Forum Moderators: open
1.Compile a list of around 50-100 mostly 3-4 word keywords relating to your area. e.g. widgets in UK, cheap UK widgets etc.
2.Put these in a database
3.Create a dynamic page that uses the keyword text as the URL eg widgets-in-UK.htm, in the title, subtitle and about a few more times throughout the text.
4.(The important bit) To make Google really happy make some outgoing links with variations of your keywords as the anchor text e.g. Buy widgets in UK. The great part is you can use your affiliate links or Overture for this part.
5.Finally make sure you have your big list of links from your database somewhere on the page with the keywords as anchor text and the page names as mentioned above.
Works for me! and even better for my competitors which is why I'm happy to talk about it! Also I'd prefer my non spammy sites to do better compared to the junk sites I'm creating to compete.
It seems the mechanism here is open to exploitation. It strikes me far too much weight is given to anchor text by Google and this is causing a whole load of problems such as link bombing and manipulation like I have suggested.
Lets not look at what I say as an SEO technique for analysis lets just pick holes in the semantics of the posts and moralize about the methods involved.
Maybe someone could suggest why this works and what needs to change to stop this happening.
Belive me it will get a lot worse. I live in an affluent country so can afford to moralize to some extent but if you think all those webmasters in the Philipines and former Eastern Block countries are going to sit on their hands to spare the public dream on.
This is not an attempt to justify why I do it, I'm just raising the problem linke I've been trying for the last 30 posts!
Maybe Google is not destined to fail but maybe search engines will be using a stronger mix of human-edited directories and algorithims. No not DMOZ, that is a perfect example of all the things a directory should not be.
Speaking of content, that is one flaw in this spammy tactic. The pages are either very similar, or often have 'back fill' from other sources. I think google are slowly getting to grips with duplicate content. The other area is hilltop and links in. I doubt these sites have the quality on theme links they need. This could be their downfall in months to come.
No not DMOZ, that is a perfect example of all the things a directory should not be.
Exactly.
Checking one of the top sites in a specific search, I decided to look at their 300+ backlinks.
Surprise! 250+ backlinks from dmoz clones that google had decided constituted valid backlinks.
No dupe content filter when its a backlink I guess.
So, not only is it impossible to get into certain cats in dmoz because the editor has gone into retirement but still camps on the cat, the sites that are already listed get a *huge*, ever increasing boost in backlinks due to the ever increasing clones.
+++
How can you know that Google actually counts these backlinks for the purpose of ranking? Especially now, I suspect Google is intentionally making the link: command unreliable.
>So, not only is it impossible to get into certain cats in dmoz because the editor has gone into retirement but still camps on the cat
No editor can stop other editors with appropriate privs from editing in that cat. Any meta or editall could edit there.
Using what convoluted logic is this dmoz's fault?
Google changes the way it shows backlinks to show mostly the crappiest most worthless backlinks possible, and lo and behold it's dmoz's fault.
The sites I mentioned earlier have a better hold on Y!, Ink and MSN than Google. My one site is still doing better than his 20+.
Google changes the way it shows backlinks to show mostly the crappiest most worthless backlinks possible, and lo and behold it's dmoz's fault.
No, that is not the fault of DMOZ and even if it was, it would be the least of its problems. Editors not reviewing stuff for years (literally), editors proctecting their own areas and worthless technology are just a few reasons you have a big piece of crap directory like dmoz.
Oh and when you apply to become an editor they turn you down fearing you actually might do a good job and bring some integrity into it all.
So, not only is it impossible to get into certain cats in dmoz because the editor has gone into retirement but still camps on the cat
That was good.
Okay enough from me about dmoz as that is not what this thread is about.
Dead on! Its not about morals or ethics, its about risk. How much risk are you willing to take? IF google can only chase 1/10 of 1% of the spam, then the risk isnt very high for an auto generated throwaway domain that can be replaced the same day Google boots it.
its about risk
Obviously you don't give a damn about the medium from which you (presumably) make a living.
Competition.
I'm definitely not making as much money as my shady, spammy, confident and risky competitors are.
If I had enough time to explore it and become confident, you can bet your butt I'd be spamming.
I'm sure this is the case for a majority of people who don't try to appease google for morality, but FEAR.
FEAR!
Patrick Taylor:
driven to it by the immoral hordes from the Eastern Bloc and the Phillipines. Now THAT does make me laugh!
I live in an affluent country so can afford to moralize to some extent but if you think all those webmasters in the Philipines and former Eastern Block countries...
Basically what I'm saying is these people can't afford to take a moral stance and they ain't stupid.
I'll tell you what makes me laugh - lines like:
you don't give a damn about the medium from which you (presumably) make a living
Yes I make a very good living out of it mostly through legitimate, well designed sites. However, coming for the poorest, most isolated region in my country I'm not going to sit on my hands whilst I loose out. Think of it as a temporary fix.
[edited by: surfgatinho at 7:51 am (utc) on July 28, 2004]
Less weighting to anchor text?
Apply filters to dynamic database driven sites?
Detect too many stemmed phrases in anchor text?
RRL does have a point about the future of search engines vs automated spamming methods. But this route is too scarey for me to think about at the moment. It means sites would need to be approved and that's subjective.
Using what convoluted logic is this dmoz's fault?
did i say *anywhere* that it was dmoz's *fault*?
i said, that dmoz was badly run.
i implied, and should have said explicitly, that *using dmoz as a crawling seed* is a bad idea.
and furthermore, that having duplicated dmoz replicas count for *any* level of relevance in a backlink is ridiculous, and the indexing and inclusion of those replica pages *is* within the sphere of influence of google.
satisfied?
and for rdfxgm,
the theory of how dmoz cats works within the editorial hierarchy of the dmoz organisation and the reality in practice do not match. after waiting for *three years* with feedback of: "there are a few entries awaiting approval, there is nothing wrong with your submission, there are a few ahead of you, your entry is not penalised", what am i to presume?
i *do* know that the editor of the particular cat is someone who goes around doing consulting in the subject area of the cat. i also can see that nothing has been added to the cat for a *very* long time.
the theory may be fine, it ain't gettin' the site into the cat anytime soon.
i have no quarrel with the existence of dmoz. i just think that it should not be used as a crawl seed and that the clone adsense decorated dmoz pages should be summarily dropped from all search indexes.
ps. yes, i did volunteer to edit a similar cat that was empty that i was fully qualified to work with. i answered all the questions fully and disclosed all of my sites and possible conflicts. and, yes, my application was rejected.
+++
Are you kidding? The best websites on the net are database driven. It is the only way to manage large websites in an economical manner. Just having a dynamic website does not, in any way, indicate that the site is spammy.
That has nothing to with how sites are *ranked*. Just how Googlebot starts finding them.
>and furthermore, that having duplicated dmoz replicas count for *any* level of relevance in a backlink is ridiculous, and the indexing and inclusion of those replica pages *is* within the sphere of influence of google.
Complain to Google then. I have my doubts Google does this. There's just too many amateur sites I've seen about very obscure, non-competitive topics with links in high PR ODP cats that come up incredibly low on Google SERPs even on obvious relevant keywords.
