| 11:21 pm on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
JB, here is what you've done...
You've brought attention to the promotional products sites. I'm sure you are aware of the power this board has. Do you actually think Google would do anything to that network of sites? At this stage of the game? There are enough people viewing this topic that if anything were to happen to those sites, it may end being a PR nightmare for Google. I think your efforts will have a reverse effect.
By the way, the last time I checked, one of those sites went from 18,000 backlinks to 27,600 since you started this topic. Those sites are going to have a record sales week due to your diligent effort here and at other boards where you've posted.
| 11:33 pm on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So, be it. I wanted to bring light to those you do NOT follow the rules. So, if Google chooses not to pentalize spammer because they contribute to much money to Google through AdWords and/or P.O's then, we will know for sure what Google truly stands for. They have always said that the best SERPS is their goal and the money paid isn't an influence.
Well, we will see, won't we?
| 11:36 pm on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, conversely Google may look at the websites and ban them permanently from the search engine.
You know, I think there is a lot to be said about site reviews.
It would be nice if we could have a moderated forum where people can post a website to be reviewed and the moderator decides yes or no that the website can be discussed and reviewed.
| 11:55 pm on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Where have I seen that before?
|It would be nice if we could have a moderated forum where people can post a website to be reviewed and the moderator decides yes or no that the website can be discussed and reviewed. |
| 12:06 am on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|It would be nice if we could have a moderated forum where people can post a website to be reviewed. |
You are participating in it now. This is a very rare topic at WebmasterWorld. Brett has made his review clear and so have many others. If we tally it all up, I'd say we have a resounding NO, there are no issues with these sites.
JB, consider yourself very fortunate to have your concerns posted without edits. I've been here for over three years and can't say that I remember the last time a topic like this was permitted to stay. If Brett didn't feel that those sites were clean, you can be assured that this topic would be non-existent.
If you dig deep enough into the whole network, you'll see that whomever is responsible has been very diligent in their advertising efforts. They've invested a lot of money to be where they are today. And I'm sure they spend a lot of money with Google.
JB, I've been doing ASI since 1990. The company I work for has a 185*** number, that should give you an idea of how involved we are with the industry. We happen to be in a very competitive market. You can't expect to compete with someone like the companies mentioned. They've got a nice little corner on the market and I applaud their efforts.
Based on your time here at the board, I'll assume that you are doing your own thing, am I correct? Why not follow the leader? There is nothing wrong with building product specific sites. Our industry (ASI) offers a plethora of electronic catalogs that can be customized for your company. And, as you know, there is more than ASI. You also have the PPAI. And then you have manufacturers who are not ASI or PPAI.
That little network that you have helped this past week, is nothing compared to some of the other networks out there. As mentioned in this thread, people have hundreds and thousands of sites within a network that drive revenue. Being in the ASI industry allows us to offer a very diverse range of products. Heck, you could have a hundred product specific sites up and running in 24 hours. Fill in the blanks and viola, Golf promotions up and running. Fill in the blanks and viola, Kids promotions up and running.
I hate to say it but... When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
| 12:35 am on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
And one should always be careful about proclaiming to know the mind of Google. They have been known to make a lot of people look very very silly.
After all .. wasn't Brett_Tabke the one who said:
"AltaVista, Infoseek, and Excite were MUCH easier to make money on that Google ever has been. Google has been far-n-away the toughest nut to crack of any of the engines. "
| 2:12 am on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Haha Blaze, you should quote BT in pari materia. Don't forget THIS [webmasterworld.com] along with many others. :)
| 3:20 am on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well, if we can get some more links to promo sites on these pages maybe it will all be settled when WW is on the top of the category next shuffle. Which begs the question, why not just build a pseudo-directory site, maybe add some forum pages link to all ranking competing sites from yours at the bottom half of the pages, make the competing listings not that appealing to click on... Put your own links at the top make them most conspicuous and read the most relevant. These type sites are killing actual retailers sites as of late.
| 10:43 am on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
just found out that coke did the same ....
try to search for coke in google and you will see it
(and no I am not affiliate with coke or any of it's competitors or partners :-> )
| 2:19 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 6:44 pm (utc) on April 19, 2004]
[edit reason] no personal details about people are allowed on WebmasterWorld [/edit]
| 2:57 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"YOU CAN NOT TELL ME THAT THIS WAS DONE FOR ANY OTHER REASONS"
I don't think there is a disagreement as to the reasons... there seems to be varying differences of opinion as to whether it is right or wrong to do this. Mostly the difference is not even about whether it's o.k. but really the difference is where to draw the imaginary line. Thing is... nobody's opinion but Google's matters much anyway. The engineers at the 'plex draw their own lines and do what is best for Google... as it should be.
| 3:10 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hey jb123, does your wife ever win any arguments? ;)
Seriously, if G penalizes them, you are vindicated. If not, then I'm sure you'll be big enough to admit you were wrong.
I'm not sure if other board members are as smart as I, but as for me, rest assured that I understand what you are saying. Further restatement of your position will not sway me one way or the other. :)
| 3:39 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|YOU CAN NOT TELL ME THAT THIS WAS DONE FOR ANY OTHER REASONS THAN TO INFLATED PR |
We can tell you lots of things, but you refuse to listen to any of it. You avoid arguments that you do not have a good answer to.
No one denies that he is doing this to increase his business. Increasing his share in a relatively clean way is simply good business.
I do disagree that having multiple shops is done only for the search engines. I spent a great deal of time explaining this before, but you chose to totally ignore my argument.
You and a couple of other totally blew off my points about all the sites being different, having a different look, and appearing to be professionally done. I believe one comment was something about paying an Indian programmer $500 to make each site.
Well, guess what? That actually counts a whole lot in this equation. They are not cut and paste copies of the same site. They are not pushing the same products on the front page. And they do not look like crap.
So what if he links all his sites back to his main site. Who doesn't? That is standard practice.
Which is worse, one person having multiple *different* sites
or thousands of people having virtually identical sites through some sort of affiliate program for their "distributors".
Yeah, he is approaching the SPAM line, but he adds enough value to the *user* that the weight of that keeps him on the clean side of that line.
Once again. Google does ban big spenders. The one I got removed was *far bigger* than this guy. I got one of the big mall companies knocked out. So quit whining that it's the money.
Can you possibly accept that Google simply disagrees with you? It is their search engine, not yours.
You complained. Now it is in their hands. If you don't like the results, feel free to use MSN, Ask, Yahoo or Gigablast (is there anyone else left?)
| 6:43 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>I don't think there is a disagreement as to the reasons..
Sure there is. Putting your best content forward on the best site under the best name is what it is about.
Do we ask GOogle to ban the "gmail" site because it isn't on the same site as google? How about a promo site that puts a MUG site on a domain to feature the mugs? Or a laser pen site that puts it on a laser site?
No, it is about quality content and helping the search engines classify a good site.
It is about helping users find the content they want.
| 6:48 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> Where have I seen that before?
There just comes a time when you have say enough-is-enough. When people are so clueless as to what spam is, that they claim spam when they so much as see title tag replicated in actual content.
There is an entire generation of so called "seo's" out there (some rather big in fact) that don't have a clue what would be considered a problem for a search engine.
I was at an seo conference in new york a few months ago, when what seo/sem woman who has actually written a book about seo, called all meta tags spam. Forget that meta tags aren't used in any meaningful fashion by anyone of consequence any more, but she actuall said in public, on the record that all meta tags are spam.
That is the level of total cluelessness there is going on out there . It is time to do a little pushing back against the ignorance.
No, leave the specifics out of it entirely. We've had to many already, but posting peoples home address is 100% unacceptable here.
| 8:39 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Forget that meta tags aren't used by anyone of consequence any more
I'm going to do a "little pushing back against the ignorance.":
jb123 may be letting his frustration get the better of his thesis, but it doesn't mean we all have to lose the site of the fact that he might possibly be right and we might possibly be wrong.
And hopefully we are not so insecure that we can not invite and enjoy the opinions of those who disagree with us..
| 9:53 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<Observation from the warped mind of your friendly neighborhood lawman:>
blaze, msg 76 of this thread:
|And hopefully we are not so insecure that we can not invite and enjoy the opinions of those who disagree with us.. |
blaze, msg 24 of this thread:
|Why are you guys getting on his case? This is clearly cut and dry according to Google's guidelines. |
Geeesh. Is ePromos paying you guys or something?
Let's move on.
I guess some people enjoy differing opinions more than others. :)
| 10:09 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Brett so, you know. I admit that I was wrong about posting his address and info. I should have **** through but obviously you missed the point as usual. Your defending your friend. Maybe we need to push back the time regarding how well every hold you in regard to your opinions. I think your friendship is getting in the way of make right decision on you is spamming.
So, let's get this straight Brett for the record - YOU believe, approve and condone those who create multiple websites for the purpose of creating better link popularity for themselve, to increase PR and gaining more than one positions of SERP's outside of one themed website (promotional items).
| 10:18 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Feel free to post what you believe. Please stop trying to put words in other people's mouths, or trying to get them to "admit" something.
