How much manual intervention took place in the SJ results?

[TheAutarch]

I think a few whiners here have been satisfied recently. I'm not going to get specific but I know of some sites that have been knocked down a few notches recently on SJ. Some completely disappeared.

Definitely not the product of shuffling results. So, can I really get my competitors out of the way if I point out that their H1 is a little too small and that I suspect they are paying for links?

[chris_f]

Welcome to WebmasterWorld TheAutarch,

First, let me address the SJ server. While I agree that the results are not shuffling I have read that the SJ server contains a mix of old and new results. As such a large chuck of sites are missing. I don't believe that the results from this server can indicate what the index while look like. However, it is handy for algo analysis.

So, can I really get my competitors out of the way if I point out that their H1 is a little too small and that I suspect they are paying for links?

Doubtful. While google takes spamming very seriously they can't ban every site suspected of doing what you are saying. I believe you will only see a site getting banned if they were doing more than just the above.

Chris

[Mike12345]

No-one can tell you, apart from GG of course, how much manual work has been done on the SERPS for sj. But its worth a look througt the masses of google update threads to see what people think is goin on.

To summarize, i get the general impression that there are a lot more things to factored in to the serps we see now on sj. So the sites that have gone MIA may return.

With regard to your competitors are been unethical with there SEO, then you should send spam reports to the necessary folks.

But its worth a mention that you would have a hard time proving that they are paying for links for PR and not for traffic purposes. Remebering there is nothing wrong with sponsoring a link for traffic purposes.

:) Just my two bob.

[fathom]

But its worth a mention that you would have a hard time proving that they are paying for links for PR and not for traffic purposes. Remebering there is nothing wrong with sponsoring a link for traffic purposes.

Even if this were a fact (PR Buying) > the fault isn't in the buying... but the selling.

On that note: as long as the "selling" isn't using the PageRank trademark as the benefiting promotion (without permission) there isn't much unethical > paid for inclusion isn't limited to search engines.

As far as manual exclusion from results > I would tend to believe this rarely occurs. Manual processes are expensive processes, automation is cheap.