homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.80.196
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 66 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 66 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Google Increases The Cost of SEO
Algo Tweakers Still Successful
digitalghost




msg:62465
 11:31 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm not an SEO that reports "spammers", however you want to define spam, and I'm not an SEO that subscribes to the "if you can't beat them join them" mentality. Or at least I wasn't. I am an SEO that tells my clients to read WebmasterWorld and I also send them to the Google SEO Guide page.

Recently however, being upfront about how SEO works has caused some friction between myself and a few of my clients. Anyone that spends any amount of time at WebmasterWorld knows that GoogleGuy encourages people to send spam reports, typically with added advice about mentioning WebmasterWorld and a WebmasterWorld screenname. Recently, some of my clients have been pressuring me to send in some spam reports but that's just the beginning of the issue.

After much badgering from a client I did send in a report. To date no action has been taken, no response received and my client is sending me email every other day wondering why nothing is happening. It's not that he doesn't believe me when I respond that this takes time, it's that the link farm, hidden links, tiny text, etc, were so obvious that he's a bit sceptical that Google has any procedures in place to deal with blatant violations of their stated TOS.

I informed him from the start that we could overcome most of the domain farm, link farm, hidden text tactics and in truth, we have, but the cost of overcoming what is a clear violation of Google's own TOS has been passed to him. While we have several #1 positions and hundreds of 1-5 spots the core phrases are controlled by a network of sites that violate Google's TOS.

Now to the crux of the problem. He wants to emulate the tactics of the folks that are currently enjoying success using what Google deems to be inappropriate methods if you will. We could fire up another domain or 200 and use exactly the same tactics they use, with what appears to be minimal risk.

My responsibility is to my client. His take is that Google's advice to, "play by the rules Grasshopper and everything will be fine" is BS. He's right. As long as techniques that violate Google's TOS work all the lip service about reporting spam is exactly that, lip service.

I've already mentioned "long term viability" but that argument is a bit shallow, this particular network has been in place for more than a year and quite possibly much longer.

The issue goes quite a bit deeper than just one client. As long as SEOs have to work around beating those people that employ techniques that violate Google's TOS the cost of optimizing those sites that play by the rules will be higher. In essence, Google rewards sites that violate the rules and inadvertently punishes those sites that strive to follow them.

The issue runs deeper than one SEO and his clientele, every SEO out there knows that it costs more to beat a network of domain farms that it does to optimize for phrases that don't face that opposition. Are your clients paying more because Google can't seem to weed out the folks that won't play by the rules?

 

jeremy goodrich




msg:62495
 11:29 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well, as long as their database if FREE, it might cut into the marketing budgets of some companies - and make the 'free SERPs' more cost effective than the Adwords - even if they are risky.

So, it is really in nobody's best interst to drive up the price of either 'free inclusion' or 'paid inclusion' but unfortunately, some people don't see it that way.

Google, and many SEO folks, are both guilty of this mistake.

More money wasted - is less profit for the client.

The more the clients profit - no matter how - leaves them more marketing budget, which for some, will mean encompassing everything that drives suitable ROI - adwords, and SEO.

Everybody can win...it's just we've got whiners on both sides of the fence.

Finger pointing doesn't do anybody any good...but, learning how to work it better - and understanding the issues (like this thread) certainly helps everybody in the long run.

rfgdxm1




msg:62496
 11:33 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Then we get from GoogleGuy; Anyone who knows of a site that seems to be using guestbook signing successfully, drop a note over at the spam report form. We'll tighten up the algorithms. "

>What? They can't deal with clear violations of their TOS and then solicit reports on something they never mention in their "guide" or their TOS? And people can take action on that? Make Google "tighten up the algorithms".

This isn't a violation of Google's rules. And, for good reason. How could they know that the person who sent in the spam report isn't a competitor who added all those guestbook entries? Recently there was a post here about a case where so many guestbooks had been signed this could only have been done by a bot. Thus, it would not only be possible for a competitor to do this, but also easy. Thus, what Googleguy was asking is help in tweaking their filters. Google has stated they prefer automated solutions to problems rather than hand to hand combat fighting spam.

SlyOldDog




msg:62497
 11:34 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

Daroz

Sure, but ANY SEO segrades the Google algorithm which essentially relies on unbiased linking.

I read an interview once with the Google founders, and I don't remember which of them said it but the quote was something about Google looking at SEO like a mamma bear looks at a hunter when he prods her baby with a stick. The discussion went on to discuss the paranoia they experience when they think of SEOs digging around in their engine.

digitalghost




msg:62498
 11:35 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>Perhaps I'm missing the point but some SEOs seem a little bit ego-centric here.

I agree that Google's responsibility is to the end user, I brought this up after my client expressed that Google's presence here soliciting spam reports was duplicitous at worst and self-serving at best.

How many times have you seen, "play by the rules and you'll be fine" expressed here? The reality is that Google can't enforce the rules, the risk to people breaking the rules is minimal.

It's all good. My client has a successful site, the people that are breaking the rules have successful sites. I suppose my client is upset that he actually took the time to understand and abide by the rules only to find that Google only pays lip service to them.

SlyOldDog




msg:62499
 11:42 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>my client is upset that he actually took the time to understand and abide by the rules only to find that Google only pays lip service to them.

Well, I'm sure the PHDs would like to do more, but real life being what it is...profits come before priciples.

Perhaps they'll get round to it one day.

James_Dale




msg:62500
 12:05 am on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think restricting yourself to SEO methods which would never offend a search engine is equally as absurd as restricting yourself to methods which might sometimes get you banned.

SEO professionals only exist to improve our client's rankings. If that means we sometimes need to utilise riskier techniques, we should let the client know the risks and have a plan in place which makes allowances for any failures. If you are genuinely good at cloaking, for instance, the odds are stacked against you getting caught anyway.

All SEO is a risk. Ultimately, we can't control the changes to Google's algorithm any more than we can control the discovery of our cloaked sites - but we can do a lot to minimize the the likelihood of failure as a result of either of these things. We need to offer our clients packages that make allowances for certain types of failures. That's the nature of the business.

People respect search engines far too much. Remember - they are nothing more than parasites, feeding off the success of the websites they index. Nothing more! Attack them!

Don't fall into the trap of being too scared to compete.

1milehgh80210




msg:62501
 6:21 am on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

People respect search engines far too much. Remember - they are nothing more than parasites, feeding off the success of the websites they index. Nothing more! Attack them! <<<

And every joe-blow who fancies themselves web-publishers or web-business owners? Where would they be without SE's?

jtoddv




msg:62502
 7:01 am on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

What is so friggin amazing to me is the fact that Google... the king of all search... still has not devloped an algorithm to detect invisible text yet! I mean come on.

And I am not talking about invisible text with style sheets... but the simple <body bgcolor=XXXXXX> and <font color=XXXXXX> version?

BGC = background color
FTC = font color

if (BGC == FTC){
this is SPAM;
} else {
acceptable;
}

of course it might get a little more complex, but atleast it is a start! ;)

I think they don't want to get rid of SPAM for one reason:
3,083,324,652

Don't want that number to go down... NO NO! NOOOOOOOO!

Crazy_Fool




msg:62503
 9:12 am on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

if you can't beat the spammers, join them.

and never tell your clients where you get your info from!

stever




msg:62504
 1:58 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Google... the king of all search... still has not devloped an algorithm to detect invisible text yet

Google is caught between a rock and a hard place.

If it takes out font vs background (or hidden layers), it eliminates hundreds of thousands of websites who are using those techniques quite properly (and probably doesn't touch anyone with a modicum of intelligence who is applying them in non-Google-approved ways anyway).

The only "acceptable" way to go about it would be to announce the change in advance, in which case all the remaining ignorant "dodgy" sites would change as well.

Otherwise they are left with vague threats and hand checks.

But dg's original post is a dilemma that more and more informed and semi-informed clients will be bringing up. And how do/will SEO/designers deal with that if they decide to take the plunge? Another carefully-created identity?

cindysunc




msg:62505
 2:40 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

This is a great message board but i hate going through all these threads where people constantly whine. You can report someone's spam and they just have a backup spam site ready to go. Let the algo handle this. Just concentrate on making a good site and doing things the right way, it's better in the long run.

worker




msg:62506
 3:53 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Google should just run an algorithm that identifies all sites that appear to be using hidden text.