You believe it's spamming. Many of the rest of us don't. And your method of arguing isn't going to convince anyone otherwise.
| 10:29 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the lessons :)
Is the signal to noise ratio a whole lot better in the private forums? Sometimes it takes a lot of reading betweent the lines out here.
| 10:31 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
lawnman and bidDave - I said it before but I will say it again. If I'm wrong so, be it. I will apologize and move on. What my argument is though, is that Google should allow for an even paly field - it needs to be fair for all. They have banned other web sites that created multiple sites with the same things in place like these two companies in question, different looks, different toll free numbers, different urls, different content and professional look and so on. Either bann these guys or stop banning the poor folks. Quit moving the spam line Google so, the big fish don't get burned. Make it fair for everyone. Spam or no spam I don't give care as long as it is the same for everyone and currently it is obviously not. Again, I wish GoogleGuy would set the record straight. Because if they have move the spam line again and it is NOW ok to do these things then, fine I will strat my network of hundred or thousand plus sites tonight. But, if it is spam like Google apparently has said it was in the passed then, it's spam.
| 10:39 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sorry guys, I am with Jb 100% on this one
By Googles TC this is spam and it cannot be anything but. The products text and images are identical. The category structure is identical. This guys is using the same database with different interfaces. It is duplicate content. I give you the first page I browsed to:
Same Content, Different Sites, Same Owner = SPAM.
I am appauled that webmaster world accept these unethical practices. Especially Brett.
who cares it you have purchased from them. They are spammers, clear as day.
If I employ these tactics I could have 20 sites up in a month. I dont because I am better than that.
| 11:03 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thank you, thank you, thank you - trimmer80. Finally, someone who looks deeper within to see the real picture. Brett what do you think about your friends site now?
| 11:04 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>>>>>>>>>There just comes a time when you have say enough-is-enough. When people are so clueless as to what spam is, that they claim spam when they so much as see title tag replicated in actual content.
Thanks Brett. Your arrogance is amazing. I forgot. You are all seeing and knowing. lol.
By googles TC this is spam, Tell me how it isn't.
| 11:20 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|- YOU believe, approve and condone those who create multiple websites for the purpose of creating better link popularity for themselve, to increase PR and gaining more than one positions of SERP's outside of one themed website (promotional items). |
You miss the point of most of the arguments. All the "reasons" you mention (link pop, PR, SERP positions) are a by product. True, they are a by product that most want, but the main reason for creating similar sites is to put a product before the public.
On the web, we don't have the opportunity to steer customer A to product "Y" because he searched for the product we happen to call "X". We could build sites that list every possible name and description for the product, one that has hundreds (or, thousands) of pages with a navigation structure that stymies and boggles the visitor's mind (now, that is both user and SE UN-friendly). Or, we can build additional sites geared to what customer A searches for, thus meeting both the customer's needs and the SEs mission to provide useful relevant results.
The web is a very big place (egads, that sounds trite, sorry) with lots of competition for business and it will only continue to grow bringing yet more and more competition. That is just a fact, and if you aren't (or can't) adjust, like a business anywhere, you will eventually either fall behind or fail.
Let's see, should Burger Chef be restrained from opening two stores in the same area because McD's is already there? Should Sear's be prevented from building in the same mall as Dillard's because they offer much of the same merchandise? Should Google have been prevented from starting their SE because Y! was already on the net - both offer basically the same thing, right?
Again, I think you miss the point. These sites were designed to meet different customer needs. No different than talking to a customer in a brick and mortar store and then steering him to a different aisle where he may find exactly what he wants.
| 11:32 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Nope, nancyb - you are missing the point. My argument is that it is spam but whether or not it is, is fine but Google as a SE needs to decide and stick to it. I have seen this exact same advertising strategies used by other websites and they were banned. So, be it spam then bann them. Be it NOT spam then don't bann the other folks. Google has made it clear in the past that it was spam so, bann them unless it is a double standard for those who can offord p.o. with them (the big bucks). So, maybe Google has decided to move the spam line - fine then, make it the same for everyone. I'll start my thousand website network tonight. Let the manipulation begin.
| 11:46 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No different than talking to a customer in a brick and mortar store and then steering him to a different aisle where he may find exactly what he wants.
by this example each aisle would contain the same products in a different order. Not exactly user friendly
| 1:56 am on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It looks like he knows the good folks at widget com.
They own and operate a huge ring of PR7-8 web sites. I couldn't see any Paid advertising evidence on these sites, so my guess is he has an in with them.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 4:40 pm (utc) on April 20, 2004]
| 1:59 am on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Oh, yes! Finally someone brought that out for me. Thank you. I didn't want to mention it, in fear that Brett would say something on that matter. But, you are absolutely right. BOTH of them use it.
| 2:03 am on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So, drdsl2000 what are your thoughts on that matter that you brought to light?
| 2:13 am on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"They own and operate a huge ring of PR7-8 web sites"
I guess that would make them *authoritative* ;)
| This 123 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 123 ( 1 2  4 5 ) > > |