Google did not notice this!

It is really working!

[hotice_2002]

I found one compnay is using the follwing code to spam google, and google did not notice this kind of spam.

Code:

<div id="text" style="position:absolute; width:693px; height:1px; z-index:1; left: 49px; top: 18px;">
<marquee direction="up" width="1" height="1">
Hidden text & more hidden text!
</marquee>
</div>

[Marcia]

The problem is, that many more people will now be reading this post and deciding to do the same thing. So what would we do then?

Maybe we shouldn't be telling people how to spam Google right out here in public. What do you think about that?

[edited by: Marcia at 2:06 pm (utc) on May 9, 2004]

[SlowMove]

>The problem is, that many more people will be reading this and deciding to do the same thing.

including GG?

[mifi601]

well, maybe googleguy will read it too and tell it to the tech guys ...

edit: SlowMove you beat me to it ..

[djgreg]

I think Google know what is working and what is not working. Maybe the algo just needs time to catch this spammer?

[bsand715]

Spam or good SEO?

Only the Google Guy knows:)

[SlowMove]

It's a cat and mouse game. In this case, the mouse may need to start over and get a new website.

[mifi601]

SlowMve - maybe the mouse could stay in the house for a while ... put the tags in a linked css file, change the size slightly dynamically every time it's accessed, ...

[Spica]

Speaking about spam techniques that work well with Google, here is one that I discovered recently. I call that an ANCHOR TEXT FARM. I don't know if this is new, but I have noticed a site that never was before on the first page of SERPs for keywords I watch suddenly appear near the top and staying there. Brief investigation revealed a (perhaps not very large) group of sites that link to each other. Most noticeable is the fact that they provide not just one link, but a whole bunch of links to both the index page and selected inner pages of the other sites, with all possible variations of the best keywords for the receiving site. The sites I checked are in different, though somewhat related areas.

The idea is clever because it builds upon many of the things that Google likes nowadays: 1) incoming links from other sites with great anchor text, 2) plenty of good and varied keywords on their own pages, and 3) linking out to related sites, which makes them "authority sites" (a great concept, but a complete joke in practice...as we all know from seeing all these junky pseudo-directories in the current SERPs).

[john alphaone]

There's 1001 ways of doing hidden text and they're all a waste of time IMHO. If those keywords are remotely competitive then the page is not going to rank well for them unless they're also in the page title or the anchor text of a backlink.

[lazyz]

There doesn't seem much need to hide text with the way google does business these days. What's to hide? I agree in the old days of Google, hidden text was a good deal if you were into that sort of thing. Anymore, you just need some good anchor text inbound to your site, some text on your page that references your inbound anchor and you've got it made.

[atlrus]

I agree. Hidden text will not help you with Google at all, but you could do pretty well on Yahoo...
Anyhow, hidden text has been around for years, and I dont think that the bots are unprepaired.

[netnerd]

This tecnhnique is certainly nothing new. I saw it used ages ago to diguise outgoing links from people, and make google think that each page had different content, where they were actually just doorway pages that looked identical to the user.

[kaled]

To do the job properly,
a) use external javascript to hide the div
b) put your keywords in outbound links.

And if you are really serious, do this on many pages and sites and create your own fake authority pages/sites.

There's a saying used by some engineers - If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Google's fight against spam is simply playing into the hands of the big players (in spam).

Kaled.

[bull]

Where is the problem, this is 1 of 100 different techniques of hidden text Google does not detect, I wonder if there is a hidden text filter at all.

[Marcia]

>>this is 1 of 100 different techniques of hidden text Google does not detect

Yet another of Google's problem solved! Now we've told them about yet another technique they can work into the algo, haven't we?

>>I wonder if there is a hidden text filter at all

We'll never know what they've already got, but I'm sure they fully appreciate all the "help" we're always giving them in refining their filters.

I am sure that we are all dearly close to the Google engineers' hearts, all of us are! They must hold us all in fond affection in response to our most earnest efforts. ;)

[jim_w]

Marcia

Didn’t you say in another post that there are cases of people reducing the KW’s on their pages and ranking better? I have seen this anyway.

So, maybe hiding or not hiding text isn’t a (G) issue anymore. Other SE’s may be a different story though.

[Marcia]

>>Didn’t you say in another post that there are cases of people reducing the KW’s on their pages and ranking better? I have seen this anyway.

Absolutely, you sure did see that!

[Silent_Bob]

I've noticed one site do 'hidden links'. They put a link to every page of their site in the <head> tags so that it doesnt appear on the page. Surely this should be penalised?

[the_nerd]

Didn’t you say in another post that there are cases of people reducing the KW’s on their pages and ranking better? I have seen this anyway.

So, maybe hiding or not hiding text isn’t a (G) issue anymore. Other SE’s may be a different story though.

That could lead to "reverse-hidden-text" if it goes on: people could start adding gifs with text on them - just to reduce kw density.

[seofreak]

I have seen / continue to see sites with hidden text that work and some which have falter. There's a difference to notice why some work and some not. Obviously I will not mention what I have noticed so far.

[Oaf357]

Don't be so mysterious seofreak.

Oh... And for the person that said engineers have a saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." There is another saying in some branches of the US military, "If it ain't broke, fix it till it is."

Let's hope Google is full of engineers.

[nippi]

I have also hidden text like this, use javascript and css to hide. I have a sitemap in the div. I want the site map on the home page to ensure better pr for my inner pages.

All of the links duplicate javascript links on the home page which can nto be crawled, and also even if they could be, have no anchor text.

I don't even see this as dishonest.

[metrostang]

Your competitors are more likely to catch you than Google. I would keep the website url out of your profile if I were you.

GoogleGuy has said in the past that they didn't currently have a way to catch hidden CSS, but they received many spam reports on the practice.

[kaled]

I posted the following on 9th Feb 2004 to begin a new thread. It did not appear. I'm not sure that it is quite as true now as it was then - try it and find out for yourself.

How to spam Google and be rewarded.

Note: Whilst this may not work where special filters are in place (if such things exist) it will generally help to get low PR pages high in SERPS.

1) Create a DIV and place on it links to all your competitors. (Yes you read that right.) Ensure that the anchor text on these links includes the keywords you are targetting.

2) Ensure the DIV is visible. (Yes you read that right.)

3) Create a javascript link to toggle the visibility of the DIV. It should read something like "Other useful sites".

4) Use javascript to hide the DIV when the page first appears.

5) Sit back and wait for the update.

Here's the script code.

// Show/hide DIV
// Tested on IE, Opera, Mozilla

function ToggleDiv(DivName)
{ with (document.getElementById(DivName).style) {
if (display == "none")
display = ""
else display = "none";
}}

Kaled.

[jim_w]

Oaf357

>>some branches of the US military, "If it ain't broke, fix it till it is."

LMAO - I haven’t heard that since I practiced it in the US military :-)

[nippi]

Kaled

What if you are rnaked 6 and do this for sites with rankings 1-5?

Will benefit to your site outwiegh the benefit you will give theirs?

[zafile]

More people at WebmasterWorld are writing about spam and Google's inability to catch it.

I have a hunch...

On April 29-2004, Google finally made a clear statement about "index spammers" and how they manipulate search results. Google also made a public statement about the risk spammers represent today. Google said "If our efforts to combat these and other types of index spamming are unsuccessful, our reputation for delivering relevant information could be diminished."

Since April 29, forums at WebmasterWorld have been more precise about the kind of spam displayed on search results. The kind of spam is made by good SEOs employing the best tricks known today.

So far, Google has removed less sophisticated spam.

I think Google is giving a small time frame for webmasters to clean their websites. If Google applies today a "shock and awe" attack, it could eliminate too much content that could be valuable for users.

I think in the following days more people will talk more about sophisticated spam techniques and Google's inability to catch it.

Some webmasters with the ability to plan good long-term strategy would clean their act. Those who don't should suffer the the consequences of a "shock and awe" update.

April 29, 2004 - Google Inc. Files Registration Statement with the SEC for an Initial Public Offering: "There is an ongoing and increasing effort by “index spammers” to develop ways to manipulate our web search results. For example, because our web search technology ranks a web page’s relevance based in part on the importance of the web sites that link to it, people have attempted to link a group of web sites together to manipulate web search results. We take this problem very seriously because providing relevant information to users is critical to our success. If our efforts to combat these and other types of index spamming are unsuccessful, our reputation for delivering relevant information could be diminished. This could result in a decline in user traffic, which would damage our business."

[seofreak]

question is why would u want to risk your position of 6?

[SlowMove]

Some webmasters with the ability to plan good long-term strategy would clean their act. Those who don't should suffer the the consequences of a "shock and awe" update.

It's nothing new. Google draws a line in the sand with a modified algo.
The real problem is that the professional spammers try to mimic what legitimate webmasters are doing. Consequently, a lot of good sites get nuked.