You must login or register!
Inbound.org uses Twitter to register and create accounts. Your Twitter handle will also be your username here on Inbound and registration/login will enable you to submit content, post comments and create/edit your Inbound profile. Use the button below to verify your Twitter account.
Login or Register
I'm pretty skeptical about whether this site was really the target of negative SEO, particularly considering the evidence presented: "We applied the same play-clean, by-the-rules strategy. And with significant investment, it worked. Within a remarkable six months after US launch, LogoGarden.com reached Google page 3, then 2, and finally hovered at the 6th slot or above on page 1, a stunning achievement. We expected to climb “above the fold” on page 1 within a few months, gaining substantial traffic — people who want to create DIY logos and buy our products and upgrades. Just a few months later, LogoGarden.com vanished from Google page 1. After intense analysis, our SEO firm ruled out all possibilities but one: SEO sabotage. Google Bowling. Overnight, we’d become invisible to the tens of thousands of people a day searching logo design. " Not saying it's impossible, but I don't think the evidence is available (yet) to make the case.
Yeah I'm with Rand on this one. A site that was launched less than a year ago (July 2011) is hardly established. As such it doesn't have established links, and IMO the content on the website is pretty shallow. Lots of directories with nothing more than logos and conversion links off-site. Pages like these aren't exactly robust content: http://www.logogarden.com/samples/sports-leisure-logos/ http://www.logogarden.com/samples/animal-pet-logos/ http://www.logogarden.com/samples/landscaping-gardening-logos/ I'm wondering if your "strategy" was lots of silo'd out directory pages with snippet reviews. Almost every page in the website is exactly the same, even most of the customer testimonials sound very similar. They aren't specific to the category in question, and almost seem boilerplate. In the end the entire website funnels to a DIY page, which doesn't need 30 links on each page :)
Also, check out this article about his site: http://www.aiga.org/common/newsletter/source/August2011_Action_Alert.html and here, referenced again: http://jefffisherlogomotives.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/logogardencom-harvests-pros-logos.html Looks like the guy's been stealing the works of others and passing it off as his own. I hate to say it but maybe he deserves everything he got. I also can't find much evidence of these spammy links. Methinks that post is just link bait.
It's now going to be come a really easy excuse for SEO companies to use when defending these kind of results to clients. Oh, we know the cause, it's all these links "someone else" built. Google have really opened up a s**t storm with negativeSEO. Regardless of how prevalent it is or how many people it's affecting. There are going to be a lot of people citing "others" as the reason for their woes. In this case, it seems they got results pretty quickly for a competitive keyword. Without having total details of what links they are building to get these results, it's difficult to determine if the links they "deem" clean, are what Google might call "dodgy".
Anyone else very perturbed by the comment "I did request a list of links that SlingShot secured for LogoGarden. They would not supply the links because they said it was against their policy. " ?