homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.40.166
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 147 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 147 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 > >     
70 plus websites all almost all gone
crosslinking got me banned
macneil




msg:43490
 4:52 pm on Mar 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

I designed 70 plus websites all for outdoors related industry. All had their own separate domain names and hosting. All linked to each other. All were doing EXTREMELY well in Google. Last month all but 2 were went to the bottom. It so happens that the 2 that did not get punished did not link correctly because I had done the links wrong on them and they just had a bunch of links that did not work.
Observation: It is interesting that Google would rather have a website with 50 plus DEAD links than one that linked to pages they thought violated their cross link rules.
Question: I wonder if they sites will ever be able to move up again or will they be bottom dwellers for life. About the only they show up now is if a person does an "exact Phrase" search or is extremely specific. These websites are still listed but just way way down.
I have redone 12 of these websites and will monitor but would be interested in hearing from someone with similar experience to find out if sites that get moved to the bottom (all are 0pr but not greyed out) can be revived or any other ideas or input.
Just for further info I am a website designer and I designed these series of websites to sell ads on (<snip> could buy ads that linked to their own websites) and as incentives for <snip> to use my web design services. In other words if you let me design your <industry> website I'll give you free ads on some of these other websites.

 

onlineleben




msg:43580
 3:15 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

This thread is moving so fast, I hope I do not "duplicate" too much that may have already been said while composing this post.

It is a fact that Macneil has been banned or whatever from G and has 2 'undamaged' domains left.
What should he do next?

My suggestions:
aa) de-link these domains from your banned domains
bb) expand topical content for these domains
bbb) delete those pages that were duplicate content in your network (I asume that it was your travel-tips part) and link to the respective pages on your travel-tips site
cc) for the deleted pages, establish a permanent redirect, so visitors from SEs other than G still find the content and SE robots get the chance to update their index
dd) For the banned part of your network, you should only keep the main pages with location specific content and start rebuilding them using steps aa) to cc)

Hope this helps a little ...

ghostMonkey




msg:43581
 3:20 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Everything Google does, without exception, is done to make money. Which is fair enough, and is the case with the vast majority of businesses, but to hear people talk it's like Google's some kind of digital charity or friend to all.

And the web is an equally valid marketplace as any other arena, and more so than most. It's origins or intended uses have no absolutely no bearing on its current role. You might as well deride the Yellow Pages (UK business directory) because it started off life as a tree and you shouldn't advertise with a tree. It's nonsense.

The sooner people get rid of the bowing-and-scraping attitude that Google is some kind of god and we should be grateful of any scrap of benefit it throws our way, the better.

jomaxx




msg:43582
 4:01 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Nobody said any of those things. The point is that if it is a free service then you are unlikely to have any legal standing w.r.t. Google. Just because a site relies on Google for $$ doesn't establish a relationship in law.

Marval




msg:43583
 5:14 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just for a minute Ill go with the net being a valid marketplace. If this is true, then why in the world would I put my business in a status of depending on something that is beyond my control. Sure in the real business world I can pay for advertising just as I can on the web...that I definitely can control. To build a business on a hope that a free service might list my site and make it rank high enough to be profitable is beyond the realm of business.
If I came across as defending Google as the high almighty I definitely worded my statement wrong....they are simply a free service that some have been able to get lucky with. I guess my real question to someone that depends on the net completely with no backup...can you take legal action against the net somehow if it were to go down tomorrow due to some kid in the Phillipines playing with worms? Sorry but as a businessman I see no reason to put myself in the position of letting someone else decide whether I make it or fail. Just my opinion

BigDave




msg:43584
 5:26 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Everything Google does, without exception, is done to make money.

I really have to disagree with you here. That may be the way that you operate a business, and your life. But even many public companies will make decisions that will reduce profits, but they do it anyway because it is the right thing to do.

Their general goal is to make money, but there are many decisions made each day at google that are based on right and wrong, not just how it will affect the bottom line.

roundabout




msg:43585
 6:02 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>> The fact that they do it for free takes away any responsibility to anyone.

Just because a company provides something for free doesn't exclude it from restraint of trade laws. Just ask Microsoft ... they got whacked while giving away IE for free.

netguy




msg:43586
 6:08 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

I wouldn't say Google is doing anything for free (or at least without the potential for a huge profit)... They have invested heavily in building a sophisticated infrastructure that people like to use, with relevent searches, and less abtrusive advertising than the rest.

bobmark




msg:43587
 6:10 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

One thing that always gets lost in this when people start going on about how Google provides a free service is that Google's profit is based on content provided by independent websites at no remuneration. In other words WE provide 100% of Google's content as they are generating revenue from search results, for which we receive no direct remuneration other than "sales leads."
That said, while macneil seems like a nice and unfortunate person, I still have problems with sites that operate on a model of SE manipulation - c'mon! One site duplicated 70 times? - rather than content/adwords/advertising/legitimate links.
I can't imagine making a resource allocation decision to register 70 domains and pay to host 70 identical sites without being aware that I was trying to dramatically increase serp through mirrors/crosslinking. I mean why not take your domain registration/renewal X 70 and hosting X 70 dollars and put them into advertising if your goal is enhancing your site's position?

rfgdxm1




msg:43588
 6:18 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

>So i think this impartial bit is a red herring.

Correct. In particular, heavily crosslinked sites matter to Google because of the effect on PageRank. A search engine that doesn't use how sites are linked as part of their algo wouldn't see this as abuse. Google is definitely setting artificial rules.

fathom




msg:43589
 6:21 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just because a company provides something for free doesn't exclude it from restraint of trade laws. Just ask Microsoft ... they got whacked while giving away IE for free.

But you didn't get that free something, without buying something first.

Furthermore, the restraint is yours... Google isn't competing with you.

Google has market share, you wish to exploit that market share... Google does not say you can't.

ghostMonkey




msg:43590
 6:21 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

I really have to disagree with you here. That may be the way that you operate a business, and your life. But even many public companies will make decisions that will reduce profits, but they do it anyway because it is the right thing to do.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. Sure, companies make decisions that cut profits - in the short term, but there's always a financial reason behind it if you look hard enough. It's simply an investment in the future.

ghostMonkey




msg:43591
 6:27 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

But you didn't get that free something, without buying something first.

It's very rare that you need to buy something first to get something else for free. It defeats the purpose of having given it away in the first place.

Most of the utilities on my PC were free. They were free not because the companies are "nice" but because in exchange they got my email address and I get bombarded with 50 "upgrade to XYZ Pro" messages every day. Which is fine, and it's something they make a profit from, but buying something first is rarely a pre-requisite.

roundabout




msg:43592
 6:49 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

>> Google has market share, you wish to exploit that market share... Google does not say you can't.

Sure they do ... just ask anyone who has ever gotten a PR0 penalty.

Google, whether they ever intended to or not, has arguably become the entity with the most control over online commerce. With this control, comes the responsibilty to play fair, explain the rules, etc.

jomaxx




msg:43593
 7:00 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

The problem with Explorer was that MS were using predatory techniques to drive a competitor out of business, and IIRC Netscape's browser was NOT free to all users.

kfander




msg:43594
 7:22 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

<snip>

As for the topic at hand, I have sites on different servers, pertaining to unrelated or peripherally related topics, which link one to the other; and I have subdomains on varying topics; but I haven't created sites for the sole purpose of building up my own linkbacks, certainly not with duplicated content. I won't question the intent, but I can see that Google might have had reason to, either through it algorithm or by hand in reference to a complaint.

[edited by: ciml at 10:18 am (utc) on Mar. 5, 2003]
[edit reason] See Sticky [/edit]

shurlee




msg:43595
 7:49 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Their general goal is to make money, but there are many decisions made each day at google that are based on right and wrong, not just how it will affect the bottom line.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Jeesh! What planet are you from? ANY company with a normal, stable individual in charge is NOT going to do anything to reduce profits. The best any sensible company could hope for is to do some good AND make a profit, but trust me, they are there for only 1 reason and that is making money.

Sure they may do all kinds of things designed to "look" like just trying to help, (such as accepting porn ads but not tobacco ads to give the public perception of trying to protect our children from the dangers of smoking by teaching them the benefits of masturbation instead), to be able to claim to be doing good, but the truth is it was to generate goodwill or get some press or distribute hype, which in turn increases profit.

And about that restraint of trade debate, cmon kids. Anyone notice MSN.com's PR lately? Are they a competitor? What an unfortunate little glitch.

A search engine does NOT make money by giving away search results. They make money by selling crap. Usually ads. That makes them a competitor of us all. What if they decide to start making a buck off of generating leads for insurance companies and all of us in the lead generating business suddenly discover a "glitch" like the one that seems to have happened to msn.com? Is that restraint of trade? Is that unfair practices? Does that deprive the general public of options that may have been a better choice?

I'm not going to waste my time arguing this. With the latest announcements they have made about delivering ads to third parties, that shouild make it excruciatingly clear that they are an ad company and the search was only to generate eyeballs. But no, the debate still rages on with statements like:
decisions made each day at google that are based on right and wrong, not just how it will affect the bottom line.
(HAHAHAHAHAHA, sorry but that one always makes me laugh).

People are going to see what they want to see irregardless of what is in plain view. That includes me. Which is why I won't get into this argument. I've got work to do. I've got clients expecting me to get them some traffic so they can afford to make decisions based on just right or wrong regardless of profits.
(hahahahahahaha)

jbauder




msg:43596
 8:02 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

shurlee ... I tend to agree though I do think Google takes a more wholistic approach to actions they take than someone like a yahoo or an overture who are much more in the how do I make money "right now" mode ...

Interesting about msn.com's PR ... though the search.msn.com page does have a PR9

I dread the day when the search engines stop trying to make money "directly" through ads and get into the affiliate game jeeesh talk about dominating ... someone searches for insurance google point's them at their insurance affiliate ... etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,

and i think them days are coming, kinda makes affiliate program managers obsolete ;-)

Chicago




msg:43597
 8:06 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

WOW - has anyone welcomed shurlee to the community yet.

If not, may I be the first to say... Welcome!

BigDave




msg:43598
 8:08 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

shurlee,

I don't recall ever saying that they were not in the business of making money. But I am glad to say that morals ARE involved in most decisions by most people and people run those companies.

I guess I'm glad I don't live in your world. The company founders that I deal with on a regular basis are good people. I have delt with true scum executives, but they are truly a minority.

How about a CEO of a company that has his company supply their product below cost to third world health workers, and has never publicized it? He did it because he knew it was needed and they could not afford to pay for it and it would do some good.

Yeah, I guess I live in a better world than you do. I think I'll stay here.

Chicago




msg:43599
 8:08 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

"the latest announcements they have made about delivering ads to third parties, that shouild make it excruciatingly clear that they are an ad company and the search was only to generate eyeballs"

AMEN! Anyone that doubts this, just sit back and watch it happen.

jbauder




msg:43600
 8:22 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

interesting comment I saw on another thread ...

I've been getting a lot of Browser Crashes lately. With this last crash, I did what I haven't done before and clicked on the button to send Microsoft an error report. After doing so, Microsoft's diagnosis (which can be found by clicking on the link presented) was that the Google Toolbar was the only possible cause of all these crashes.

Maybe this explains the Microsoft Page Rank?

ghostMonkey




msg:43601
 8:29 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yeah, I guess I live in a better world than you do. I think I'll stay here.

I think we'll have to make do with the real one ;)

GoogleGuy




msg:43602
 8:30 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'll try to answer the original question on this thread.

"I built one website of approximately 50 pages. I then copied it 70 times. I then went back and changed the front page of each of the 70 websites."

macneil, this would be far outside of most search engines' guidelines. For Google, the relevant guideline is "Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content." I wouldn't be surprised if doing this caused problems for your domains. WebmasterWorld doesn't allow specifics to be posted, so I can't be sure for your specific web site.

