Forum Moderators: open
Epromos has had three website
http://www.epromos.com
<snip>
Call all of them and you will see that they answer and operated all of these websites as Epromos and owned by the same person: Jason Robins. The question is will Google still allow a company to cheat since they pad Google's pockets?
This company has 10-20 websites and the receptionist even brags about it. Every one of these websites are answered as PromoPeddler. SPAM! SPAM! SPAM! but yet Google has them #1 & #6 under promotional items. Google do cheaters win in your directory? Well, obviously they do.
http://www.promopeddler.com
<snip>
and many, many more! They all answer to PromoPeddler and all are owned and operated by PromoPeddler.
I guess that would make them *authoritative* ;)
The whole p.r. concept while being a neat utopian idea where the democracy of webmaster links determines rank... never really works for this very reason. First there were webrings, then link farms, and now outright candy coated p.r. transfer for a fee.
Giving us all the tools to check p.r. pretty much just put every site on the internet into a caste system. Nobody links to a site because the site would be nice for their site visitors... it's all about the green bar.
Back on the topic... are the sites "spammy"? it's a judgement call. Are they "spam"? That is for Google to decide since they own the search engine. On a scale of 1 to 10... are the multiple sites there to increase the customer shopping experience being a 1... and there just to rank for both pens and mugs in the serps being a 10... it's a judgement where you feel comfortable drawing the line. I think the line is fast disappearing altogether or seo professionals. Just my opinion from the change in tone between these two threads. Anyway, it's probably been beat to death by now.
<snip>
I am appauled that webmaster world accept these unethical practices. Especially Brett.
who cares it you have purchased from them. They are spammers, clear as day.
If I employ these tactics I could have 20 sites up in a month. I dont because I am better than that. >>>>>>>
SO, BRETT DIFFERENT LOOK BUT SAME CONTENT! I KNOW, I KNOW, IT'S YOUR BUDDY SO, IT'S NOT SPAM, RIGHT?
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 4:40 pm (utc) on April 20, 2004]
[edit reason] we aren't doing specifics jb. [/edit]
Please, please, please go work on your site.
You have not only beat this dead horse, you are mutilating it.
We do not agree with you, and you do not agree with us. You will not convince us, we will not convince you.
We disagree. We honestly believe we are right, and you honestly believe you are right.
Just get over you conspiracy theories. Brett is not defending a friend, and neither am I. We are just saying that we disagree with you that it is spam.
Do you allow for that in your mind that someone can disagree with you?
You don't have to accept that we are right, but I hope you can accept that people can *honestly* look at the same facts as you, and come to a different conclusion.
We understand your point and disagree with it. It is that simple. It is time to walk away from the dead horse.
Now, can you please let this die, and go work on your site?
I wish there were more site reviews here. That will be very educational. Like examine Amazon one week, and ebay the next.
I looked at the e-mail address in the profile, and searched for the precious term "promotional items" and the last name. This site had two hits, one for Jay, and one for Joy. And whoever owns it REALLY want to rank high for promotional items. In fact they rank #3 on Yahoo, so the site is probably makeing a decent living for someone.
<snip>
Brett, go ahead and delete it if this goes over the line in any way.
1. Targetting different genders. Male and female users 'could' be stimulated to buy in different ways. How about a friendly pink powder puff site for the boys and a sleek space age black and silver one for the girls. (Ducks for cover - it was meant to illustrate my point and for no other reason)
2. Targetting different ethnic groups. If you study colour use across the continents you will see what I mean (Can someone remind what the bad luck colour was in China?)
3. Targetting different social segments - now i'm going to bore you with discourse on differentiation of the landed gentry, the nouveau riche and the downtrodden proletariat - or is that - i'm tellin' you abaht the working class and the f***ing toffs mate.
4 Targetting different age groups - I'd definitely not use the same design on a site for 15-25s as for 45-65s.
We are working in an environment where 'One size defnitely doesn't fit all'
In the context of this debate there are different issues in that compared with the bricks and mortar marketplace there are significantly less high street store fronts available for business to take up.
There just comes a time when you have say enough-is-enough. When people are so clueless as to what spam is, that they claim spam when they so much as see title tag replicated in actual content.
Those sites are clearly "spamming". Search engines define spamming as doing anything that artificially boosts the rank of your page. Buying thousands of high PR backlinks on unrelated topics certainly counts?
I have been concerned about my clients two TLD's being defined as spam. companyname.com and companyname.ca
Maybe the spam experts here can set me straight.
There is only one site and one set of pages, depending on the domain name in the url I decide which prices to show. Everything is exactly the same except prices and in some product categories certain products are only available in canada so they are not shown at all in the .com site. (maybe 10% of products)
I'm I being nailed for spamming whereas the aforementioned company(s) are not? If so there is no way out for me. I can not differentiate between products on seperate sites because it is the consumers location that is different not the product. It would be quite unfair to have to write two sets of copy being careful not to reuse phrases etc.
In a related situation I was reading that google may now be indexing javascript links. The site in question has a javascript menu system with links as:
[page.asp?prodid=x]
and also a semi-static page named for the product:
[product-x.asp]
I did this because previously the javascript menu would not allow robots to find the pages. If G is now indexing those javascript links will we be penalized for having 1200 duplicate pages? (One static, one dynamic for each page of the site) Compound that be COM/CA and we would have 4 duplicate pages for every page on our site.
Clearly to the human eye this is not spamming. Are the robots so dicerning?
Thanks for any advice.
<<feels the urge to say something inflamatory for the attention but gets ahold of himself>>
This is marketing by attempting to "crowd out" the competition, and its in nobodies favor except the company doing the marketing - in particular it reduces the "real" choices of the customers looking for products and services online. Search engines should rightfully discourage this kind of tactic because it truly does reduce the usefulness of the search results.
Similar tactics in the brick and mortar world are self-regulating because it costs big bucks to set up additional stores/brands etc. Online its a different story, so trying to draw exact parallels between brick and mortar business and the internet really doesn't hold up.
AFAIK several members are doing the same things as you without problems. But we had better wait for the experts' judgement.
fanatastic, tommorrow I am starting my geographic targeting strategy. I have a database of 20000 products. I am going to target by city - country. Each city - country I choice will have a different site, each with 1500 pages. By the end of the year I will have 240 sites up. These sites will have the same items and text and images. But I am segmenting my target market so it is acceptable. Right?
Sheesh. I think most people would agree there is a difference between artificially targeting a group with generic content, and having a site that naturally targets a group by virtue of the products/services it provides (which is what I was trying to refer to). Good luck on that geo-targeting campaign though!
These sites will have the same items and text and images
trimmer80 This is hardly segmenting your target market. I would suggest that if you could justify having seperate content or design for the residents of San Francisco to those of say Los Angeles then you are justified in your breakdown into individual sites.
On the other hand I think that the cultural differences between those cities is too small to justify seperate sites.
But your point highlights nicely the gray areas that are involved in such decision making, what one person thinks acceptable another thinks is spam. Then if try and look at automating the process (which a search engine will always try to do) it becomes even more horrendous.
I definately agree, this is my point exactly. The sites in question has the same content, different design and navigation. But products - text and images are identical, thus not targeting by virtue of the products/services.
Ian.
>>>>>>>>>>trimmer80 This is hardly segmenting your target market.
again this is my argument. The site in question has the same content/products
please refer to msg 82 for examples
Any comments from my previous post about what is probably a very common issue for many webmasters?
Thanks
epromos is definitely downmarket aiming at a less eloquent audience than 123Imprint, which is targetting a more corporate marketplace. Lots of subtle differences between the sites, you can even start with the two straplines
epromos - 'The promo know-how people'
123Imprint - 'It's your brand. Promote it.'
They really say it all, the first one says your not clever enough to understand marketing and you probably don't have your own marketing department. The second says your the marketing manager of a fairly big company and know what you want.
It seems that the acceptance of duplicate content / products comes down to the sites overall positioning strategy. If a site is targeted at a different segment of the market than the other site, it is deemed acceptable. But this differentiation has to be significant enough to validate a whole new design.
I believe that the site in question is on the wrong side of the line, other believe it is the right side. Looks like it is too close to call.
One thing for sure. If we find it this hard to agree then google is not going to penalise these sites in the near future.
but, where is jb? an offer for a site review and no response for hours? I wanna see your site, too.
>>>>>>>>>>Sorry guys, I am with Jb 100% on this one
By Googles TC this is spam and it cannot be anything but. The products text and images are identical. The category structure is identical. This guys is using the same database with different interfaces. It is duplicate content. I give you the first page I browsed to:
123imprint.com/promotional-automotive-products-car-wash-kits.html
epromos.com/ProductIndex/BrowseCategory.jhtml?categoryId=458
Same Content, Different Sites, Same Owner = SPAM.
I am appauled that webmaster world accept these unethical practices. Especially Brett.
who cares it you have purchased from them. They are spammers, clear as day.
If I employ these tactics I could have 20 sites up in a month. I dont because I am better than that.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
Pretty cut and dry that this is spam - duplicate content with a twist (different look, different toll number but the same company processing the orders for the same products).
That equals SPAM!
I do apologise for getting my back up over this. I just dont like being told my opinion is worthless and I am clueless because I disagree on such a subjective topic.
SO, BRETT DIFFERENT LOOK BUT SAME CONTENT! I KNOW, I KNOW, IT'S YOUR BUDDY SO, IT'S NOT SPAM, RIGHT?
That looks more like an accusation with a confirming query at the end. How rude of you.
Try re-asking it in a nice way, without combining all sorts of discrete pieces into one wacked out question.
<added>How can someone answer a question like that? JB, try answering it yourself and figure out a truth able for what the answer would mean. It is virtually impossible.</added>
JB - It's unfair to accuse somebody of a motive when in reality that is just a guess because you don't like what you are hearing.
I think pageoneresults hit the nail ob the head. Great exposure for that site, maybe I will order some stuff off it later today.
Regarding, the question to Brett, ok: Brett after reviewing the example that I posted several times about the two links from the two websites in question (ePromos & 123imprint) - what do you take and gather from the fact that the results come up exactly the same, same products, same info from two web sites that have two different looks and two different toll free numbers but are the orders for the same products are processed by the same company?
How is the bigDave?
Oh, hooray. JB123 is resorting to Ad Hominem arguments.
You have SERP envy - that's when you think that anyone that is above you must be cheating because you're not number one.
If you can't do what it takes to be #1 for "promotional items", maybe you need to look for a less competitive niche [google.com].
This is not about rich versus poor, or "bribes" or "preferential treatment". It's a winning marketing strategy that is beating the pants off the competition.
