|Submitting Other Peoples Pages?|
Submittin someone elses page for the link pop value?
Also, posted here [searchengineworld.com].
Q: What search engine would ban a url because of multiple same day submissions?
A: None of the majors.
Multiple submissions of the same url used to be the #1 trick of the spammer. Didn't like the guy listed above you? Submit their url a thousand times a day and they would be gone from many of the majors.
This trick still worked on Alta until late last year. All of the SE's have taken steps to avoid this situation. I know - I've tested it on my own domains as late as April. I've also been a victim of the 'submission spam' trick last year that started getting me curious about the trick.
As someone who regularly submits an average of 400 urls per day to 10 engines (250,000 submissions last month), I know the process inside and out.
Q: What search engine will decrease a urls rankings due to over submission?
A: It makes no difference if you submit a url one time or 1000 times in a day or week (alta, excite, fast, ink, google). All the engines have traps that merely throw out multiple submissions.
They will NOT in any way decrease your rankings for multiple submissions. If a person tries multiple submissions in a effort to 'spam the submission' process with their competitions url, they most likely will get their own IP banned.
Submitting people who link with you?
With today's link happy search engines, you'd be foolish not too. If a person linking with you doesn't want their page submitted, then the choice is theirs and they shouldn't link with anyone.
I submit each and every referring url coming into our sites and client sites about once ever 4-6 months (whenever I get around to it). The last time in january(?) it was about 8000 urls - this time probably 12000.
I can fully understand and appreciate people wanting to have one last shred of control over the submission process. It used to make to make me cringe when someone would submit my page too. It became apparent that I was trying to control something that was for the most part, no longer in my power to control.
If you have a problem with other people submitting your link page then you have four choices: don't link with people, don't put the page on the net, use redirects on your links to negate the search engine link value, or block the url via robots.txt.
If you can't do any of those and you still have a problem - well, you need get over it or seeking therapy because trying to control it will drive you nuts. It is going to happen whether you will it to or not.
Ok. Say I've linked to your forum from my website. Exactly what page from my site do you plan on resubmitting? The page where I link your forum, or my homepage, or something else?
Since the spiders visit my server every month, I'm satisfied with my rank and prefer to keep doing what I've been doing successfully for 4 years, why would I welcome someone else submitting a page or pages from my site?
If the sole reason of this practice is webmaster link popularity greed, then the intregrity of the 'Net is going down yet another notch.
I'm one of the rare ones that links to sites because I admire them. Recip links are by choice. I don't require it. Sometimes I wish for one in return, but I'm not offended if the gesture isn't returned. I don't place conditions on people. Nor do I follow up on the ones that do link to my site. For me, it's a gesture of goodwill, mutual respect and admiration of one's work, and sometimes, I link as a way of saying thank you for something that webmaster has done for me.
Where is the integrity in this practice? Where is the freedom to let each webmaster control their own web destiny? If there's nothing wrong with this practice, as you say, then I would hope it will be brought out in the next Search Engine Forum by the representatives of the engines. I'd like to see this technique referred to in each engine FAQ, as well as covered in all recip link software product.
I also think that any website that submits websites that link to it should put this information on their website so that each potential future link is informed, and can decide for themselves what they would prefer.
I find it discouraging that myself and peers are obtaining lawyers and software to protect our websites from all sorts of mean spirited manuevers, mostly from people too lazy to build their own websites (and simply steal code from successful ones).
You may be presenting something accurate, but I've yet to see verification of it, and even if this practice is determined to be "safe" as far as engines are concerned, I would still personally have trouble with it.
Please don't take this the wrong way:
>webmaster link popularity greed
It's a fact. Links are becoming more important in the search engine algo's. If a web master did not submit a page with a link to their site I would consider them negligent.
The solution is simple "don't put the page on the net" the choice is yours, your web site is entirely in your control.
>I'm satisfied with my rank
>I would hope it will be brought out in the next Search Engine Forum by the representatives of the engines
Their job is not to help you.
Many things have changed in the last 4 years, maybe not for the best, but changed they have.
Interesting observations -
Point 1. Reciprocal links are better - you get ranked on outgoing links just as much as on incoming links - (see altavistas own documents, links stuff, bullet point 2 for supporting statements)
Point 2. With Hallways, we discovered a benefit to allowing spiders to find pages on their own rather than have them submitted. As a webmaster, if you cause me to have lower rank through your greed for one single point of link pop (you submitted while I was waiting for the page to be 'found') I would probably regard you as an aggressor. I guarantee you I'd remove the link if I found out!
Point 3. Most sites dropped from certain indexes recently follow a submission. Theme rankings are almost certainly recalculated with each submission. I do not resubmit my pages because every submission to some engines is a little like playing Russian roulette. If you would deny my right to choose, I would deny you a link.
Please take this as notice to all present that I do not wish for anyone but me to submit any website that I am affiliated with. If anyone here cannot agree to that condition please let me know and I shall respect your wishes not to be linked to by any site that you are not given the rights to submit to the SEs.
On an interesting note: since we are apparently so greedy for link popularity, how long before people use cloaking to 'con' reciprocal links out of webmasters while only 'appearing' to reciprocate the link? Surely that too must be regarded with pragmatism?
>how long before people use cloaking to 'con' reciprocal links out of webmasters while only 'appearing' to reciprocate the link?
As you say yourself, "you get ranked on outgoing links just as much as on incoming links" - so that would probably be a rather pointless exercise wouldn't it?
I would think it pointless, but there are still many who subscribe to books like "Make your site sell" which tell webmasters not to link out at all - I'm sure any of you who have been advocating link popularity (and indeed possible customer oriented benefits) of providing good links have run up against this out-dated methodology before.
Naturally, the reverse scenario where one only provides links on the spider version of cloaked pages would cater to both the link popularity model and the idea of not providing potential marks ... oops ... customers with an exit.
But there's always a few who get any idea backwards :)
After thinking about this for the past few weeks, and now seeing the opinions expressed here, I'm more resolved then ever to adhere to the standards I've upheld since becoming a web developer in 1995.
I've built over 1000 web pages, I rebuild corporate intrantets, internets, and support small businesses who don't have the budget for expert help, but deserve accurate information as opposed to scams.
If anyone follows the discussions from the SE Forums/Seminars, indeed, the SE reps are forthcoming on information related to SPAM. If anyone were to work with the caliber of professional web programmers, developers, project managers, and CEO's that I do, they would know that "greed" isn't the driving force. In fact, most of the sites I work on don't recip link because they're not portal sites. They don't host links pages. Ecommerce design is transaction oriented, not links oriented. Why would you design a website designed to generate revenue, and provide links pages to links OFF your website?
As BK points out, should he find out someone is submitting his pages without his permission, he would take action. I will do the same.
Keep in mind that some of us represent websites that have lawyers. As our clients, we are also paid to report anything that's considered invasive - such as finding cloned versions of a client's website. One of my clients got a young kid to take down his entire website through a "Cease and Desist" order.
I don't think it's asking too much to give everyone a fair choice in this matter and the right to decide for themselves.
If you are a webmaster who seeks recip links and submits that link, and believe in your right to do so, then please be considerate and state that fact on your site. In this way, the other site has a right to decide to decline the recip link offer, or they may rejoice and accept. It's a simple courtesy.
It's doing things behind the backs of webmasters that is disrespectful. We are all peers, and should not be forced to work against one another.
And yes, I've retained top rank, usually 1 or 2 spot for my keywords, for 4 years. I've never cloaked, or abused any technique, for my site or that of any client. My business reputation is based on this fact and I'm not greedy enough or desperate to start changing that now.
If I'd only read the last two paragraphs of your post, I'd say that you made cogent, logical points. But alluding to taking LEGAL action against someone who deigns to submit your publicly-available page to a search engine?
What if it were just some average Moe who happened to like your coverage of a subject, noted that it wasn't in his favorite SE, and submitted it in hopes of fleshing out coverage of his/her favorite subject, whatever that may be? (Not a frequent occurrence, I'd assume...but surely some "users" submit their favorite pages).
Would this dastardly act, if traceable, actually be actionable? What specific laws would have been broken, what malicious motive could be asserted, what specific and quantifiable damages could be awarded?
For the record, I do submit pages of those who I exchange links with, with disclosure. In my mail soliciting a link exchange, I elaborate a bit on link pop relative to SE rankings, share a bit about our site's stats, and make it crystalline clear that I will be submitting link pages quarterly to derive maximum benefit for both my site and my partners'.
I'd suppose that I better cc all these e-mails to counsel, for documentation of the disclosure, so that we're prepared for defense. ;)
Comparing unathorized submission to theft of intellectual property is like comparing my shih-tzu to my quarterhorse...well, lessee, they both have 4 legs, and it's inconvenient when they make a "mess" in my yard or a stall, respectively. Therefore, I better buy a biegger tractor in case the shih-tzu starts pooping more...
No offense intended, really- you do nice work, from what I've seen...but alluding to taking legal action over something like this really leaves me incredulous.
>plan on submitting referrals to here?
No. I do no promotion on this site - that is not what we are about here. There is a full robots.txt ban on all spiders and a meta tag 'no index' on every page. The only place this has been mentioned was on Search Engine World and a couple of posts in Usenet.
I want people to feel comfortable talking here and know that their posts are not just food for search engines or someone elses promotion. There is no advertising here, however, I reserve a small 'owners prerogative' for a touch of self promotion when it is on topic. (kim, thank you for the link to here).
On other sites what I do is take the referral logs, parse of all know search engine referrals. I cross check to see if the page is listed in two search engines (alta,ink). I check to see if it has a robots.txt or tag blocker, and then if not, then I submit it.
As far as being able to tell when someone else does it? You can not. It happens daily to us on other sites. It is up to us to control.
The bit on legal action is a heads up on how some companies are reacting now. If they have the $$ for legal advice, and hire lawyers experienced with Internet Law (now a specialty), then they DO go after anyone that's a threat. I've seen it happen several times, especially within the last few months.
In the reverse, I had someone in a newsgroup threaten me with a lawsuit because I put out general warning on search engine promo scams - and his product falls into that category! (I never mentioned his company or product, but he freaked out anyway. Even worse, he only reacted to me, the only woman who posted on scams. He left the men alone for the most part.)
Soooo, I'm just saying that we're all working very hard and doing our best, but when it starts to infringe on the rights of others, suddenly the magic and fun disappears. I'm in CYA mode (Cover Your Ass). And, as most people who know me know, I'm least likely to buy into promotion hype without first researching it to death.
It gets hard for me to explain things sometimes because I started out small and worked up into corporate Internet IPO-life.
The way websites and promo are dealt with changes the farther up I go. There's money for advertising, lawyers and security. Whereas for my own site (freelance and not related to where I work fulltime every day), and most of us who post in forums, boards, clubs, and/or moderate these things, how we promote and work with engines is different BECAUSE we don't have the $$ to hire advertising firms, etc.
I don't mean to sound like the overseeing Goddess of promotion, LOL. My intent is to share what I learn and see from my years in the field and exposure to sites that range from unknowns to those that are IPO's and/or featured in CNN, Time, etc.
I learn a great deal from everyone and deeply admire and respect all of you. That's always a given!
One addition to Kim's comments; you don't have to be wrong to be sued into oblivion. If you think that corporate legal counsel doesn't know this little tid-bit, think again.
After seeing 'add url' after add url in our logs, I can't can help but wonder what folks are doing that don't want someone else to submit their page?
Every top ranked page we have gotten in the last six months has been repeatedly submitted 5-20 times a month. People below you in the rankings do it in an attempt to screw your rankings - which it won't. I'm don't mean one or two pages, I mean 1000 to 2000 pages! It happens daily on sites in our care.
I'd go insane trying to slow it all down.
A major consideration for me is AltaVista's weird attitudes. Its not that AV prefers older pages / listings over newer ones - its the fact that most sites getting dropped or checked follows directly on from submission.
You can use TracerLock
to monitor Scooter's indexing habits (even on sites and pages already listed) which can be handy, but it doesn't actually stop the potential harm, of course.