is going to find my post right at the top of the SERP.


I would imagine the majority of their sales are driven from their affiliate program, but this certainly can’t be great for sales and the review picks up around 15-20 organic visitors a day.

For example, between the 1st and 16th of July the post was viewed 348 times.


Where Are All The Links Coming From?

There’s the usual classic link network mix of links from: –

  • Blog sites
  • Social bookmarking
  • Wiki pages etc

Most of the links from blog sites are just poorly spun content on a standard wordpress 2014 theme. The majority of domains are random and have nothing to do with internet marketing, i.e. this one about breathtaking whales!


But there are also quite a few pay day loan type domains in there too, just for extra spammy nastiness (see this screen shot from a Majestic SEO backlinks report).


All the links are pointing at the review page and have a mix of exact matchy anchor text, i.e. ‘link emperor’, ‘link emperor review’ etc.


What Am I Doing To Counter The Negative SEO?

Unfortunately it’s not possible to get rid of the links, so at the moment I’m updating a disavow file every week or so as the links come in.

I have been doing this at a domain level as it’s easier to manage (quicker to export out referring domains to the page) and so far have disavowed 401 domains.


How Has The Negative SEO Affected My Rankings?

So far I have not seen any negative effects in either traffic or rankings and at the time of writing the targeted page continues to rank for the link emperor branded search, reviews etc.

What is annoying is that it makes my link profile look horrible, although I liked Nick Ker’s attitude to this when he was attacked with negative SEO last year: –

Link profile is much harder to analyze. With all that spam taking up space in the charts and graphs, it is more difficult to determine what links have had an effect on rankings and traffic.

So, the million dollar question…

Is This Proof That Negative SEO Doesn’t Work?

Well, I wouldn’t go as far as to say that.

In fact, what I would say is that this negative SEO is far too obvious and a subtler approach would potentially have more impact. I won’t go into detail of what that might be here as I don’t want to give anyone any ideas…

Certainly negative SEO is a big cause for concern in the industry and although google keep telling us not to worry about it, it does seem that in principle it should work as a tactic. After all, if your site can be penalised for bad links, then how can they distinguish whether or not you built these links yourself?

Rand Fishkin recently discussed the need for an irrefutable public example of negative SEO affecting a site and I would agree that this would be useful to get google to address concerns more openly instead of telling us that everything is rosy in the garden.


The second case study in this article would also suggest negative SEO can definitely do damage to your rankings.

In Conclusion…

While I am pleased that the attack hasn’t affected me so far, I will continue to disavow just to be on the safe side.

I do believe negative SEO is a problem for the industry and can effect your rankings, so be sure to regularly audit your backlinks to look out for anything malicious. It’s pretty bad that we have to police our own links, but I guess that’s where we are at just now.

Of course if I notice any rankings changes, or receive any penalty notifications in the future I will keep this post updated…

… and if you do decide to go to war with a link network yourself, be prepared for them to fight back dirty!

* Disclaimer: while I am 99% sure the links have been built by them (and all the evidence points to this), I cannot say with 100% certainty due to the very nature of a private blog network/link building service!

Need more traffic?

Enter your email and I'll show you how to grow your site with white hat SEO and content marketing.

Do you need a little help with your SEO?

hummingbird You’ve got a great website.

You offer a fantastic product or service.

There’s just one problem…

You need more traffic!

If this sounds a bit like your business, then I can help you get the traffic your site deserves.

Find out more >
  1. July 16, 2014
  2. July 16, 2014
  3. July 17, 2014
  4. July 17, 2014
    • July 17, 2014
  5. July 17, 2014
    • July 17, 2014
  6. July 17, 2014
  7. July 17, 2014
  8. July 17, 2014
    • July 17, 2014
    • July 17, 2014
      • July 17, 2014
        • July 17, 2014
          • July 17, 2014
          • July 17, 2014
          • July 18, 2014
  9. July 17, 2014
  10. July 17, 2014

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *