Forum Moderators: open
The homepages of these penalized sites DIDN'T have PR0, but their PR seemed lower than a typical random sampling of websites.
As many of you know, "themeindex.htm" is the default links page URL of Zeus-generated link directories. But a good number of these "themeindex.htm" pages had nothing to do with Zeus... they were bystander victims of what appears to be a cruel secret penalty.
I can't claim credit for making this observation, but it seemed rather important to bring up for open discussion... so there you have it.
I found a few of those directories who seem to have already addressed the footprint issue. Changing the file name, restructuring the content, and cleaning up their outgoing links would probably be the first step.
If it were me, I'd remove the content all together and incorporate a more solid strategy that serves a long term purpose.
I think the cleanup option may not be viable to most in the ring as the infection is already deep rooted. Its nice that Google is not penalizing any of the outgoing links, but with a PR0 on the links page itself, it serves no purpose within the Google scheme of things.
I haven't checked the power of these directories in other SE's as of yet. But, based on my experience, if it does not do well in Google, it typically does not do well elsewhere.
I think when pageone mentioned laziness, IMO it reaches the core of the problem. We all make websites, we all want to rank high, and the old saying in here that "we are all spammers".
I do everything by hand, though, probably I'm going the long way about it.
It seems some of us like to sail closer to the wind than others....and that the wind is unique to each of us!
I ask for recip links manually, in fact, sometimes I actually write a unique letter to each I request! (as opposed to cut and paste efforts).
Hand written bespoke spam IMO is better than computer generated (predictable) spam.
I noticed the title of this thread, apologies if Im off topic, but reading the replies it seems that we are talking broadly :)
You are absolutely right about the time required to get hundreds of on-topic links, even when software can cut out some of the busywork. That's the frustrating part of this exercise. The site I'm most concerned about has a few thousand well-categorized links and is far more comprehensive in its niche than Yahoo or DMOZ. Requests for inclusion continue to come in daily, although the traffic/exposure benefit is smaller without Google. It's ironic that this huge effort may have shot the site in the foot because of a mindless filter at Google.
> "Webmasters who use **** should be extremely careful - adding links to sites tagged as spam can lead your site to be tagged as spam, and **** can clearly play a role in that process."
How can an automated program effectively determine what is spam and what is not spam? How can an uneducated user effectively determine that the links within their directory are spam?
Sure, this may be a great tool for webmasters. But only to the ones who know how to use it. The rest who don't read what the mother site has to say about the product, or how to use it, end up where they are today. Look up above, its the vicious cycle again. You cannot expect to unleash a tool like this on the uneducated user. Its unfortunate that there is nothing you can do to force the user to adhere to the guidelines.
There are many other industry tools that have been around much longer who are faced with the same issue. I'm going to quote myself and say that anytime you automate something that influences the results in the search engines, you are asking for trouble. There is enough documented evidence to substantiate that statement also.
And, you know what, every single program that has been abused by the user has one thing in common, file names, the footprint. When you get as many users as the aforementioned community has, most seem to be using the free version which uses a specific file naming structure, you just plastered the radar screen with blips!
And, because the user who downloaded the program scanned the instructions, they may have missed some very important information (see my closing comment). If those users carefully reviewed those who were requesting links, if those users knew what to look for, then they are most likely utilizing the program as it was intended. But, how many of them do you think actually understand what they are doing? I mean, really understand, what it is that they need to do to build an effective community?
I'm going to assume that is was a great concept before the abuse. Now what do you do? How much time would you need to invest to clean up the community? That appears to be somewhat monumental in nature. How can you educate a user who maybe spent 30 minutes setting it up (rough guess), and has left it sit there without maintaining it. I found quite a few sites with date stamps back to the year 2000.
And in closing, for those who downloaded the free version, "you can change the name of themeindex.html to something else, you can design the directory any way you want. All this can be done using the PRO version templates."
P.S. I can confirm that it is the file name themeindex that is being penalized. It doesn't matter if it ends in .asp, .htm, .html, .php, .shtml, its the name itself. No need to search Google, just go to the previous winners page.
It can't. The program only finds sites, it does not categorise (theme) them. That is done by Human Hands and it is at that point that any Quality Control comes into play because no site can appear in the directory without being categorized by a Human.
And therein lies that challenge in that what we as professionals (SEOs & SEs alike) define as a spammy site my actually look like, or in fact be, a very useful site to Moms & Pops and therefor be included in their directory. And somewhere in between are the outright spammers and those who think they are doing the right thing who seem to be getting everyones back up.
The question is "Why should the Moms & Pops and those who use the program to build well constructed and useful directories be penalised along with the spammers? The answer is that they should not.
However, if SEs are trying to penalise what they consider to be spam sites based on criteria such as file naming, or software used, or some other easilt detectable "thing", then we come back to PR1's question - "How can an automated program effectively determine what is spam and what is not spam?"
The answer is the same - "It can't." It can't get inside peoples heads and figure out why they are doing what they are doing, whether or not they are "educated" in the ways of SEO, or whether they are just blindly trying to do the best they can, or whatever.
>Now what do you do? How much time would you need to invest to clean up the community?
Perhaps the SEs and Mr Zeus need to work more closely on this, and perhaps the SEs need to ignore rather than penalise.
And perhaps we, as a Webmaster/SEO community, need to be more open minded in helping the Zeus community rather than condemming it.
Onya
Woz
Pageoneresults,
You've got this amazing knack of making me see red!!
Security?!
I assume that this new data is causing Cyber-Robotics to seek further clarification from Google. If it turns out that Zeus is poison for Google, sales of the product are going to go negative. Site owners have been hurt by the PR0/low PR problem, but Zeus is going to get really hurt. Please keep us posted of any further information from Google (preferably including an explanation for the apparent targeting!).
there is lots of evidence that sites with a Zeus "signature", i.e., themeindex file name, are penalized at a FAR higher rate than similar sites.
The most recent "hints" that it might not be a good idea to use that particular program can be found in this thread [webmasterworld.com].
GG doesn't mention the filename issue, but I think the fact that he mentions a specific product by name is a pretty good indication that Google has been paying close attention to sites that use the software.
IMHO, anything that increases your chances of showing up on a Google radar screen is something you should avoid at all costs.
WG, excellent referral thread. I like your short, and to the point response. I would like to add this...
IMHO, anything that increases your chances of showing up on any radar screen is something you should avoid at all costs.
Google is not the only one known to do this. But, since we seem to be talking strictly Google, it was appropriate. You can be assured that other major SE's are following suit. And of course, let's not forget about the human edited directories!
Ain't that the truth! I've become increasingly paranoid about modifying every site content tool I use - discussion software, blog software (that I use to let my users add their own content), etc. Who knows what the next software witchhunt victim will be because some idiots use it for spam? You can't always erase every trace, but you can avoid obvious pitfalls like "blueline.gif".
It has come to our attention that some people believe that Google is
penalizing users of Zeus.
There isn't any fact in this rumor as you can read in Google's
statement.
[cyber-robotics.com...]
Zeus was driving traffic to web sites before Google was a popular
search engine and Link Popularity was a popular marketing term. Zeus was
designed to be an alternative marketing approach to search engine
marketing, which wasn't helping most web masters get the traffic they
needed. Zeus is software tool that helps any web master easily
establish links to their websites. Links are the major source of
traffic, with return traffic to your link directory, a second source of
traffic. Then it was discovered that because of the links to your web
site, the search engines sent you traffic. One good link can bring you
more traffic than all the search engines combined. Check our Proof
page:
[cyber-robotics.com...]
Remember that link marketing is the most important form of Internet marketing.
Search Engine marketing is only one of the subsets of link marketing.
After all, search engine results are only listings of links that most
webmasters have no control over.
If you have concerns, then use the Zeus PRO version and customize
your directory. We have always recommended that you fully customize
your directory to look like an integral part of your web site and only
link to relevant web sites. See the Do's and Don'ts below.
Using the PRO version Templates gives full control of the look and feel
of the directory. Change the themeindex.html name to something else,
and remove all references to Zeus and cyber-robotics if you like. The
HTML in a customized Zeus directory is no diferent than one created
entirely by hand.
To help you create a generic, customized directory, I have created this
Help page as a guideline.
[cyber-robotics.com...]
-----------------------------------
The Do's and Don'ts of Linking
-----------------------------------
1 ) Create your Zeus directory to be tightly-Themed. DO NOT include
directory listings unless they match the themes or subjects of your web
site.
2 ) Use proper logic and sense when choosing which web sites to ask for
a link. Do not link to junk sites or sites that are trying to trick the
search engines. Only link to quality sites with quality content. Don't
ask sites for a Reciprocal Link unless they have outgoing links or a
link page.
3 ) Use good descriptive text and keyword phrases for the Theme
categories describing each Link Directory page. No more than 2 or 3
words.
4 ) Be sure the text words in the link pointing to you from your Link
Partners, contains good keyword phrases that describe your web site.
5 ) Keep the directories clean of 404s or dead links
6 ) Follow these email guidelines:
[cyber-robotics.com...]
Regards, Peter Ridley
Now that your post has been added to the original thread, maybe you should take the time to actually read it and then address the issues raised rather than post a canned "Google doesn't hate us" response.
Peter, instead of trying to sell the PRO version, hopefully that isn't the PR0 version, you might want to consider helping all of those who have the free version get out of their current situation. You may need to bite the bullet and offer something for free!
Even then, I don't think it will cure the PR0 problem. There are just too many of those directories that are pure junk, and I do mean junk! Many have been spammed and don't even know it. You are fortunate that Google has not penalized the main domain that the directory is attached to. If it did, there would be far greater fallout than what there is now.
P.S. This is not a tool to unleash on the general public. This is strictly a seasoned webmasters/web marketers tool. It is apparent that putting this in the hands of John Q Public is not the thing to do.
There are all sorts of facts and documentation contained in this thread. And if that is not enough, do a search in Google for...
allinurl:"themeindex"
The evidence is there and it is not a rumor. The free version users, mostly the unexperienced, have a virus that is highly contagious and fatal. Coming back from PR0 is almost close to impossible. The free users have two options; pull the directory down, or spend the money and upgrade to the PRO version. Even if they upgraded to the PRO version, would they know how to set up the directory?
P.S. We went deeper into the 1,650 results returned for the above query. I'd be willing to bet that all 1,650 have PR0. We checked another 50 properties (total of 100) and all of them are PR0'd. That should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that the Google Statement reference is invalid.
P.S.S. 1,650 x $195.00 (cost for the PRO version) = $321,750.00 USD. That's quite a respectable number!
[edited by: pageoneresults at 6:41 pm (utc) on July 2, 2002]
The remaining 8.9% (19 of 214 sites) had average PR=2.7 This low number (PR=2.7) is also depressed (suggesting a penalty in my opinion) compared to randomly selected pages.
( My random selection process searched for obscure non-optimized word combinations, located in pages one subdirectory level below root. They had average PageRank of 3.7 to 4-something. ( I can't remember the exact figure.))
From the Zeus collective, I found 8 pages that lacked "themeindex.html" in their URLs, and these pages had PR = 4.3, ie, no penalty.
To put a positive spin on a bleak situation... wouldn't it be good for the cyber-robotics folks to make direct effort to help all those people who created Zeus-ish link directories, to get rid of the tell-tale traits of a generic Zeus directory.
No it wouldn't. Why? Because most of them are junk. Sure, they could institute a temporary fix for now by changing the file names, but, the new file names will end up in the filter eventually.
This is going to be a monumental task. Why? Because all of those free users are not going to spend $195.00 to upgrade to the PRO version. And, they are not going to spend the time educating themselves on how to properly set up the directories. Why? Because it was something for free and required very little of their time.
I've always strayed away from FREE! Why? Because there is usually something, somewhere, that comes back to haunt you. There are a few instances where it does not.
Its a shame. There are 1,650 directories out there that are worthless in the Google scheme of things. And, without the Google worth, they are pretty much doomed for the links graveyard. Sure, they may generate leads amongst the community, but are they viable leads?
My advice to all users of this type of software is to pull the directories offline until you can effectively create a linking community that is of value to the surfing population and to the search engines. Don't build a directory just to increase your link popularity, build a directory to appeal to your visitors and the link pop will come naturally.
If I were Google and I was going to filter out certain types of automated software programs, I'd be looking for phrases like...
1. Increase your link popularity!
2. Its all about linking!
3. The more links to your site, the more popular it is to the search engines!
And so on, and so on. There is one clear message that I've seen from most of these programs and that is that they were developed to do one thing, artificially increase link popularity.
Now, if those phrases above read like this...
1. Increase your link popularity by finding websites that complement yours!
2. Its all about linking. Locating, contacting, and sharing links with website properties that compliment yours is an excellent way to increase targeted traffic to your website and at the same time improve your link popularity!
3. The more quality links to your website, the more popular it is to the surfing public. The search engines also take this into consideration when evaluating link popularity.
The type of advertising that these products use is questionable in my mind. The message is clearly directed toward building link communities for the sole purpose of link popularity. It worked for a little while, but not any more. At least with the industries largest search property!
[webmasterworld.com...]
[edited by: WebGuerrilla at 8:03 pm (utc) on July 2, 2002]
[edit reason] Removed duplicate post [/edit]
> "Like any other program, Zeus is a tool that can be used or misused. Google judges the quality of a site partly by the quality of the pages that site links to. If a webmaster links to poor-quality or spammy sites, that can affect his or her site's ranking. As a program that actively engages in searching out links, Zeus can amplify that factor. Webmasters who use Zeus should be extremely careful - adding links to sites tagged as spam can lead your site to be tagged as spam, and Zeus can clearly play a role in that process."
Matt Cutts
Google Software Engineer and Spam Czar
Out of those 1,650 directories that seem to be affected by PR0, what portion of their owners do you think know what spam is? I'd guess about 5% or less. The other 95% are unsuspecting users who haven't a clue that the link request they just received came from one of the biggest spammers in their industry. That one link in their directory could cause problems.
But, based on what I am seeing, most of these directories have hundreds if not thousands of links to spammy sites.
This was a short term solution addressing a new trend on the Internet (at the time). It is no longer a viable solution in its current format.
Suggestion: Send an apology notice to the free users and ask them to remove the content from their sites. That would be the only fair thing to do at this point. You need to elminate all the free users and work strictly with paid users who understand the concept of building these directories correctly.
Those that wish to upgrade to the PRO version for $195.00 can do so knowing that they will hopefully be able to build a directory that works for them and the search engines.
You cannot continue to promote a piece of software that is clearly producing unacceptable material to Google in this instance, don't know which other SE's have gotten involved. If you do, it ends up being just like every other piece of software that has come and gone before you. Make your money while you can and then get out while you can. Or, continue making money and help educate your users on what is right and what is wrong and assist them with setting up a valuable resource targeted for their particular industry.
I hope that behind the scenes C-R is working to get a clarification and/or resolution of this problem.
I agree with P1R that the free version has been the undoing of Zeus. I am a big fan of try-before-you-buy software deals, and am reluctant to purchase software without that ability. In this case, though, they unleashed a horde of amateurs with awful effects. With the e-mail feature, these people spammed webmasters to the point where site owners began banning Zeus; with the directory creation feature, they created pages of useless links.