Hope that helps,
GoogleGuy

1milehgh80210




msg:43603
 8:36 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>>I dread the day when the search engines stop trying to make money "directly" through ads and get into the affiliate game jeeesh talk about dominating ... someone searches for insurance google point's them at their insurance affiliate ... etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,and i think them days are coming, kinda makes affiliate program managers obsolete ;-)
<<<

The market is usually pretty good at getting rid of unneeded third parties (affiliate sites)in the long run.
The question is- would the SE make enough to offset the lost PPC revenue from affiliates.
Content rich affiliate sites will always get traffic .(for the content :)

rfgdxm1




msg:43604
 8:37 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

>macneil, this would be far outside of most search engines' guidelines.

Good point, Googleguy. If we ignore the crosslinking part, by definition what he did was spamming.

Chicago




msg:43605
 8:37 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Now we are in trouble :-)

Personally, Google rules my world. I am very very fond of the company. But, one should not deny the transformation that is taking place with our favorite engine.

To Google's defence, HOW CAN YOU BLAME THEM? We will take the ride with you....similing the whole way.

jbauder




msg:43606
 8:44 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

1mile ...

I agree with the tradeoff between ppc revenues and an affiliate program approach ... but why do the 2 have to be exclusive ...

If someone searches insurance have the top 2 be paid monthly, the right side ppc, and then slip in a few affiliate programs (that also just happen to have a lot of content ;-) and push the rest of the results down the page a little further

nowhere




msg:43607
 8:51 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Who needs profits when you can make cyber-friends instead?

Macneil - You’d be amazed at the number of vocal anti-spam folks who are the same people that are flooding your email with “buy cheap Viagra” stuff. Don’t fall for it. I’ve actually been spammed by anti-spam folks that are on this forum with SEO marketing. You simply did too many Google no-no’s and got dumped. Just cut your losses and start over with new domains. Keep note of how long it took to get dumped, how much you made in the meantime, and what (if anything) would be worth trying again. Nothing in this arena lasts forever anyway (including Google).

europeforvisitors




msg:43608
 8:57 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

A search engine does NOT make money by giving away search results. They make money by selling crap. Usually ads.

You could say the same thing about THE NEW YORK TIMES or THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, which would be out of business without advertising. But to continue drawing an audience for that advertising, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, and--yes--Google must maintain the product quality that their readers expect. If THE NEW YORK TIMES were to turn into the equivalent of your local shopper or Google were to become a warmed-over Overture, they'd lose their audiences and the major part of their revenues.

Bottom line: Google has good business reasons for delivering quality search results, regardless of any noble instincts that its owners may or may not have.

Chicago




msg:43609
 9:13 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Europe,

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Google search will go away. But with 75% market share and a capitive audience, they MUST start innovating. Google is caught right now in a pickle as I have said before- between their free search and their bottom line. With 10 upon 10s of Millions of people a month on there SERPs, GOOGLE WOULD DIE if they didn't make more money. Ad Management (and acquisitons)is the best and most obvious alternative. (because they are too sensitive to their past and won't move into PFI or better PPC placement)

The problem that many of us see is the new business condition that will be created within Google as a result of making this change. Why? Because relevancy and free listing(the life line of Google (75% market share)) does not equal pay per click. There are extrodinarily different animals.

Googles' unique search algo combined with their AOL and Yahoo agreements will buy time for Google to innovate in the ad managment world. Those that are seeing the transformation take place likely realize that for the next coupld of years, Google search will remain predominate. After that and with new players on their way and with 100s of millions in profit, things as we know them today will look altogether different.

This is a normal maturation process for any business and Even our beloved Google can't escape these factors.

makemetop




msg:43610
 9:26 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

>and Yahoo agreements..

Oh? And what agreement is that!

Anyway - Google is correctly trying to pick up cross-linking. Why did the starter of this thread cross-link? Apparently to get the sites in to Google. It failed - sites got banned - learn the lesson!

This 147 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 147 ( 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.
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