homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.243.12.156
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Accredited PayPal World Seller

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 123 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 123 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 > >     
Award Winning Sites or Problem Sites?
jb123




msg:56776
 3:43 pm on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)
For at least a year now Google has allow a paying P.O. client of theirs to manipulate the search results.

Epromos has had three website

http://www.epromos.com
<snip>

Call all of them and you will see that they answer and operated all of these websites as Epromos and owned by the same person: Jason Robins. The question is will Google still allow a company to cheat since they pad Google's pockets?

This company has 10-20 websites and the receptionist even brags about it. Every one of these websites are answered as PromoPeddler. SPAM! SPAM! SPAM! but yet Google has them #1 & #6 under promotional items. Google do cheaters win in your directory? Well, obviously they do.

http://www.promopeddler.com
<snip>

and many, many more! They all answer to PromoPeddler and all are owned and operated by PromoPeddler.

 

idoc




msg:56866
 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* ;)

idoc




msg:56867
 4:11 am on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

"There's your instant PR and cut them in on a percentage"

The whole p.r. concept while being a neat utopian idea where the democracy of webmaster links determines rank... never really works for this very reason. First there were webrings, then link farms, and now outright candy coated p.r. transfer for a fee.

Giving us all the tools to check p.r. pretty much just put every site on the internet into a caste system. Nobody links to a site because the site would be nice for their site visitors... it's all about the green bar.

Back on the topic... are the sites "spammy"? it's a judgement call. Are they "spam"? That is for Google to decide since they own the search engine. On a scale of 1 to 10... are the multiple sites there to increase the customer shopping experience being a 1... and there just to rank for both pens and mugs in the serps being a 10... it's a judgement where you feel comfortable drawing the line. I think the line is fast disappearing altogether or seo professionals. Just my opinion from the change in tone between these two threads. Anyway, it's probably been beat to death by now.

jb123




msg:56868
 4:16 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Calling out "Brett_Tabke" - timmer8 wrote >>>>>>> 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:

<snip>

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. >>>>>>>

SO, BRETT DIFFERENT LOOK BUT SAME CONTENT! I KNOW, I KNOW, IT'S YOUR BUDDY SO, IT'S NOT SPAM, RIGHT?

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 4:40 pm (utc) on April 20, 2004]
[edit reason] we aren't doing specifics jb. [/edit]

BigDave




msg:56869
 4:30 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

jb,

Please, please, please go work on your site.

You have not only beat this dead horse, you are mutilating it.

We do not agree with you, and you do not agree with us. You will not convince us, we will not convince you.

We disagree. We honestly believe we are right, and you honestly believe you are right.

Just get over you conspiracy theories. Brett is not defending a friend, and neither am I. We are just saying that we disagree with you that it is spam.

Do you allow for that in your mind that someone can disagree with you?

You don't have to accept that we are right, but I hope you can accept that people can *honestly* look at the same facts as you, and come to a different conclusion.

We understand your point and disagree with it. It is that simple. It is time to walk away from the dead horse.

Now, can you please let this die, and go work on your site?

Brett_Tabke




msg:56870
 4:39 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Lets have a look at your site JB.

pageoneresults




msg:56871
 4:54 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Wow! A personal site review offer from Brett himself. Take it now while you can. Hey JB, I want to see too!

ciml




msg:56872
 5:02 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Perhaps we should report this company [google.com] for having for having more than one domain.

IITian




msg:56873
 5:04 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Lets have a look at your site JB.

I wish there were more site reviews here. That will be very educational. Like examine Amazon one week, and ebay the next.

BigDave




msg:56874
 5:39 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Okay, since this thread seems to have been opened up a little, I'll go ahead and post the site that I *thought was jb's*. But since it obviously isn't, it might still be educational to look at.

I looked at the e-mail address in the profile, and searched for the precious term "promotional items" and the last name. This site had two hits, one for Jay, and one for Joy. And whoever owns it REALLY want to rank high for promotional items. In fact they rank #3 on Yahoo, so the site is probably makeing a decent living for someone.

<snip>

Brett, go ahead and delete it if this goes over the line in any way.

IanTurner




msg:56875
 6:36 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Now I can see numerous reasons for putting up a number of different sites, the same way that companies have a number of brands.

1. Targetting different genders. Male and female users 'could' be stimulated to buy in different ways. How about a friendly pink powder puff site for the boys and a sleek space age black and silver one for the girls. (Ducks for cover - it was meant to illustrate my point and for no other reason)

2. Targetting different ethnic groups. If you study colour use across the continents you will see what I mean (Can someone remind what the bad luck colour was in China?)

3. Targetting different social segments - now i'm going to bore you with discourse on differentiation of the landed gentry, the nouveau riche and the downtrodden proletariat - or is that - i'm tellin' you abaht the working class and the f***ing toffs mate.

4 Targetting different age groups - I'd definitely not use the same design on a site for 15-25s as for 45-65s.

We are working in an environment where 'One size defnitely doesn't fit all'

In the context of this debate there are different issues in that compared with the bricks and mortar marketplace there are significantly less high street store fronts available for business to take up.

markus007




msg:56876
 7:56 pm on Apr 20, 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.

Those sites are clearly "spamming". Search engines define spamming as doing anything that artificially boosts the rank of your page. Buying thousands of high PR backlinks on unrelated topics certainly counts?

chisholmd




msg:56877
 8:17 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

I can't believe I made it to the end of this thread.

I have been concerned about my clients two TLD's being defined as spam. companyname.com and companyname.ca

Maybe the spam experts here can set me straight.

There is only one site and one set of pages, depending on the domain name in the url I decide which prices to show. Everything is exactly the same except prices and in some product categories certain products are only available in canada so they are not shown at all in the .com site. (maybe 10% of products)

I'm I being nailed for spamming whereas the aforementioned company(s) are not? If so there is no way out for me. I can not differentiate between products on seperate sites because it is the consumers location that is different not the product. It would be quite unfair to have to write two sets of copy being careful not to reuse phrases etc.

In a related situation I was reading that google may now be indexing javascript links. The site in question has a javascript menu system with links as:
[page.asp?prodid=x]
and also a semi-static page named for the product:
[product-x.asp]

I did this because previously the javascript menu would not allow robots to find the pages. If G is now indexing those javascript links will we be penalized for having 1200 duplicate pages? (One static, one dynamic for each page of the site) Compound that be COM/CA and we would have 4 duplicate pages for every page on our site.

Clearly to the human eye this is not spamming. Are the robots so dicerning?

Thanks for any advice.

<<feels the urge to say something inflamatory for the attention but gets ahold of himself>>

Mr_Roberto




msg:56878
 8:35 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

IanTurner - exactly right! If you are targeting different groups its perfectly valid to create different sites. Its a very different thing though to create multiple sites that all essentially target the same group of customers, which is what the promotional site in question is apparently doing.

This is marketing by attempting to "crowd out" the competition, and its in nobodies favor except the company doing the marketing - in particular it reduces the "real" choices of the customers looking for products and services online. Search engines should rightfully discourage this kind of tactic because it truly does reduce the usefulness of the search results.

Similar tactics in the brick and mortar world are self-regulating because it costs big bucks to set up additional stores/brands etc. Online its a different story, so trying to draw exact parallels between brick and mortar business and the internet really doesn't hold up.

troels nybo nielsen




msg:56879
 8:40 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Welcome to WebmasterWorld, chisholmd.

AFAIK several members are doing the same things as you without problems. But we had better wait for the experts' judgement.

trimmer80




msg:56880
 8:50 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>>>>>>If you are targeting different groups its perfectly valid to create different sites.

fanatastic, tommorrow I am starting my geographic targeting strategy. I have a database of 20000 products. I am going to target by city - country. Each city - country I choice will have a different site, each with 1500 pages. By the end of the year I will have 240 sites up. These sites will have the same items and text and images. But I am segmenting my target market so it is acceptable. Right?

Mr_Roberto




msg:56881
 9:41 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>>>>>>>>>>fanatastic, tommorrow I am starting my geographic targeting strategy. I have a database of 20000 products. I am going to target by city - country...

Sheesh. I think most people would agree there is a difference between artificially targeting a group with generic content, and having a site that naturally targets a group by virtue of the products/services it provides (which is what I was trying to refer to). Good luck on that geo-targeting campaign though!

IanTurner




msg:56882
 9:47 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

These sites will have the same items and text and images

trimmer80 This is hardly segmenting your target market. I would suggest that if you could justify having seperate content or design for the residents of San Francisco to those of say Los Angeles then you are justified in your breakdown into individual sites.

On the other hand I think that the cultural differences between those cities is too small to justify seperate sites.

But your point highlights nicely the gray areas that are involved in such decision making, what one person thinks acceptable another thinks is spam. Then if try and look at automating the process (which a search engine will always try to do) it becomes even more horrendous.

trimmer80




msg:56883
 9:50 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>>>>>>>>Sheesh. I think most people would agree there is a difference between artificially targeting a group with generic content, and having a site that naturally targets a group by virtue of the products/services it provides

I definately agree, this is my point exactly. The sites in question has the same content, different design and navigation. But products - text and images are identical, thus not targeting by virtue of the products/services.

Ian.
>>>>>>>>>>trimmer80 This is hardly segmenting your target market.

again this is my argument. The site in question has the same content/products

please refer to msg 82 for examples

chisholmd




msg:56884
 9:57 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Guess I should have said something inflamatory after all :)

Any comments from my previous post about what is probably a very common issue for many webmasters?

Thanks

IanTurner




msg:56885
 10:15 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

trimmer80 - there are numerous differences between those two sites

epromos is definitely downmarket aiming at a less eloquent audience than 123Imprint, which is targetting a more corporate marketplace. Lots of subtle differences between the sites, you can even start with the two straplines

epromos - 'The promo know-how people'

123Imprint - 'It's your brand. Promote it.'

They really say it all, the first one says your not clever enough to understand marketing and you probably don't have your own marketing department. The second says your the marketing manager of a fairly big company and know what you want.

trimmer80




msg:56886
 10:33 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

This area is obviously too grey to come to any set conclusions.

It seems that the acceptance of duplicate content / products comes down to the sites overall positioning strategy. If a site is targeted at a different segment of the market than the other site, it is deemed acceptable. But this differentiation has to be significant enough to validate a whole new design.

I believe that the site in question is on the wrong side of the line, other believe it is the right side. Looks like it is too close to call.

One thing for sure. If we find it this hard to agree then google is not going to penalise these sites in the near future.

nancyb




msg:56887
 11:14 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

controversy and dead horses. what fun this thread has been ;) hasn't been a good donnybrook on WebmasterWorld for a long time.

but, where is jb? an offer for a site review and no response for hours? I wanna see your site, too.

jb123




msg:56888
 12:51 am on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'm still here. I will gladly let Brett review my site if he will stop dodging question. What about Brett answer my last question with regards to trimmer90 said earlier:

>>>>>>>>>>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:

123imprint.com/promotional-automotive-products-car-wash-kits.html

epromos.com/ProductIndex/BrowseCategory.jhtml?categoryId=458

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.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Pretty cut and dry that this is spam - duplicate content with a twist (different look, different toll number but the same company processing the orders for the same products).

That equals SPAM!

trimmer80




msg:56889
 1:03 am on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think this has been argued to death.
Some think it is acceptable some dont. Thus we are forced to agree to disagree. Nothing more can be added that is going to change anyones opinions so I think it is time to finish this up.

I do apologise for getting my back up over this. I just dont like being told my opinion is worthless and I am clueless because I disagree on such a subjective topic.

jb123




msg:56890
 1:02 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

True. But, let's see if Brett can answer the question honestly? It's plain as day so, it real simple but let's hear the twist he puts on obvious duplicate content. I'm questioning his motives and SEO ethics, I guess. Since he is a self proclaimed guru.

BigDave




msg:56891
 3:08 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Your so called question is:

SO, BRETT DIFFERENT LOOK BUT SAME CONTENT! I KNOW, I KNOW, IT'S YOUR BUDDY SO, IT'S NOT SPAM, RIGHT?

That looks more like an accusation with a confirming query at the end. How rude of you.

Try re-asking it in a nice way, without combining all sorts of discrete pieces into one wacked out question.

<added>How can someone answer a question like that? JB, try answering it yourself and figure out a truth able for what the answer would mean. It is virtually impossible.</added>

NovaW




msg:56892
 4:50 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Wow - this thread makes you realize how much moderation must go on behind the scenes. The threads here are usually all of such a high quality that it's striking when you see a thread like this :)

JB - It's unfair to accuse somebody of a motive when in reality that is just a guess because you don't like what you are hearing.

I think pageoneresults hit the nail ob the head. Great exposure for that site, maybe I will order some stuff off it later today.

jb123




msg:56893
 5:10 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Great, order away. Everyone else is because they obtain there rankings unfairly. I can't stop you nor am I interested in stopping you.

Regarding, the question to Brett, ok: Brett after reviewing the example that I posted several times about the two links from the two websites in question (ePromos & 123imprint) - what do you take and gather from the fact that the results come up exactly the same, same products, same info from two web sites that have two different looks and two different toll free numbers but are the orders for the same products are processed by the same company?

How is the bigDave?

PatrickDeese




msg:56894
 5:58 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

> Since [Brett] is a self proclaimed guru.

Oh, hooray. JB123 is resorting to Ad Hominem arguments.

You have SERP envy - that's when you think that anyone that is above you must be cheating because you're not number one.

If you can't do what it takes to be #1 for "promotional items", maybe you need to look for a less competitive niche [google.com].

This is not about rich versus poor, or "bribes" or "preferential treatment". It's a winning marketing strategy that is beating the pants off the competition.

jb123




msg:56895
 8:38 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

PatrickDeese - Nope. It appears that you have read this whole thread. I have statement on more than one occasion that I don't care that I'm not #1 (do I wish I were, ABSOLUTELY) but everyone can't be #1 and there are others that will beat at times. I'm just "SIMPLY" saying (see if you can follow this - it's a real stuff concept) that if you are spamming to acheive top rankings then, you deserve the negative light because you certainly are getting positive light being in the top Top 10 or #1. And spammers need to suffer a penalty. Even though winning is our objective, reality is you can't winner all the time but you sure can try and get rid of the cheaters of the world. Do you you understand that?

jb123




msg:56896
 9:13 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

PatrickDeese - Obviously, I met to say you have "NOT" read this whole thread based on what you stated above.

This 123 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 123 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 > >
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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved