Forum Moderators: open
I just came across an "AD"_"ULT" site that had 600+ plus keywords in the body text - no sentances or paragraphs just S-P_A_M. It had a PR4 - so why bother trying to be "organic" and working within the rules when a site like this can get away with 99.95 % s-p-a-m, no content and PR4?
Chris.
Google is not a grammar checker. There is no requirement that words on the page are arranged in sentences, or in any order.
What is required is that what the crawler sees is what the user sees. you don't mention that the text is hidden, only that it is in the body of the page and therefore, I assume, visible. There's nothing wrong with that at all.
Are the words on the page related to the words you searched for? Then it's not spam. Whether they make sense and provide you with what you want or any further information is irrelevant.
"no content".. If the words are visible, the page has "content". The quality of the content is a subjective question... but not its existence. A fruit bowl full of oranges has "content"... a septic tank half full of, well, that stuff, has "content". If you are looking for one, you will not be pleased to find the other... but you cannot say there is "no content".
'Keyword spamming' more often refers to abuse of the meta tag, which is why Google largely ignores it these days.
I don't think use of keywords within the body of a page can be regarded as spam... there are too many variables:
Consider a page with a photo on it and a one word title under the photo - 100% density, but perfectly appropriate to the page.
A sales page with photos of 12 widgets in varying sizes... 3/4in widgets, 1.5in widgets, etc. Density could easily be 50% or more, but it ain't spam.
PR4? That ain't too hard to beat. If you have a site that is relevant to the search and well-optimised for the search term, you shouldn't find it too hard to blow them out of the water.
I tend to believe the above is true whether one pops a search at a dominant SE, or at a less dominant SE. I'd love to someday be proven wrong, but I also believe I'll end up simply settling for finding what I'm hunting more times than I do not.
keyword spamming might be something you keep in the meta keyword tag - however if you repeat the keyword 1000 times in the text without any structure - sounds like spamming to me!
Perhaps what is discussed here is all theoretical and there are spammers out there making a killing while we are discussing "ethical" SEO amd "organic" SEO.
PR4 and NO PENALTIES for spam sounds pretty good to me. Explain that to a customer who wants to compete in their market!
P.S. I did not search for this filth - it found me - keyword spamming does work!
The same page could be a PR10 if it had enough inbound links.
I understand that - but apparently S_P_A_M gets you penalized - or does it?
PR4 for spamming words all over your page - not too shabby.
Anyone have a PR of 4 or less who have used "organic" SEO and feel foolish?
I see what you're saying, but unless someone did a spam report, how would Google be able to tell the difference between a list of spam words and any other type of list, for example a list of states or countries.
My guess is that Google simply treats something like this as just another useless page with no relevant content. If 30 other pages want to waste their PR linking to this page, Google will simply let the algo take care of the whole mess.
Sorry - its become a habit not to spell it "ad ult" out of a paranoid sense of Googlebot watching my every move.
I type in <snip> and got a site for p0rn.
<snip> must have been buried in the spam words...LOL!
Chris.
[edited by: lawman at 4:42 am (utc) on May 18, 2003]
[edit reason] No keywords from which a specific site can be found [/edit]
