Now back to SEO as a dirty business.

Strangely enough in real life it is a lot easier to harm than to heal. Somehow supremacy and power are achieved faster through war than peaceful negotiations. No surprise here: negotiating peacefully takes time to find a compromise which, in many situations, is not what the parts involved hoped to achieve.

SEM is quite similar. For every winner, there's a loser, and many companies that rely on Google for traffic employ questionable SEO tactics to achieve good rankings for their most competitive keyword phrases.

But this is nothing compared to those that employ "political tricks" to harm their competitors. Forbes lists in "The Saboteurs of Search" two techniques (out of seven): Google bowling and Google insulation.

Google bowling is pure evil and it deals with how to frame a competitor's site as a spamming site to convince Google to drop its rankings. This type of negative SEO deals with links -- and many links at once. These links are generated automatically, over a short period of time, using special software. They'll mostly come from bad neighbors and they'll all have the same anchor text, to make the spam picture complete. Google is just a machine, so there's no real way for this machine to know who is behind the link spam. The "guilty" site might lose its position in the SERP or even get banned. Some sites never recover after a Google ban, others see their rankings vanishing and their pages landing into the supplemental results and they never learn why.

If something like this has happened to your site, all you can really do is to find out who hates you so much. Google bowling is not the only negative SEO technique that might hurt a competitor site.

Tattling, as correctly identified by Forbes, is something that even Google's Matt Cutts encourages, by asking people to report sites that buy links. I really wonder how Google verifies such complaints.

Basically anyone can assume that a contextual link in one of my blog entries is a paid link (what if I monetize my site with V7 contextual?).

There are many other questionable SEO strategies to demolish competition. I happen to consider them a waste of time and energy. The Forbes article quoted above contains a pretty interesting statement: "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."

If negative SEO is difficult, we are prone to believe that it seldom happens. I think that, in some niches, it happens quite often. But these are simple theories. As long as I do not have the data to back them up, I prefer to keep my analysis to a minimum of delivering information.