Seems like you're saying the benefits of the new spam detection outweigh the negatives. I disagree.
With the old system, a site could be scummy, and spammy, and get themselves to the top of Google by using questionable practices. This is still possible today (though only slightly more difficult than it was before), but it also gives a website the power to destroy a completely unrelated website's ranking.
In attempting to better control spam, Google has created a brand new weapon to use. One I feel has the potential to be even worse than spamming and link boosting.
"One I feel has the potential to be even worse than spamming and link boosting."
In the short term, maybe. In the long term, no. How many times can this weapon be used before it leaves a nice juicy fingerprint, or sources of negative links become over saturated.
This negative-SEO feels very much like bottom-feeding. Last scrabbling for tiny chunks of change, or an explosion of self-entitled anger, we just need to wait it out. People do stupid traceable things when they are angry.
>How many times can this weapon be used before it leaves a nice juicy fingerprint, or sources of negative links become over saturated.
How many times can spamming and link boosting be uses before it leaves a finger-print, or the spam just gets over-saturated? Apparently infinite. If they haven't fixed positive SEO (and with these new updates spamming is still as effective as ever), I don't think they can add an entire new world of negative SEO and expect it to just work smoothly over time.
It hasn't stopped SEO from being a thing. We don't have a problem and solution now. We just have two problems. This one is definitely worse, because Google has now given other websites the ability to destroy your rankings. That just doesn't make sense.
"because Google has now given other websites the ability to destroy your rankings. That just doesn't make sense."
Makes sense to me.
* Take a snapshot of the link graph
* Hit spammers hard with negative penalties.
* Wait for vengeful SEOers to target their competition with negative SEO, and for the search results quality for mainstream users to noticeably drop
* Switch off the negative penalty flag -- Innocent competitors targeted by SEO negative SEO bounce right back
* Compare the before and after link graph.
* Update the list of low-quality link sources.
* Google wins because it has found a lot more spammy link sources than before.
* Spammers lose because their sites drop even further as previously okay link sources are now determined to be spammy
When you play a incomplet-information game with Google, you need to make sure you are not inadvertently providing them more information by changing your tactics. By changing your link building habits because of a negative link penalty, you are giving Google more information than before, you are confirming more link sources are not natural.
The smartest thing you can do is not to be tempted into negative SEOing your competitors. You are only burning the back links Google haven't flagged as spammy yet. So either keep doing what you were doing before the penalty, or stop building spammy back links. But playing with negative SEO plays straight into Google's hands.
At least, risk someone else's private link network, rather than your own ones when doing negative SEO. :-)
With the old system, a site could be scummy, and spammy, and get themselves to the top of Google by using questionable practices. This is still possible today (though only slightly more difficult than it was before), but it also gives a website the power to destroy a completely unrelated website's ranking.
In attempting to better control spam, Google has created a brand new weapon to use. One I feel has the potential to be even worse than spamming and link boosting.