invoice Hartzer posted about a "new undetectable negative search engine optimisation tactic" final week, which was a beautiful massive blog put up title to make use of because it is a extremely potent accusation. First, we've covered the topic of redirecting penalties from unhealthy sites to new websites a few times, including the canonical components - so the concept of bad website positioning via canonicals isn't in fact new. however much more so, Google's messaging about the usage of this tactic has said no, it doesn't work as a bad web optimization tactic (however, the messaging has been complicated round this in the past to be reasonable).
bill explains that you've a victim website and a nasty site, the unhealthy SEO copies the head of the sufferer website and put it on the dangerous web page and then use the canonical tag to point the dangerous website to the sufferer website. bill says then Google will combine the two sites and the outcomes could be that the web page receives harm because of it. which you can study extra about those particulars on his weblog, but most of you likely examine this prior in different places.
John Mueller from Google replied that first that is not how canonicals work they don't mix indicators:
He additionally pointed out that people have tried issues like this with canonicals, it has been around for years, and Google is privy to what individuals might want to try to do to their opponents.
Anyway, there has all the time been a debate about terrible website positioning and here it just it happening again.
forum discussion at Twitter.
0 comments: