Another day I wrote about a sneak seo scam. Today I’m covering another SEO anti-linking tactic used for BlackHat(ers).
When you decide Optimize your website for Search Engines (SEO) the most logic step you need to take is to Analyze your competition; then you can find tendency to links for your area/segment.
The one I like to use is Link Diadnosis, it gives you Link per Domain, and you can sort by
-
link type;
-
link anchor text;
-
PageRank;
-
page internal+external links.
After running some reports you can have all the important information about your competitor’s links.
Then you can decide to to the right thing or to do the wrong thing.
The right inbound link strategy would be to contact potential linkers and develop any kind of relationship with them (offer to write a guest post, comment, etc) or,
you can decide the wrong thing….
It works like this:
You email a “Cease and Desist” letter to the webmasters linking to your competitor website, asking them to remove the outbound links to YOUR competitor’s website.
You present yourself as the “owner” of your competitor’s brand, asking them to remove the link.
This is how the email looks like:
_______________
Dear Sir/Madam
I am contacting you on behalf of www.Insurance.com, located in Sydney, Australia. We manage Insurance.com’s Internet monitoring function for brand identity issues on the Internet.
We’d like to discuss the use of the trademarked name of Insurance.com or one of its subsidiaries on your website.
As owner of the name, Insurance.com (and/or its subsidiaries) owns the exclusive right to reproduce and use its trademarks and authorize any reproduction and use. Insurance.com does not recognize the use of its name in the above-referenced site as authorized. Therefore, your use of this trademark is a violation of its rights.
Insurance.com demands that you cease and desist from using its name in any manner and that you remove all use of its trademark from the referenced website.
Please address these issues immediately. Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Trademark Administration
Insurance.com
—————–
I can think of many websites removing links trying to avoid legal problem. I can imagine the guy from IT panicking together with the Legal department.
I should agree is indeed a clever scheme but stupid strategy.
Cheers
Lucio Dias Ribeiro
You also might like:
This is very interesting! I have enjoyed reading this very insightful post. Very engaging and informative. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by Aurelius Tjin | March 18, 2008, 7:15 amYou are more than welcome mate.
Posted by Lucio Dias Ribeiro | March 19, 2008, 2:38 amI always thought of black hat is a sneaky way of getting to the top. Now I see that it is not only getting to the top but pushing your competitors to the bottom. I think that for me if I was atleast the top ten then I could live with that. Most people who do a search check out atleast a couple websites anyways. Not just sticking with the first.
Posted by James M Woods | December 1, 2008, 2:23 amHi James
Is not nice isn’t?
There are more from where this came from, Regularly I try to write about this sort of scams so you and I can avoid to get mistakenly involved with it.
Posted by Lucio Dias Ribeiro | December 1, 2008, 10:34 pmI don’t want to burst your bubble, but most members of the black hat community would never stoop this low. Beyond the simple fact that the method you outlined would be extremely ineffective, it would also consume more time and resources than building links using any number of *true* black hat methods.
While there certainly are members of the black hat community who do actively defend their SERPs by campaigning against their competitors, this is true in all sectors of industry. It’s sad that such serious misconceptions are so wantonly conveyed by the supposedly white hat SEO community, who participate in nearly all of the same behaviors, but rarely readily admit it.
Posted by blackhatzen | December 3, 2008, 3:51 amHi BlackHatzen,
Couple of points,
“Most members of the black hat community would never stoop this low”
Agree, most wont do it, but some will. Never affirmed that is majority of doers but said that happened
“simple fact that the method you outlined would be extremely ineffective” I won’t affirm completely ineffective, but how can you or me materialize the tangibility of one removal success. Case by Case the level of effectiveness is arguable.
“supposedly white hat SEO community, who participate in nearly all of the same behaviors, but rarely readily admit it.”
Powerful statement here, and I completely agree with you. Misconception of Black/White hat is a rich topic. Woul;dn’t be smart from me to categorize what is or not, even worse would be irresponsible from my side to tell what is black hat or white hat, however I can pick a side when it comes to moral, and that’s my side.
Any BlackHatZen, thanks for your comment, thnaks for adding me on Twitter. I just visited your website and subscribed. I’m looking forward for intelligent discussion with you.
Cheers
Lucio Ribeiro
Posted by Lucio | December 3, 2008, 4:26 amvery interesting :)
Posted by BlackHatGone | January 24, 2009, 5:36 pmvery interesting tip for black hat SEO!
Posted by Mike | February 9, 2009, 11:23 am@BlackHatGone
@Mike
Thanks.
Posted by lucio ribeiro | February 9, 2009, 10:35 pmwell i dont think any of these are black hat really but more on the grey hat side.
Posted by paul | March 28, 2009, 11:25 pmYes, you’re right. It’s been some time since I wrote this piece. I’ll review it soon…
Posted by Lucio Dias Ribeiro | March 31, 2009, 10:02 pmwell i dont think any of these are black hat really but more on the grey hat side.
Posted by t44x | November 16, 2009, 2:24 amThat is a very sneaky trick. But I’d rather do hard work that use black hat seo and get caught with it.
Posted by SEOP.com | June 29, 2010, 3:23 am