homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.177.180
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 135 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 135 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 > >     
Notifying Webmasters of Penalties
Googles -30 Serp Penalty
jwc2349

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 5:18 pm on Nov 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

According to Adam Lasnik in a post on October 20 at [groups.google.com...]

"...We really do our best to be as detailed as possible in our guidelines and our overall help docs. We also notify a huge number of Webmasters with regards to existing or upcoming penalties..."

I wonder:

1) how many out there active in these newsgroups have been notified by Google of: a) existing penalties and b) upcoming penalties

2) Since the hottest topic today appears to be the -30 serp penalty (which I have been a victim of for almost 11 months), how many out there have been notified of the reason for this specific penalty?

3) What reason did Google give you for this -30 serp penalty?

4) How many of you have actually recovered from this -30 serp penalty?

 

trinorthlighting

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 8:46 pm on Nov 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

That sends out a very bad signal to webmasters who are looking for adword alternatives. Search really needs to think this through a bit more before it opens up a very large can of worms.

When webmasters buy links, we are spending money with another company in good faith that links will be placed on good sites and we will get traffic. If that company uses hidden text google should inform me so I can fire them. They should not penalize, just discount!

avalanche101

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 8:57 pm on Nov 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Really do agree with recent posts by trinorthlighting and others on purchasing links for advertising.
I think we may have suffered recently because of this,
Purchasing links on newspaper websites and certain technical websites brings in so much traffic, that its actually a shrood thing to do in terms of getting customers to your site. We can't just rely on adwords, banners are a waste of time.
Newspapers and technical sites always have high PR.
Here's a suggestion, instead of tanking an entire site that you've ranked consistantly well for 5 years, just don't pass on the PR - don't want it, don't need it, its a meaningless concept.
Particularly if the link advert is appearing in a box on a site clearly marked ADVERTISING.

jetteroheller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jetteroheller us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 9:22 pm on Nov 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

When webmasters buy links, we are spending money with another company in good faith that links will be placed on good sites and we will get traffic. If that company uses hidden text google should inform me so I can fire them. They should not penalize, just discount!

Not the buyer, only the seller is penalized.

I am just thinking about my situation.

My main domain hat around 4000 pages. Each page has 2 links to my web promotion company.

Now this domain is again in a filter. The web promotion company web site is in very good condition.

So take the logic: "No web site can influence an other web site negative"

So there is a buyer and a seller of links. Who has full control over the links? The buyer or the seller? The seller!

So which domain to penalize? Natural the seller.
Why the seller? Otherwise somebody could cereat the domain
i-destroy-my-compeitior.com with 1 million pages each linking to the competitor.

So with the logic, nobody should be able to have an negative influence on an other web site, only the site i-destroy-my-competitor.com can be penalized.

So and now I sleep over the descision to remove about 8000 links, it had been such a good idea, 5 years ago.

[edited by: jetteroheller at 9:25 pm (utc) on Nov. 6, 2006]

Bewenched

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 9:24 pm on Nov 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

It seems to imply that purchased links may not only be ignored, they might even be penalized.

I find this very disturbing indeed. Basically they "could" be saying that any advertising link ... be it a text ad, link ad or banner from any other source than google would cause you to be penalized.

If this is true then Google is really opening themselves up for trouble with the government. It could be viewed as an attempt to create a monopoly on internet advertising and be in violation with the Federal Trade Comission Anti Trust Laws.

While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete.

One would hope that Google's legal department would be aware of this.

trinorthlighting

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 9:39 pm on Nov 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

How can google determine if the link was put there in the hidden text on the buried page on purpose or if it was done on accident? That itself is a very large can of worms indeed. This issue is more than likely raising a lot of eyebrows and making people think!

jetteroheller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jetteroheller us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 9:43 pm on Nov 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

I find this very disturbing indeed. Basically they "could" be saying that any advertising link ... be it a text ad, link ad or banner from any other source than google would cause you to be penalized

Read my post and think again about it.

It seems only the seller and not the buyer has the problem.

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 10:35 pm on Nov 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Adam_Lasnik


How does google distinguish between links that have been bought for advertising and links that have been bought for page rank manipulation? Or does google distinguish between the two?

Yes, we do have a pretty strong ability to discern intent in this area. A site that's buying links on high-PR sites with *clearly* no interest in or reasonable expectation of actual traffic... it does set off alarm bells. And sometimes it's rather amusingly blatant ("But Adam... I really do expect thousands of eager targeted visitors to my Icelandic-Cheap-Flights.tv site from that tiny white-on-white text link buried 3 levels deep on PR7 HotGardeningTips4U.info!")

No system is perfect, and we're always refining how we interpret intent and how we use this and related information to improve our search results. And not just in the aggregate sense: many of us Googlers are regularly using individuals' sites mentioned around the Web (including on our own Webmaster Help Google Group) as valuable data points. :)

First off, I admire your courage, Adam. I really do. Because you are saying it all about how little control Google has on the sell/buy links marketplace:

"No system is perfect, and we're always refining how we interpret intent and how we use this and related information to improve our search results."

I have a feeling that your current "control system" is leaving the big fishes pass, and instead focus your efforts in chasing small fishes :-)

C'mon Adam, you must know most of the link sellers with high PR values. Why not start there, for a change :-)

trinorthlighting

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 10:44 pm on Nov 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes, I have to agree. Going after the guys who bought the links is wrong.

If a webmaster wants to buy links where do most search for services?

I would say google.com

If a service uses bad practices that goes against google guidelines, then google should not list the service in the serps or show them via adwords advertisements.

Whitey

WebmasterWorld Senior Member whitey us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 11:19 pm on Nov 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't read Adam's post as saying all link advertising is *bad*.

What I read is "buying high PR links " for manipulating PR is *bad*

In moderation, buying advertising which is *relevant* and on topic , i believe, is tolerated. Somewhere, I've seen Adam specifically refer to acceptablity of a small number of links.

avalanche101

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 11:41 pm on Nov 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

RE: In moderation, buying advertising which is *relevant* and on topic , i believe, is tolerated. Somewhere, I've seen Adam specifically refer to acceptablity of a small number of links.

Why in moderation?
Why is that acceptable?
Could G give us a figure on this small number acceptable number of links?
Maybe they should put this in bold in font size 48 on their guide to webmasters.
If I purchased 1000 links on say a 1000 different newspaper websites, yes they have high PR, but they have something far more valuable - access to customers.
So google would think I'm after their precious PR and penalities would be overflowing.

I think this goes to show they are not even approaching a reasonable understanding of the motivations of website owners and online businesses in general.

Adam_Lasnik

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 12:07 am on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Whitey's on the right track.
As I've noted elsewhere on WebmasterWorld, Google has no beefs about buying or selling online advertising -- through us or anyone else :).

We will take action to level the playing field, however, when we see *significant patterns* of sites buying or selling links for the clear purpose of manipulating their ranking (rather than buying traffic).

Does this mean that we'll lock you in a closet with Vanna White if your site -- PopularVowels.com -- links to your girlfriend's uncle's pride and joy: WeirdAlPolkas.info? (assuming, in this case, that there's little topical link between the two).

Or, less whimsically, if you place an ad in an online zine, from which you can reasonably expect to get some traffic?

Hey, those surely aren't red flags :).

Our aim isn't to stifle linking, nor facilitate nasty competitor tricks. Rather, it's to encourage natural linking (to your friend, to a site you love, to a site that's a natural complement to what you're selling or espousing) and to dampen the allure of buying links to artificially inflate the ranking of your site or someone else's.

More later...

[edited by: Adam_Lasnik at 12:08 am (utc) on Nov. 7, 2006]

lfgoal

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 4:57 am on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

"We will take action to level the playing field, however, when we see *significant patterns* of sites buying or selling links for the clear purpose of manipulating their ranking (rather than buying traffic)."

That's great to hear. I think its fine and logical for site operators to try to gain traffic.

However, there's a flip side to this argument: there are sites that have been able to get to the top of certain niches by doing nothing but buying links, typically through online newspapers, as featured in TLA. Some of these sites have been very successful at dominating a niche with less than 1 percent of their backlinks being the result of democratic votes from other sites.

I don't think a website should be penalized for advertising in online publications like this (that sometimes offer hundreds and even thousands of links). But, by the same token, I don't think a site should be able to climb over the bodies of its competitors by simply purchasing a few hundred or a few thousand links. Rankings on google shouldn't be about the ability of a site to buy links in sufficient numbers to blast the doors off its competitors.

Bewenched

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 6:51 am on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Jetteroheller, I was responding to what Tedster had said earlier in the thread. But if they were to penalize the purchaser of the link the action could be considered very questionable to the FTC.

I seriously doubt that they are punishing the purchaser... probably just not giving pr weight to the page.

-----
.. just wanted to add that as a site owner .. not a MFA site .. I see hundreds .. if not thousands of sites with adsense all over them .. stealing my content .. stealing title, description .. etc.. with domain names like Icelandic-Cheap-Flights.tv and putting links to my site all over them. I dont want these links .. I dont buy these links and yet they pop up all over the place so some goob can make a penny on an adsense click.

Oh .. the best domain name yet was a domain name relating to feminine hygene products .. My gosh ... we're an auto parts dealer for goodness sake!

Sadly site owners can do nothing about this theft of content....or what type of site links to us.... we report one .. and ten take their place... If I spent all the time necessary reporting these guys i'd never get my job done of taking care of my customers.

Sorry for the rant.

[edited by: Bewenched at 7:01 am (utc) on Nov. 7, 2006]

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 11:41 am on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi Folks

I can't really see why it should be a problem for Google in general and Google WebSpam Team in particular to identify sellers of "PR-Links" with main purpose to pass PR juice to byers sites.

Selling Links with rel=nofollow .. thats advertising (or generating traffic)

Selling Links WITHOUT rel=nofollow.. thats passing PR juice (and generating traffic as a side effect).

As simple as that ;-)

Lets take an example from real life. A site of PR10 selling links without rel=nofollow. Thats passing PR juice. Though the sold links would also generate some/much traffic to the buyers sites.

avalanche101

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 11:55 am on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Adam,
Thank you for taking the time to clear that up.

lfgoal
I couldn't agree more. They shouldn't be able to dominate a niche, just because they're able to purchase thousands of links, but equally so they shouldn't be penalised for this either. There has to be a way to view certain links as pure advertising, without them giving an unfair advantage via a PR boost, or trigger some penality for attempting to manipulate PR.
If they could sort that out it really would level the playing field and we might see the return of some of the mum and pop sites that have suffered much lately.

lfgoal

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 1:41 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

"If they could sort that out it really would level the playing field and we might see the return of some of the mum and pop sites that have suffered much lately. "

You know, it really is becoming more common where sites can buy their way to the top by purchasing "sponsor links" on legitimate sites like newspapers that themselves have thousands of pages.

Yes, respectable and established newspaper sites are making an editorial decision and exercising a democratic vote when they allow an advertiser to purchase a text link. But--and this has been said so many times before--that vote should not be allowed to count over and over and over again. It's like rigging an election.

If someone buys text links in The Charlotte Observer, for example, and the link appears on 100 pages, why should the purchaser/advertiser get the benefit of an editorial decision/democratic vote counting 100 times. It should count once.

If google wanted to clamp down on this (and send a message that this was no longer a viable means of manipulating rankings), it would be fairly simple. Just go to TLA and other link brokers, see which very large blogs, newspapers, and other sites (many well known sites) are selling text links that appear on multiple pages, and block their ability to pass reputation. It would take a handful of google staffers less than a week to identify most of the heavy-hitter pagerank passers.

You wouldn't get but a smidgeon of the total, but if you hit the big ones like this, it would send a message that links should be purchased for advertising, not rank manipulation (and then it would be really interesting to see who continued to buy links and which sites continued to be successful at selling them).

But, more importantly, it would get to the core of a growing problem on google: people with deep pockets being able to buy their way to the top of a given serps by buying huge blocks of links from otherwise respectable sites. If you go to some of these newspaper sites, you'll see the sponsor links down at the very bottom of the page, well away from the page content. Does anyone think this is really generating traffic? Not me. It's for anchor text and link acquisition and clobbering competitors.

BTW, thanks very much Adam for all the input you provide.

jetteroheller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jetteroheller us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 3:38 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

I removed today around 19000 links from some of my web sites to my internet promotion company web site.

According to this threat, it could be seen like my web sites would be selling links to my internet promotion company web site.

lfgoal

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 3:56 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

If you look at the bottom of every WebmasterWorld page, you'll see a link to BestBBS. Yahoo site explorer shows 129,000 links, presumably all from WebmasterWorld. I guess Brett's not worried. And shouldn't have a reason to.

jwc2349

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 4:22 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Adam:

Thanks for joining this discussion. I really appreciate your insight and adding enlightenment to this -30 serp problem. This hot topic has been in the "dark" way too long. So please continue shedding light on the subject. If you need anyone to hold the flashlight, please send me a sticky mail. :)

That said, I have a few comments:

Posted Statement:

"...Adam, most people are claiming that they have unwiitingly broken googles rules, and would gladly fix the problem, except they don't know what the problem is, or that if they fix it, whether it will do any good, as the penalty may last for years..."

Your Answer:

"...I think it'd be a rare occurrence to see rankings or penalties lasting for years. With that said, I also know that there are some cases in which Webmasters genuinely don't know how their site is violating our guidelines and would indeed "gladly fix the problem" if they had more information. We're constantly trying to think of ways to effectively balance disclosures to well-meaning Webmasters while not helping the iterative process for Webmasters intending to deceive Google and Google users. As I noted earlier, we're also improving and expanding our documentation so that there'll be more "ah ha! That's what I need to fix!" moments...."

I reiterate my proposed solution in [groups.google.com...] That way Google would at least be proactive. I think it would be rather simple to identify these whitehats and communicate with them. You already have a long list of the blackhats that break the rules.

I thrive on competition. If someone outranks me I devote all my energy to beating them in the serps. And to my knowledge everything I have ever done has been 100% whitehat. (However, I do acknowledge that the outside programmers I hired last fall evidently did some screwy things, especially generating 302s and incorrect 301s.) So if Google has found anything fishy with my site I definitely want to know about it and I assure you it will be rectified immediately.

However, it sure is hard to compete when you suddenly fall 30 positions in the serps and stay there for 11 months. And nothing you do improves those rankings. And there is no enlightenment from Google.

IMHO, for Google to not proactively and aggressively notify these whitehat webmasters of the reasons they are penalized is totally unfair and thwarts competition, allowing the spammers to succeed.

To hide behind the premise that you don't want to tip off the unscrupulous webmasters is a very weak argument. Heck we want to expose them too. But not allowing us whitehats to get above #31 is benefitting those spammers by stifling competition.

I think Google should immediately rescind the -30 serp penalty for those sites that have been impacted for 6 months or longer. Then notify them of the reasons for the penalty in the first place. Then if those problems are not fixed within 7 days, don't just penalize them ban them.

That would be a whole lot fairer than the policy Google follows now.

trinorthlighting

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 4:22 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

You have no reason at all to worry about links if your a well established site. If your the small guy you do have to worry.

Google should never penalize, only discount links. That way it would level the field.

This shows the flaw in using links to evaluate a ecomerce website!

This is an issue google should clear up. How many ecommerce sites would love to purchase thousands of advertising links at lower prices than use adwords, but are afraid to do so because it "Might" adversly effect our good rankings? We do not know what are good companies to use and what companies google penalizes. Google should divulge that information so honest webmasters can drive traffic to our sites!

jetteroheller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jetteroheller us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 4:40 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

You have no reason at all to worry about links if your a well established site. If your the small guy you do have to worry

I would call my main site well established

Up since April 1997

Since 1998 around 25 thousend visitors a month.

This well establisehed site roller coasters around since June 27th

idolw

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 5:23 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Selling Links with rel=nofollow .. thats advertising (or generating traffic)

Selling Links WITHOUT rel=nofollow.. thats passing PR juice (and generating traffic as a side effect).

As simple as that ;-)

this is google's problem, not webmasters.

and google know it. simply, they cannot afford to kick out the sites that buy traffic from virtually everywhere. just have a look at this travel advice site that shows up for virtually any travel search. they will get links on each and every domain soon.

but google know they are not cool enough to kick this travel advice site out of their index. simply, their SERPs would lose on quality.

they were cool enought to kick BMW for 24 hours. and this is it. I believe they were on the line with BMW officials just before they announced that. now it is too late it to prove that it was like that but it is too late for G to prove that they would keep BMW out for months if the big car maker would not repair their site, too. ;-)

i am big travel advice site's competitor in some small way and appreciate big site creators. however, they apparently run on steroids all the time.

this is why they must target small guys without high street names.

yes, i may sound paranoic but i am not, believe me ;)

avalanche101

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 8:23 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi,
Just to confirm (I'm pretty sure I haven't seen it stated) if you find a search for a URL coming up on the fourth page of returned results it is a penalty, not just a strange temporary result?
Otherwise we could all be chasing our tails over an anomaly.

tedster

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 8:54 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

The phenomenon as I understand it, is that ANY keyowrd search where a URL from the domain used to come up in the first three pages, now returns that URL at position #31. This includes, most starkly, the search results where the domain name is used as a search term -- but it also includes any other terms that used to rank quite high. Everything is knocked down to position #31.

Also note, there is a thread here that is directly about the minus thirty penalty [webmasterworld.com].

This present thread is about "Notifying Webmasters of Penalties". It's best to keep the two topics discrete.

quotations

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 9:10 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Because when I watch the superbowl I see all kinds of ads that have nothing to do with football. But the advertisers are placing their ads there because of all the eyeballs they can catch.

A major metropolitan newspaper wrote an (unsolicited) article about one of my sites a short few days ago and now Google has banned that site.

That seems like a fairly clear example of a defect in some part of the filtering/ranking criteria.

[edited by: quotations at 9:20 pm (utc) on Nov. 7, 2006]

quotations

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 9:20 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

We will take action to level the playing field, however, when we see *significant patterns* of sites buying or selling links for the clear purpose of manipulating their ranking (rather than buying traffic).

I am aware of a case where buying one link on a newspaper site led to the permanent ban by Google of a site that was the top authority in the industry for the previous three years.

quotations

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 9:36 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

If you go to some of these newspaper sites, you'll see the sponsor links down at the very bottom of the page, well away from the page content. Does anyone think this is really generating traffic? Not me.

The site I mention above (now banned by Google) is listed last in a list of articles on that newspaper page index for the (rather strange) category it has been placed in.

[think along the lines of a site about eating widgets listed in a category about the science of widgets]

That link at the bottom of the page has been used to visit the site over 2000 times so far today.

trinorthlighting

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 9:59 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Quotations,

That is very interesting indeed. Google's current policies about notifying webmaster is not in place. How many penalty sites have who have been penalized recently have been notified? Anyone?

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 11:17 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

idolw

Selling Links with rel=nofollow .. thats advertising (or generating traffic)

Selling Links WITHOUT rel=nofollow.. thats passing PR juice (and generating traffic as a side effect).

As simple as that ;-)

this is google's problem, not webmasters.

Ultimately its the problem of both Google and webmasters. Because if webmasters are interested in fairplay on the Google's serps regarding Buy/Sell of PR-Links, both Google and webmasters have to cooperate to resolve the said problem.

And luckely that could be done very easily as follows:

Within Google's sitemaps adding a link under (+Tools) to the effect; Report PR-Links Seller

That way the friends at Google WebSpam Team show the webmasters communities that they really mean business!

trinorthlighting

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 11:41 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

I do not agree reseller, we should not have to tell google we mean business, if we have an ecommerce site its obvious we are in business. Google should know that most ecommerce links are advertising....

whitenight

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3142434 posted 11:43 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

reseller, still positioning to get link-buyers/sellers in trouble I see? cute.
-----

Adam,

Honestly, what is the percentage of webmasters who are trying to follow your ambigious guidelines vs. those looking to push the envelope or are outright black-hatters?

Sounds like you all at the 'Plex are still stuck in the "all webmasters are :cough: alledgely trying to game you" mentality.
That's really a shame. Good luck continuing to fight that battle.

And as mentioned above, as far as G's "link-buying/selling" mechanism...
You are kidding, right?

Again, the only sites I see getting penalized are the mom-and-pop sites looking to make a little extra money or trying to compete with internet "brand name" companies WHO BUY ALL THEIR LINKS.

Let's see G crack down on those "Internet 500"(SM) companies with millions of dollars invested in gaming Google before you start patting yourself on the back about your effectiveness on catching JoeBlowUniversity.edu selling a link to MomAndPopTravelPortal.com, eh?

[edited by: whitenight at 11:56 pm (utc) on Nov. 7, 2006]

This 135 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 135 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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