Why doesn`t Google mention negative seo?

Selected answers from the Dumb SEO Questions Facebook & G+ community.

• 
  Jim Munro: Why do all explanations from every Google representative always have to suggest that bad links were manufactured by the webmaster or their SEO? ;
  
  Why is it considered necessary to state the possible origin of the bad links at all? ;
  
  If it must be said, why isn't the alternative possibility of negative seo also pointed out?
• 
  Rob Maas: It is pretty much enough to stick to the WebMasters Tools when  ;you want to dissavow backlinks. ...  ;
• 
  Micah Fisher-Kirshner: If (in their view) say 95+% of the time it's because of bad backlinks, then no need to highlight the minutae (say like optimizing for the H4 tag, it's minor so why mention). just saying :)
• 
  Jim Munro: Where do you get a figure of 95% from? Given that about 85% of all websites do not attempt to improve their sites with links primarily because they oblivious, I would say it is reasonable to state that only 5-15% are the result of self-harm.
  
  I think it's logical to assume that the majority is due to malicious negative seo carried out by competitors.
• 
  Micah Fisher-Kirshner: Just used as an example case for possibly why. Plus, being oblivious to the rules doesn't mean the backlinks weren't bad (ie: ignorance of the law is no excuse).
• 
  Jim Munro: I meant "oblivious" to the point that they do not build backlinks because they are not aware of the purpose of the action. It's hard for us to comprehend but the overwhelming majority of the world is like that. Signups to GWMT are in the low teens, certainly well under 20%, despite an invitation appearing every time someone googles their domain name.
  
  I understand why you under-rate negative seo and it's OK. I've seen the attitude many times before.
  
  Everybody scoffs at negative seo until it happens to them. :)
• 
  Micah Fisher-Kirshner: Oh, I understand the oblivious part, it's just that anyone could play that game in other ways (eg: RapGenius was very oblivious to what was going on) and Google has had enough of others playing naive.
  
  Like the real-world, if you don't know how your business is getting funded (say through illicit small arms dealers), you'll still be at fault for a set amount of time and looked at very closely over time to make sure you weren't really complicit.
  
  It's an extreme example I grant, but making the point for why Google is no longer letting it slide anymore.
• 
  Jim Munro: 85% of the internet is not playing Google's game. It's not a matter of naivety, these are people who aren't interested in getting involved. This is proven by their non-participation.
  
  However, if through good luck and good fortune they accidentally happen to rank for something commercially valuable, they'll be quickly shot down by negative seo and they will be none the wiser.
  
  It's nothing to do with Google.
  
  What google thinks does not come into play here. There is nothing for them to consider or rule on. The only thing they could do is clean up their negative seo mess.
• 
  Micah Fisher-Kirshner: It's their algorithm, thus their rules. It matters not a wit what others do or don't do as long as Google can still be perceived as having valuable results to users. Therefore, if your site, accidentally happens to rank for something and is replaced by another dime a dozen or by a quarter instead (sorry for the American lingo), not a loss to Google.
  
  Your site being NSEO'd is sadly not a problem to Google as long as its hard to prove conclusively and as long as it doesn't ding Google's results above a set level (whatever that may be).
  
  If NSEO'd was horrific enough you'd see some changes as it'd be impacting Google... well, at least if it was something they could see coming versus a massive crash to another search engine.
• 
  Jim Munro: Thanks mate but I am not on trial here. I did not mention my sites. What happens to them is not relevant nor is NSEO the only thing in play there. Please address your attention to the questions asked here:
  
  "Why do all explanations from every Google representative always have to suggest that bad links were manufactured by the webmaster or their SEO? ;
  
  Why is it considered necessary to state the possible origin of the bad links at all? ;
  
  If it must be said, why isn't the alternative possibility of negative seo also pointed out?"
• 
  Micah Fisher-Kirshner: +Jim Munro: Third person "you/your" ie: one's. Didn't mean to imply you directly. Sorry for the confusion.
• 
  Jim Munro: That's OK. mate. :)
  
  I'm looking forward to seeing your answers to those three simple questions. In your own time. :)
• 
  Micah Fisher-Kirshner: "Why do all explanations from every Google representative always have to suggest that bad links were manufactured by the webmaster or their SEO?"
  
  Could be sample bias: most (say 95%+) of those that come to them have had those issues, so over time they begin to stop looking and assume that is always the case. See: Google's Webmaster Forum ;-)
  
  "Why is it considered necessary to state the possible origin of the bad links at all?"
  
  See above answer to question #1.
  
  If it must be said, why isn't the alternative possibility of negative seo also pointed out?"
  
  See above answer to question #1.
  
  Nice. Simplified three questions with one answer.
• 
  Jim Munro: Prat.
• 
  Micah Fisher-Kirshner: You flipped the 'b' there. :)
• 
  Jim Munro: :)