So no-one out there has thought about doing this?
It would be sandbox but after the sandbox it would be more powerful than before. I welcome anyone to try it on my site :p
We can try it of you like, I have a collection of sites that I no longer use, really low PR!
What keyword do you want me to use?
The trouble with this is - in my case at least - I don't think it is my direct competitors damaging my PR/SERPs (or if it is, they are doing it via independent scraper sites, etc.).
In my case I have sustained immense damage from content theft (leading to dup content penaties) and traffic theft and there is little point in trying to target these sites as its like playing whack-a-mole.
What galls me is that Google is driving this whole thing with Adsense, is the only SE that seems unable to deal with the problem, and penalizes original sites for the theft of their own original content.
Now they have been kind enough to tell us (thru the blog) that if we spend all our time reporting these thieves to them they will take a look at their sites (at least they claim they will, they never respond, of course).
We can try it of you like, I have a collection of sites that I no longer use, really low PR!
What keyword do you want me to use?
Me too, I'd be delighted. My site in question is still sandboxed, I wonder if this would make things better or worse, but I've no traffic to lose right now in this site.
|I welcome anyone to try it on my site :p |
With an adult phrase that site will never rank for a mainstream term ever again. Give it a try.
>Imagine what a few thousand links from one site with the same keyword linking to your competitors site would do to their site!
Why would that do any damage? The links would either do a lot of good or be ignored. People who say that it does damage are barking up the wrong tree. In fact, the damage is only likely to happen to your site, not your competitor.
|In fact, the damage is only likely to happen to your site, not your competitor. |
Is this based only on Google's "almost nothing a competitor can do" promise... or something else?
The sandbox is the most ridiculous idea Google has come up with. The application of it and its vulnerability to hi-jacked pages is ridiculous.
You are now being penalized for simple expansion, be it an affiliate program where people link to your site using the same keywords as the ones on your pages.
this touches on something which I was stickied about ealier today in relation to the jagger thread ..(the name of which was google bowling ..( someof the collateral effects of jagger being felt may be googles clumsy attempts to mitigate the bowling effect ) ..
let us extrapolate
however mhes..to imagine the strategy in action ..
rather than to use your own domain to launch the killer links ..if one was to use "buy and burn domains" ( maybe just 100 would do ..at base prices say an investment of only 600.oo$ ) to point the links at whichever site you wished to kill ..and then around one months work total to make ( a per each site a sufficient number of pages to make ) the sites credible in the eyes ( bots)( algos ) of "G"..
make each link subject say ( lower than legal adult inference ) ..
that would be in many cases a sufficiently good ROI
..particularly if all dom purchases and hosting were done via a "one off dummy corps" ...( another 2000.oo$ or so in many many juristictions )..
not much more complex than that is needed ( no *luck* enters into this as search engines do what they are designed to do ) and this way is less visible and more damaging long term to a dom name than any server "adjustment" ..
there are more ways to skin a cat..
not of course something to be condoned ..just thinking out of the asta ' box ..
forewarned etc ..
remember to check your inbounds ..they can hit you ..they can hurt you ....and what is more that is not what they are there for ..beware of maya
I got the "Google Bowling" email too.
With GoDaddy having its $1.99 domain sale, for a modest investment of $20 I could buy 10 domains. I could either freehost them or pay cheap hosting for whatever the minimum is (3 months usually) so for well under $100 do a lot of damage to competitors.
Having been victimized by this, I know it works.
did you at least ask them to remove the links?
So much for your competitors not being able to hurt yoru rankings, what a joke that is.
GoogleGuy, how about setting up as system were we can report un-welcomed links, so you guys can exclude them manually from our factors? or example: I notice that spammer-my-competior.com has 1200000 ROS, scrapper links pointed at me. I would notice mainly becuase I'd be on page 45, and
I email Google. After checking, Google excludes that domain from any calculations.
This way innocent sites don't get harmed (which is practically the same as being banned), and it would take very few people from Google.
|I got the "Google Bowling" email too. |
nope you misunderstood me ..I got the idea from a stickymail from a fellow member here ..read the article he linked it to and then thought about how it would have to be ROI'd ..
as far as I can see it has no flaws ..and legally ( depending on the link text )there is nothing you can do to stop it if it happens to you..
checking your inbounds daily might give you a heads up before you get dropped from serps ..then again how to check all inbounds ..
G always lied about the number of inbounds that it used to calculate and at the moment is involved in a totally different attitude to their relevance , ranking and provenance.
MSn and Y are slightly better about the actual number used ..
Y is slightly better at assesing quality and actual subject of page .
however the damage can be done before you know it's happening ..
possibly if you are in the ODP ( hand assessed ) that might be away of appealing to the search engines if they have dropped you as a result of this..
before the cries of how dispicable etc ..there are parts of the world less than 1 mile from some of us where real lives can be bought for less than $5.oo.
some people will do anything to remove a competitor from the top slot ..technically this is a lot easier than dropping a server ..
drive by black hat
as with bombing ..the search engines can be blindly sent to do many things ..
i think jagger may be trying to deal with this amongst other issues.
|MSn and Y are slightly better about the actual number used .. |
So the bowlers don't block MSN and Y! bots?
Google knows who owns websites via their patent. If you buy up mega domains for such purposes expect them all to be trashed by the rest of us looking for such shady tricks. <grrrrrrrr>
You would be better served finding out what's wrong with your site.
Tell me about it, Leosghost :)
I also found a real nasty side effect of page theft that I don't even know if the thief anticipated. If a page with lots of relative links is stolen and that page has no base href tag (which isn't necessary for browsers or Googlebot on site so a lot of us don't bother with them), Googlebot can't follow the links correctly off the stolen page and tries to crawl my site for nonsense links that may appear to be duplicates.
So yeah. Lots of things competitors can do to hurt you. The interesting question is, is it competitors doing it deliberately by setting up scraper sites or is it just content thieves trying to make Google Adsense money by setting up these pseudo directories or stolen-page-in-frames sites? I guess the difference is the former would be predators deliberately trying to kill me, the latter parasites who simply don't care if their feeding off me results in my death.
You can't get a site penalized by mass linking to it no matter what keyword you use.
But you can mass link to a site for a month or 2 until google picks up all the links pointing to it which raises the competitors PR of their site slightly and then unlink from the site which causes the PR of the competitors site to drop suddenly which causes google to think the site is losing it's popularity and gets penalized because google thinks they are buying links.
It's all in the google patent which if they are using a websites "History" to rank sites according to "trends" or "sudden popularity" which causes a site to rank well when it's PR is rising and then drop in the SERP's when it's PR is falling then this is the way to make a site tank fast.
It is only possible to do this to lower PR sites. Whereas I think there has to be a high percentage of PR loss for a site to get banned from google for site wide link spamming.
It is harder to do to High PR sites because the decrease in PR is a very small percentage of loss to an allready high PR site so it would take a very high PR site to make another high PR site get a penalty from a high percentage loss in PR.
Does this make any sense?
There are soo many more simple ideas its not funny..
I have two that i am trialing.. if they work.. well lets say my compeditors who are cheating will never get back!
and the best part is i dont have to spend any money!
I already have the server and one domain can harm as many sites as I like....
Im not trying to hurt legitimate website only those that cheat!
The easiest way is duplicate content trick ;)
another one.. find their host.. buy some space, point about 1000 links to their site..
I think you are onto an issue that I have seen.
>>If a page with lots of relative links is stolen and that page has no base href tag (which isn't necessary for browsers or Googlebot on site so a lot of us don't bother with them), Googlebot can't follow the links correctly off the stolen page and tries to crawl my site for nonsense links that may appear to be duplicates. <<
My error logs are full of stuff that I can only attribute to this. I'm hoping that the jagger3 updates will address this. It is crazy that a site can be penalised for what an unknown site does to it, when that site "borrows" content.
I suspect that google does not really understand how bad the problem is of sites scrapping content from other sites, in an effort to rank well for search phrases that the other site ranks well for. I also think that they don't understand how to decide who had the original content.
A tad frustrating - what to do?
>> You can't get a site penalized by mass linking to it no matter what keyword you use.
The only case where I have seen anyone legitimately try and test this by setting up 100s of domains and pointing them at a site that was well-ranked... and created 100s of thousands of pages, nothing happened.
The site ended up with a ridiculous number of backlinks, but the site didn't disappear.
So if anyone can actually point to a CONTROLLED study where they have proven they can remove a site by pointing a lot of links at another site from 1 site or 100s of other sites, I would love to see it.
did it hurt?
aeiouy..depends again as I said on your text ..some text on some subjects is just removed automatically by the search engines as are it's landing page sites ( such as those dealing with reproduction and smaller versions of humans ..trying very very strongly to make the point without introducing keywords that have connotations ..read my lips ) ..get my point ....need a picture ..
sorry missed this one first time ..dont be silly ...paid cash ..or no trace ..just like any other "security assessment" job ...if one is *lucky* :)
|So if anyone can actually point to a CONTROLLED study |
otherwise one would be a script child ..wouldn't one
I think we are seeing a whiplash effect from inside Google rather than a spate of evil webmasters destroying sites.
My site got wiped off Google 3 months ago, totally gone without even registering its existence. It's been a PR5 for ages and is around 5 years old. About 2 weeks ago it returned to full power again and stayed untouched for about 12 days. The moment that my backlinks were being relisted Google trashed me again, back to PR0 and no listing.
I think that Google see the re-listing of my time served backlinks as new activity and is assuming that I am buying in links. Either there needs to be a few weeks amnesty for sites to get back established or the site listing should not be relisted until all backlink data is secure.
Speaking for myself, I have always seen other people's high listing as something to compete with and try to present better & more relevant content. I think that most webmasters act the same. I also think that we tend to blame our coding first and Google second. I think this time it's all Google and it is really destroying their credibility. I haven't seen such rubbish in the top ten since the days of the early porn wars.
Cheers All ...
|find their host.. buy some space, point about 1000 links to their site.. |
Buying your competitor's link partners can't be healthy either. Who keeps checking that everyone they link to still has clean content?
yeah. That's what happened to me and Googlebot kept trying to crawl links like:
What happens is because Apache lookback just keeps discarding the non-existent end parts until it hits a valid url it was like the scraper site had as many links as the page contained back to "stolen_page.html" on my site.
As the stolen page had a lot of links, I think it looked to Google like I had 50+ backlinks out there off this "page-in-frames" site.
In the worst case I had to delete the page (including removing it in Google) to stop it.
and if the page in question was your index page or some very valuable to you sales page etc or high converting adsense page for example ..you are forced to trash your own site ..
so people ..just keep saying to yourselves it cant happen ..only the "other guy" ever gets burgled too ..
There are some people here saying that adding 1000's of links to a competitors site from one site will only add to there add, i don't believe this is true at all. Google will see a huge influx of links, that must flag something in the algo, plus they will all be teh same keyword, tahst got to flag something as well!
I try to get a good split of keywords just for one page - just basic variations on the keyword.
I have had a few replies via sticky from people saying that they are trying something like this, or would like to do something like this as they have lost all faith in the way that Google works.
>Google knows who owns websites via their patent.
So what? I can use a hotmail account to set up the whois account in the name of the target. Now google thinks they own it. Use their host and rel links and what happens? Dont know, but since its Halloween, Im off to give it a try in the spirit of "trick or treat".
If this works, google will need to do some serious remodeling of their filters.
| This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35 (  2 ) > > |