| 11:02 am on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Congratualations on your spamming. Perhaps instead you could become part of the solution, instead of adding to the problem.
| 11:26 am on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Web-fusion, can you read?:
|Works for me! and even better for my competitors which is why I'm happy to talk about it! Also I'd prefer my non spammy sites to do better compared to the junk sites I'm creating to compete. |
If I was happy with the status quo do you think I'd be broadcasting this to every webmaster on this forum. duh!
It occurs to me that the only way this will be dealt with is by bringing it to peoples attention. Plus if even more people do it Google will have to deal with it.
Next time you post maybe read the whole message
| 11:30 am on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think WebFusion was pointing out that you appear to be contradicting yourself.
In your post you complain (rightly) about the huge numbers of spam sites in search engines, but then undermine that message by saying that you do it yourself.
| 11:42 am on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes in an ideal world if search engine rankings where based entirely on quality content and people only created links to sites they felt were worthy and content was not at all determined by keywords etc. etc.
I run sites that try to adhere to the ideals above BUT I find to compete I am having to set up other sites and use spammy techniques.
By telling people how to spam Google I'm not helping myself I'm trying to raise an issue.
I didn't create this problem and the only reason I'm part of it is because it's the only way I can compete.
Where's the contradiction? I do it but I don't like it!
| 12:10 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|By telling people how to spam Google I'm not helping myself I'm trying to raise an issue. |
I can appreciate that you're raising an important issue, but I think it's one that every search engine visitor encounters on a daily basis: the awareness is already there.
Google (along with everyone else) are aware of the spam site problem - I don't think that encouraging more people to produce spam sites is the solution.
And yes, there *is* a contradiction in condemning this practice whilst doing it yourself.
| 12:28 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
OK I'll hold tight until Google fix this one!
Anyway back to the original point - who has the right to critisize anyone for posting a technique to this forum that works?
Isn't that what it's here for - isn't that why you read it?
| 1:08 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|who has the right to critisize anyone for posting a technique to this forum that works |
Well, everyone has that right! That's why this is a successful forum - it encourages debate and conversation. Obviously this involves disagreements sometimes.
The technique that you show above is spam *by your own admission*:
|... junk sites I'm creating ... |
It's not unreasonable that someone may take issue with that kind of black-hat SEO method.
I can see your motivation in posting the method is basically for good, but admitting that you do it yourself *and encouraging others to do the same* isn't particularly responsible. In that sense, your first post is more part of the problem than the solution.
| 1:28 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree with your grey hat approach to such a method surfgatinho. That method is commonly known to all with intermediate SEO knowledge. It seems to me as a programmer that identifying and eliminating such spam programmatically would be somewhat difficult but I'm sure the pros at Google are on top of it.
| 1:48 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Come on... anyone has the right to criticise someone who admits they're doing something wrong, especially as you admit to talking about it only because it works even better for your competitors.
[edited by: Patrick_Taylor at 1:52 pm (utc) on July 27, 2004]
| 1:48 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>posting a technique to this forum that works?
How long does it work? Not long, correct?
Filling googles db full of junk is never very popular with googles users, so that is why people get upset.
So to get back to your origonal question....what's working. Do you mean in the long term or the near term? If you build quality sites with actual content that the surfing public is looking for, and getting quality links. You will be ranking high in google for years.
| 2:12 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|How long does it work? Not long, correct? |
It's been working for a while now which is why I have drawn attention to it here.
it could be argued this is already happening.
|Filling googles db full of junk |
Also for the record the title of my original thread was something along the lines of "How to Spam Google"
[edited by: surfgatinho at 2:41 pm (utc) on July 27, 2004]
| 2:36 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I don't think advertising it is a good idea at all. The only reason there isn't way more of it is because a lot of people just have not figured out how to do it. I donít blame you for trying it, but we donít need to be encouraging others to do it.
Now a whole new crop of people who have not had much success climbing the rankings will be staying up late at night working on how to auto generate thousands of pages.
Whatever initial success you enjoy with it will be short lived.
| 2:40 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What I would have liked was some confirmation.
Something along the lines of "yes this works and could do with fixing" or "well done you have discovered a new phenomena" or maybe even "This doesn't work because ...."
Instead I get told I shouldn't be posting suggestions that unscrupulous SEOs could use for there various nefarious doings.
Either this is a valid technique or not which seems to have been overshadowed by questioning my motives.
| 2:44 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Whatever initial success you enjoy with it will be short lived. |
That's the point I'm happy to see the back of this technique. There's no point in not talking about something and hoping it will go away!
RE: the bug in the forum I edited my post and it seems OK now
| 2:56 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well done surfgatinho!
Yes, the method does seem to be working. I would reproduce it in as many areas as possible while it still works, particularly if it does not take much time and effort.
| 3:01 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It really depends on what type of online business you are in. If you are an affiliate who does not mind burning through domain names, then filling googles db full of crap works. Works all to well in my opinion.
But if you are here for the long term and are building a brand, have a click and brick operation and want repeat customers, do not do anything to risk getting turfed out of the search engines.
| 3:19 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>> But if you are here for the long term and are building a brand, have a click and brick operation and want repeat customers, do not do anything to risk getting turfed out of the search engines.
Why it cannot be done if you are a merchant?. Just create feeder sites with this technique and click thro the traffic to your main brand-domain site!
| 3:21 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes, ebay has a pretty strong brand name as well as Amazon and both have a zillion pages in the database from aff sites doing this type of thing. I don't see it jeopordizing their brand.
| 3:34 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Nice post surfgatinho -
Don't worry about the naysayers. As it has been said - this information is well known by any decent SEO type.
It has been mentioned that companies building a brand would not benefit from utilizing these techniques. That is not true. There are many, many companies building a brand in the front office and doing high sales volumes by building their own networks that don't appear connected to them in any way - out of a back room office.
If Google or any other search engine does not want this content in their database - then they need to stop indexing it. Simple. :)
| 3:42 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>I don't see it jeopordizing their brand.
That is the affiliates that are risking the domains. Besides, there is only a couple of online business as big as those two. Unless you expect to become that large, wear a white/grey hat.
Feeder sites, that works. But how necessary is it if your primary site ranks high?
Do not misunderstand me, I am not criticizing SE spammers, I have been known to participate myself. But, my current situation does not call for dynamically generating crap for the googlebot.
| 4:49 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In my area, I compete with someone that produces a new site like this every 30 days and I easily found 20+ of them making the first 4 pages of search irrelevant, for one keyword phrase.
I put a post in about it but admin never let see the light of day. Must have been too specific.
Anyway, I'm beating his sites now using the most ethical SEO techniques discussed on this board. If you keep at they work.
| 5:04 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>I'm beating his sites now
Oh ya, using white hat techniques works for the long term. That has been my professional recommendation for a while now to anyone who asks me. But like I said, do you have long term or short term goals. That will dictate your actions.
| 5:11 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Seems like I read it just fine:
|...I'd prefer my non spammy sites to do better compared to the junk sites I'm creating to compete. |
And your solution :
|Plus if even more people do it Google will have to deal with it. |
Makes even less sense to me. You're suggesting that if those of us who use "accepted" and ethical SEM techniques would instead drop down to the level of those who spam, only THEN would the problem be properly addressed? That's like suggesting that my neighbors and I should start breaking into each other's houses in an attempt to get the police dept. to increase it's patrols. Simply does not make sense to me.
As far as I'm concerned...if you can't "compete" with the spammers...then you're problem isn't with your SEM, it's your business model as a whole.
| 5:18 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There are many scrapper sites on google.
I click on one keyword1_keyword2_keyword3.htm page, was served with 2 instance of adsense, 3 popups and I have to close the damn browser 4 times.
This is a serious issue that google has to address so I don't see what is wrong with original post. I am quite comfortable with my search ranking so I would have wanted the algo not changing, but the quality has deteriorated quite badly.
If this goes on, google will ultimately lose its loyal user base.
For the first time in years, I actually get more relevant results on yahoo for some common search terms. This has never happen before but now whenever I cannot find what I am looking for, I try yahoo.
| 5:44 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If more people do it, then the duplication filter will wipe them out.
Surely we should be encouraging it?
| 6:35 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Why I have a clear conscience!
1.This SEO practice doesn't affect Yahoo and MSN to such an extent so is an issue that can and should be addressed
2.It's a free world. If you want to remain 100% ethical and wait for Google to perfect their algo then fine.
If you don't mind looking at the SERPS every day and thinking how did that site with no real content get to be above mine but you have the principles to hold tight - great! (I have my quality sites too)
3.As I often read here (and believe) Google owes us nothing. Well visa versa. I didn't realise there was a moral code for polluting the SERPS!
4.This technique exists - so why slate me for posting it. Did anyone get grief for saying title text is really important?
5.I earn a living from doing this. I'm not taking a pay cut on moral grounds to keep an algo I don't think is perfect looking good.
Point is actually I don't care one way or another what happens this way. I have my spam sites for today and I have my quality sites for the long term.
If you can give me a good reason why I shouldn't take this approach please do. :-)
| 7:48 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Side note: It's a free world.
Not everywhere, check cnn or the beeb for details.
Do whatever you want to do, and it sounds like you are. Some people are frustrated with SERPS that are full of garbage. I remember I was cursing when I was looking for a hotel in a US city once and all I could get was page after page of affiliates. I ended up looking in the dmoz just to quicken up the process.
| 7:49 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
surfgatinho: Your reasons would all be fine if there were two parties in this: you and Google.
Nowhere do you mention the third party: your visitors.
I'm not saying that you should act selflessly to give your visitors a better time on your sites. After all we're in business, not giving a public service for free.
But surely you can see how some people might think there *was* an ethical dimension to spam sites. Not with Google, but with Joe Average who is looking for genuine info - when all he can find is spam.
Personally I don't have too much of a problem with your technique - but if I were you I wouldn't justify it with weak arguments like "well, everyone else is doing it..."
| 8:12 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Regardless of Google's algo, there will be a methodology for getting at the top, which means there will always be a flury to exploit and manipulate websites (oops, I mean optimize) to rank at the top. That's why Google is destined to fail.
We're only a few years into this whole search engine game. Already the spammers have taken strong control over much of Google. Imagine what it will be like in 20 years. Already spammers are using programs to optimize massive link farms for every conceivable phrase and it's working. Only hand-maintained directories will be worth visiting, the automated results will be junk.
I don't see any way around this. Google MUST settle on a methodology for ranking. Because of this, spammers will ALWAYS figure it out, no matter how much it's tweaked, exploit it and create junk serps. We've only seen the beginning.
| This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: 48 (  2 ) > > |