Then they should hire minimum wage people to just go to each site and hit Control-A.

If stuff shows up that doesn't appear before hittin Control-A, then those sites should be kicked out of Google for a year.

Straight and simple.

1)Google announces that hidden text will get you banned.
2)They have people verify sites are using hidden text.
3)They ban them for a year.

I have no sympathy for people that cheat.

Google needs to bring out the bat and begin to beat them about the head and shoulders!

SlyOldDog




msg:62507
 4:17 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Worker -

Great idea :)

Let's see now - 3 billion pages, perhaps half of them with inverted text (e.g white text on top of coloured image superimposed on white background)which will trigger the filter.

So 1.5 billion, at about 50 pages an hour. That's about 30 million man hours. Now we want to eliminate the spam within a month or 2 right? So we need 75000 employees if we ignore the training that computer illiterates would need. Oh my, they'll all need a PC and an office space too since they are minimum wagers and can't afford their own PC.

I hope you aren't a human resources manager :)

martinibuster




msg:62508
 4:52 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

and never tell your clients where you get your info from!

That was exactly my thought. NEVER swing your client to WW. NEVER. Information is power. Keep as much information/power to yourself. Clients need information on a need to know basis only.

Thus if they ask you to use automated rank checking software, tell them Google doesn't like it. If they start insisting, then point them to the Google TOS. But don't send them there unless you need to.

I cannot overemphasize how important it is to hold onto your sources of information, whether it comes from books, online etc. It's nobody's business but your own: You spent the time doing the research. You spent several evenings reading a book about web design techniques, You spent many hours learning about code, etc. They are paying for your knowledge. They are not buying an education.

Sounds like you gave your client too much information, they become less dependent upon you and now they are giving you lip. It's better to keep them in the dark, thus ensuring that they will keep regarding you with awe.

You're a "Badass" in the SEO world. That's all they need to know.

Unfortunately you let them peek behind the curtain and they saw the little man pulling the controls and fiddling with the knobs.

Your post makes sense. SEO is indeed costing more money because of spam. And I agree that there is still an alarming amount of it out there.

SlyOldDog




msg:62509
 6:18 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>That was exactly my thought. NEVER swing your client to WW. NEVER. Information is power. Keep as much information/power to yourself. Clients need information on a need to know basis only.

Martinibuster,

You sound like all those guys I used to work with who refused to tell the other employees what they knew because they were afraid for their jobs. Personally I see that trait as a weakness. If you're good enough, you don't need to hide anything. I never hid anything and it never harmed me. Quite the reverse actually. Information sharing is contagious.

I see how you might want to grow your client like a mushroom (in the dark and fed with s**t), but it's only good in the short term. They will find you out, and then you'll be out.

I'll get off my high horse now. Sorry MB.

jeremy goodrich




msg:62510
 6:25 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>This is a great message board but i hate going through all these threads where people constantly whine.

I think you ought to reread through this thread -> it's (at the start, anyway...) more a discussion about how Google can't blanket enforce their own TOS, and how a webmaster / SEO should do business in light of that fact.

It's not about whining, from what I've read :) Though this last bit what with the 'hidden text' etc, is a little that way.

Just FYI, Inktomi has a patent on hidden text detection which, if Google implemented the same algo, would violate that patent.

Some engines *own* some tech, and there for, other engines CAN'T use the same algorithms. They invent new ones. :)

Back to the topic though, yes, SPAM can be successful. But no matter the practice or technique that rams a site up to the first page, as long as it is a page that a user would find relevant to their query,Google is doing great even *if* the page violates their TOS.

Ya, it does suck some times. But hey, in search engines as in life, is anything perfect?

BigDave




msg:62511
 6:32 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

But jtoddv, what if the text that you are calling invisible is made visible by those stylesheets?

To find invisible text, a page has to actually be rendered.

jtoddv




msg:62512
 7:05 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Big Dave,

If you are talking style sheet modified text, then there is no way to confirm it unless they read the style sheet that is included. Analyze this sheet then go from there. There is a class tag which they can reference, check to see if that style is the same text color, then go from there.

What I stated was just the start and it get's a lot deeper of course. I guess it will just hammer the processor running this program, but you know what... if you are goning to tell people how to do it right, make sure you have a way to verify it. If you don't verify it the SPAMmers will always win.

europeforvisitors




msg:62513
 8:15 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

cindysunc wrote:

This is a great message board but i hate going through all these threads where people constantly whine.

I see an awful lot of whining and ranting by SEOs who are hypersensitive to any discussion of spam--or even of search quality. And if anyone should have the temerity to mention Google's spam-reporting form, we see cranky replies such as:

"Instead of ratting on your competitors, why not concentrate on improving your site?"

"People who talk about spam are simply jealous of SEOs who play the game better than they do."

"None of you really cares about search quality, the user, or ethics--you're just mad because people like me rank #1 in the SERPs."

I don't know what inspires such defensiveness and anger. Is it possible that some Webmaster World members are guilty of the questionable practices that are being discussed? :-)

digitalghost




msg:62514
 8:43 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

I didn't start this thread to whine about spam. The point was to offer and receive some feedback about how sites that violate Google's TOS drive up the cost of SEO in regard to the client.

We've managed to edge out the competitors that violate Google's TOS for hundreds of phrases, between 700-800 phrases to provide a number for those who want numbers.

The point is that it costs more. That's it. It cost the client in two distinct ways, paying more for SEO and losing sales to sites that violate Google's TOS.

Some clients and webmasters will see little risk involved in violating that TOS and will choose to use tactics that violate the rules, thus increasing the number of sites in the index that violate those terms.

This isn't a "why the site isn't #1 post" or a rant about "spam"

What this means for SEOs is that you have to calculate the cost of overcoming sites that violate Google's TOS into your fee, the same way in which you increase the fee when you determine that competition is stiff in a market area that a client wants to enter.

I've already mentioned long term viability and that using techniques that don't violate Google's TOS can be successful, just that it costs more.

As for not directing a client to WebmasterWorld well, anyone searching for screen names can find you here and in my business the whole idea is to be found, not skulk around and pretend I'm not an SEO. Little hard to believe that many of you haven't received email from clients asking you if you participate in one of the most recognized webmaster and SEO forums on the web.

Keeping clients in the dark is a bit like the church wanting to keep the mass in Latin so that the lay folk would remain clueless and depend on clerics for understanding.

It was only after Toto ran under the curtain and exposed the "wizard" that trust was established... ;)

martinibuster




msg:62515
 8:50 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

It was only after Toto...

Good one. What can I say to that?

felix




msg:62516
 9:06 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

This thread is interesting to me because we are seeing posts from folks covering the entire range of the rightous-to-cynical spectrum. In a perfect world, SEO and good content-design practice would be indistinguishable. After all, Google and other SE's strive to give their user the most relavent results. No matter how pure or inpure the motive, the basic nature of SEO is to manipulate those results.

I don't agree that Google and other SE's are parasites. I think that (at least at the start) most SE's desire primarily to perform a service. Like any good engineer, they take pride in showing off their (hopefully superior) technology and if they're lucky, they can make some money in the bargain.

The underlying (and unintentional) theme of this thread is the idea that following the rules may not be such a good idea for those who want or need PR - that maybe it's better to break the rules after all. The thing that gets lost in the constant battle for PR is that Google is all about returning the most relavent results for any given keyphrase. Google is today the favorite, and arguably the best, SE for returning relavent results, but you better believe that if they don't stay ahead of the spammers, someone else will move in and take their place.

As I understand digitalhost, he wants to discuss two things. One - that it costs more for a client to compete against the varying degrees of non-compliance to the Google TOS. I don't think there's a solution to that. As soon as they've spent even a dime paying for something besides the generation of appropriate design and content, you're spending money in that arena. Until the search algos are perfect, there just won't be any way around that.

Two - Why doesn't Google keep their promise to follow up on spam reports. I for one, would like to hear someone from Google weigh in on why it's so difficult (if that is indeed the reason) to do that.

AllEyes




msg:62517
 9:18 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

I've read this thread and in my opinion, GoogleGuy and Google are a joke.

Their anti-spam rhetoric is nothing more than a rarely enforced policy that is causing businesses (those who do not spam, mind you) an enormous loss of revenue.

In my opinion, it would behoove Google and GoogleGuy to start backing up their words here on WebmasterWorld, and their terms of service.

Not all spam reports are a waste of time or a matter of whining. Try considering the fact that maybe a few of them actually have merit, and their reports display blatant spam violations that'd make your skin crawl from the mere fact that Google did nothing about it.

I only wonder how much longer these businesses will continue to take it on the chin from Google and GoogleGuy...

With that in mind, I suppose one could say the proverbial ball is in their court, eh?

martinibuster




msg:62518
 9:33 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Good points felix. However, I'd like to clarify & expand a little:
As soon as they've spent even a dime paying for something besides the generation of appropriate design and content, you're spending money in that arena.

Appropriate design and content can be considered seo. The gray area is in defining, "Appropriate Design and Content."

My way of SEO basically boils down to creating a properly structured document so that:

1- The message of the page/site is clear.
2- The message is not obscured by other competing messages within the page/site.

Unfortunately, web design generally doesn't follow from that direction, preferring to concentrate on "design", at the expense of the "web" component. If this was a perfect world, a web site wouldn't have to be cleaned up after it is designed: It would have been designed that way.

Because of that, unless you have brand name recognition, it will continue to be important to have to clean up after the web designers, copy writers, marketing heads, and whoever else had their hands in the web site before they realized the importance of search engine traffic.

As long as Google allows spammy results to show up (how much spam actually exists is perhaps besides the point for the purposes of this discussion), then the tension about doing the right thing and seeing the other guy "stealing" the serps will continue.

micro




msg:62519
 10:30 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)


What I found so far is:

-Sites that spam 100% don't get kicked for ages and if they do they are back with a new domain to continue the spam (some I watched for years and they never get kicked)

-google concentrates on killing pr's whereby killing lots of innocent sites

-sites that spam 100% don't care much about PR as PR is not the most important factor to get to the top.

-all the jealous ppl reporting spam and google trying to make some filters hurts lot's of sites that are more or less innocent and compared to the spammers are like good behaved virgins.

Perhaps google should make filters first for the 100% spammers before concentrating on killing some site due to PR, not very well chosen link strategies or some other more or less harmless things.

Someone also mentioned to buy adwords and then report away. No can do (perhaps ok to report spamming) - a client is spending about 100'000 to 200'000 $ for advertising @ google. he has some sites banned due to a template mistake of the hosting company, but even after spending loads of $ with google they do not want to discuss his banned sites.

So if u want to spam don't think much about PR or anything in that area just make pages with thousands of keywords - hidden text etc and you will do fine.

I don't spam myself as I can do without it, but if I had to pay for my knowledge I'd sure jump the spammer wagon. So for all those that don't know much costs are rising if they want to follow the rules.

Crazy_Fool




msg:62520
 12:11 am on Mar 30, 2003 (gmt 0)


As for not directing a client to WebmasterWorld well, anyone searching for screen names can find you here and in my business the whole idea is to be found, not skulk around and pretend I'm not an SEO. Little hard to believe that many of you haven't received email from clients asking you if you participate in one of the most recognized webmaster and SEO forums on the web.

Keeping clients in the dark is a bit like the church wanting to keep the mass in Latin so that the lay folk would remain clueless and depend on clerics for understanding.

clients that know too much expect too much.

when you get in a taxi, you need to know that the taxi driver can get you from A to B. you do not need to know where the taxi driver learnt to drive. nor do you need to look at the manuals your taxi driver used when he learnt to drive. nor do you need to check the manual while he drives. if you do read the manual while he drives, expect the cab driver to take offence and ask you to get out.

show your clients what you know through work you have already done. if they want to read your manual they don't trust you to do the job. if you point them at webmasterworld, that's a bit like saying you can do the job because you can follow the manual, when you should be saying you can do the job because you know what you're doing.

and getting back on topic ... yes, spam sites cost clients a lot of money. you either tell the client to live with it or you build them multiple sites to take all 2nd-10th places in SERPS on all engines and cream a lot more business than the spammers, or you build them a spam site as well.

digitalghost




msg:62521
 12:36 am on Mar 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>if they want to read your manual they don't trust you to do the job. if you point them at webmasterworld,

Please, the client wasn't questioning me, he was questioning Google's inability to enforce their TOS. Can we stick to that and the cost of SEO being increased by violations of Google's TOS.

The line of argument you chose to present is pointless, many clients FIND their SEOs here.

SlyOldDog




msg:62522
 1:50 am on Mar 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

DigitalHost - seems to me your question can be quantified.

There are two options:

1) Cost of optimising a domain within the rules (risk = 0)

2) Cost of running a spam network weighted by a risk factor of getting booted (risk = x%)

I guess if the market is efficient, the cost of 1) is still less than the weighted cost of 2) because people don't like risk and follow the higher cost but low risk strategy.

But the cost of unweighted 2) is less than the cost of 1) otherwise people would always follow 1) and there would be no spam.

And in an efficient market 2) and 1) will converge.

Time for bed I think.....

Crazy_Fool




msg:62523
 2:29 am on Mar 30, 2003 (gmt 0)


Please, the client wasn't questioning me, he was questioning Google's inability to enforce their TOS. Can we stick to that and the cost of SEO being increased by violations of Google's TOS.

all the engines have a "TOS" of sorts but enforcing them is difficult and (unless it's automated) will cost a fortune in manpower. not all anti-spam checks can be automated.

personally i think google is not the best search engine and that they're poor at trapping spam. they could do a whole lot more. and so could the other engines.

but then it's not just spam that increases the costs of SEO. it could just as easily be a better site with better (legitimate) SEO that ranks higher than your site. you just have to do the best you can and keep working at it. if your client is willing to keep paying, then keep taking his money.


The line of argument you chose to present is pointless, many clients FIND their SEOs here.

sure they do, but i don't (and won't) take on a client because they've seen what i post here. any client spending time here is likely to breathe down my neck or intefere in some way and cost me time and effort. i could charge more for clients that "help" me but personally i prefer not to have the hassle in the first place.

martinibuster




msg:62524
 3:05 am on Mar 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

Recently however, being upfront about how SEO works has caused some friction between myself and a few of my clients.

The point of the thread is indeed the rising cost of seo due to Google's "perceived" inability to deal with spam.

However, the subtext of this thread is a meddling client due to too much information being shared. And though I admire your rhetorical prowess (The toto comment was great), I do concur with crazy_fool.

Unless you were referred word of mouth with a rave review, it's natural for a client to be cautious of a stranger who is tweaking their web site; after all, it's their baby, not yours. But one must resist the temptation to explain everything, and thereby inviting your present situation.

The trust is earned from the positive results. If you are a badass seo, they will know it by the results. Aside from being reassured that you aren't practicing bad seo, the results should be their only concern, and the only yardstick by which to judge you.

By giving them more information than they need you are only inviting their interference.

When a plumber comes into your house, do you question his use of a number 3 wrench? This scenario cannot be compared to an insecure employee protecting his turf. This can only be compared to a professional being left to do his/her job to the best of their ability without being second guessed.

This is all about a professional who should be allowed to do their job. If a plumber invited the client to look over their shoulder the plumber would be inviting the exact situation that you find yourself in.

With great respect for you DG, you injected this side-topic into the thread yourself.
being upfront about how SEO works has caused some friction between myself and a few of my clients.

Looking forward to whiskey and cigars next month!
:) Y

toddb




msg:62525
 5:20 am on Mar 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

I would think SEO is the parasite. Google just wants a widget site to be there when a person types widgets. We want our widget selling site to be there.
The huge man hours dealing with explaining why 1k or 1 million sites were banned with an algo would also be prohibitive. Google is between a rock and a hard place.
But the solution seems to be to just have a second set of sites that is independent of your main sites and let it rip. I have not done this but it seems like the obvious answer.

This 66 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 66 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved