| 2:54 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It's correct that people doing onmouseover to change the status bar don't need to worry. blaze, it appears that this particular SEO often convinced clients to put spammy pages on the client site as well. If you're a site owner and your SEO says 'upload these pages to your web site' then it's your responsibility to make sure that they're not spammy. Check them out, make sure that they don't do sneaky redirects, link to other spammy pages (such as the SEO's own doorway sites or the SEO's other clients with keyword stuffed links), and that they're not just doorway pages, for example.
| 4:49 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have emailed a site owner who just lost his pages because of this offering to help him get out of it. Need I worry when submitting a reinclusion request that Google will use the IP I submit from to look through my sites?
Of course they would all survive a manual review anyway;)
| 6:16 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Nice going Google. There is a line between SEO and manipulation (often fuzzy and indistinct IMHO) but the practice we're talking about here clearly crosses that line by a country mile.
Now, can we think about penalizing sites that use a "refresh" or other means to trap visitors so they can't back out of a site? This practice really does degrade the user experience.
| 6:42 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
one of our business partners got hosed on this scam too. They are now banned. One SEO company in question (won't list here) but if anyone wants to know, feel free to send me a private mail.
I'm working with them to try and help them out, but man I feel sorry for them. I'm thinking that someone over at our business partner is about to lose their job.
| 9:15 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Someone here where I work got fired because they did it without the owner knowing about it. But the owner noticed the ban, started investigating and discovered what the person had done.
So the bold move to make himself look like some type of hero got him a canned and word around the office is that because it may be considered somekind of employee misconduct, he might not be able to collect unemployment.
| 9:55 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There isn't much doubt as to which SEO it is.
There are several Threads on other forums about them, where names are named and example Page URLs are given.
| 10:52 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The $64 unanswered question is :Is this detected by Google's algo or did it take a manual ban?"
If its a manual ban then its a concession from google that they cannot pick this tactic up and anyone can just keep using this trick on another domain.
No problems for the spammer.
| 11:59 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree there is not much doubt as to the company involved. Hats off to G for outing them,and their tactics. Now, I would like to see them in court facing a class action suit.
| 12:14 am on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Rumour has it that one of those is on the way too.
Google for it.
| 8:21 am on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
From what I am seeing these sites are no longer indexed by Yahoo as well.
[added]More proof of the world's largest circling fleet of black helicopters[/added]
| 1:17 am on Jun 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Way to go Google!
I've linked to this thread from the one at my forum where people were posting about getting banned from this. Hopefully they'll clean up the mess from the spammy SEO company and get reincluded according to GG's instructions.
What really gets me though, are those Webmasters who you warn about this stuff beforehand, and yet they can't resist the lure of quick-fix high rankings. :(
| 1:51 am on Jun 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Not any more, MrFishGuy. Which one is your site so we can see how you're spamming and snitch on you here?
| 4:08 am on Jun 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm sure that page wasn't removed because I mentioned it here. I was showing an example of how the fix wasn't covering all searches yet.
| 4:57 am on Jun 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>Not any more,
It answers the $64 question.
Now another one.
Is there no honour amongst thieves?:)
| 7:29 pm on Jun 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am sooo glad this happened recently. I just had to talk a major extremely competitive client out of "giving them a try" after a very aggressive telemarketer got ahold of their marketing manager.
After talking with an "engineer" who assured me that the mouseover pages were "legit" with Google, despite them being blatant doorways- I ended the discussion with "they are legit, until discovered." Time from discovery to banishment, oh, aproximately 6 days.
Way to go Google!
Play clean, win big.
PS> I think we all hold the power to figure out who the SEO company was.
PPS. The rep told me they have over 6,000 clients. Thats a lot of traffic. It may take a while.
| 2:13 am on Jun 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Any chance the you guys have a fix in mind for the redirect pagejackers? |
| 4:27 pm on Jun 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Will those using the reinclusion request have to play in the sandbox for awhile, or will they pop back in after being cleared of any current wrongdoing?
| 4:36 pm on Jun 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Home pages on some of my sites (and some internal pages) change on every visit as they run from a database - I change the content to promote different products and to keep the site fresh for visitors.
Not an uncommon practice.
Where would this leave my sites with your idea? :( ;)
| 4:49 pm on Jun 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
[quote]cleared of any current wrongdoing? [/quot]
Not to sound too holier than thou, but we have been competing with these spam tactictioners for a long time, and I for one think the sites employing these methods should not be let right back into the G serps.
Does anyone really think the majority of these sites did not know what this SEO Firm(does not seem quite right to use this acronym)was doing was underhanded? Sure, there are some innocent victims, but a simple slap on the wrist is not sufficient.
It's a shame some of the innocents also will be punished, but they should have done their homework. It is not as if this firm and firms like them have not been discussed. They cheated, it is as simple as that.Like at the Academy, you cheat and get caught, you are out.
| 5:16 pm on Jun 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well done Google
How's about going after those other cheats - ya know, the ones who persuade other people to link to their site in exchange for a reciprocal link. They're cheating the rest of us who just build good content.
After you've done that, why not add a hypocrisy detector to your algo - that should pretty much finish the job, (best not point it this thread straight away, though, save that for an overnight run)
If you want any help, just give me shout, I can point out the cheats for you.
Fortunately for me, every single one of my sites is number one solely because they are the best sites out there.
| 7:05 pm on Jun 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My client knew what was going on sort of. The way he explained it to me a while back was "I have a friend who knows the ins and out so i leave it up to him." As soon as I saw this thread I called and offered help getting him back in the right way, which he has agreed to accept. I've already told him he won't get the same rankings back for the terms that did not exist in his real pages unless we build real pages. Currently, there are legitimate pages on the site, however, and Google seems to prefer to root out the disease without killing the host whenever possible. I would just like to be able to offer some kind of time frame because that's my job.
|Does anyone really think the majority of these sites did not know what this SEO Firm(does not seem quite right to use this acronym)was doing was underhanded? |
| 7:41 pm on Jun 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Offer no promises, or guarantees, but note that some others who have already cleaned their sites up some while ago took a couple of months to get back in.
| This 52 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 52 ( 1  ) |