Unfortunately, some webmasters who created carefully crafted topical directories have suffered, both from site owner hostility and from Google penalties.
If Zeus is to survive at all, serious steps need to be taken. I'm not sure of the technology, but I think Zeus needs to "check in" with C-R to remain operational. Perhaps the time has come to cease free distribution of a functional product, turn off the free users, and add further safeguards for the proper use of the software. Perhaps if enough steps are taken C-R can work a deal with Google to avoid being tagged as a spam tool.
Hehehe.... how charitable. I was assuming the duplicate post was a rather dismal sign that this company spends as little time & effort tending to proper customer communication as they spend attending to the obvious problems their free software causes for its unfortunate users.
turn off the free users
How would that be accomplished? And would it be fair to turn off a product without warning, even if it could be done?
The damage has already been done. Zeus in it's current form needs to go to product heaven. It's about a "useful" as sending your email address to one of those "1,000,000+" FFA page submission "services".
I believe it will take severely drastic measures to salvage this product - a complete re-analysis of the product taking into account modern realities (the internet has changed since it was first designed) and a complete redesign and rewrite.
Zeus was a good product when it first came out - but now it's more than a bad product - using it actually will cause severe damage. And I do not believe the problem is simply the "free" version. From what I've seen, the abuse very often comes from webmasters usig the PAID version. Just because someone pays for a product doesn't mean they understand it.
Richard Lowe
I was assuming the duplicate post was a rather dismal sign that this company spends as little time & effort tending to proper customer communication as they spend attending to the obvious problems their free software causes for its unfortunate users.
Now the first post on the other hand...
[edited by: scooch at 9:23 pm (utc) on July 2, 2002]
It was not a glitch.
would it be fair to turn off a product without warning
I guess I'd have to review the User Agreement, but if C-R was on the ball they would include something in the free version giving them the right to terminate service under some specified condition. Heck, I thing Bill Gates has the right to send people out to take your computer (and your firstborn?) away if you read the Windows boilerplate... ;) We are really beyond fairness, I think - it's not fair that hundreds of potentially innocent site owners have been penalized based on their choice of directory maintenance software, either.
I do agree that eliminating free users wouldn't eliminate the spam potential. It might be a start, though. My guess is that if Zeus was a $499 or $699 product, you would have a smaller group of serious users who wouldn't be wasting their time spamming unrelated sites or creating poorly themed directories. I'm not sure if you can get there from here, though. I think C-R's sales approach was built around viral marketing (until it began to hurt more than help).
<Sorry Peter, our TOS doesn't allow us to reprint email communications in the forums>
cyber-robotics.com
[edited by: WebGuerrilla at 8:45 pm (utc) on July 2, 2002]
[edit reason] email post [/edit]
example2.net
PRO User
I've followed a few backwards links for both properties and can tell you that their link pop is not due to the software they are using to build their directory. The first properties directory has PR0. The second is a PRO user and has changed the file name to just links (which I also think is going to end up in a filter sometime soon).
From the backwards links that I've checked, it appears that their traffic is coming from other resources and that they may not be tracking their visitors the way those of us around here would be.
I'm on my way out to a meeting and will spend some time researching this later. But, only if you wish. You've got to be very carefully in providing examples. There are very few secrets left out there on the web! ;)
P.S. Also, please provide me (sticky mail) with examples where the file name themeindex is used. The ones I've checked are all PRO users and the general consensus is that the PRO users are more likely to have structured their directories properly and are using the program effectively.
Although, I visited about 25 links from the song site and those pages have little to no value whatsoever. There is some text, a few links, banner at the top, banner at the right, banner at the bottom, links to Link Generating Software, links to MLM, links to Get Rich Quick Schemes, etc.
Get my point?
[edited by: WebGuerrilla at 8:55 pm (utc) on July 2, 2002]
[edited by: pageoneresults at 9:03 pm (utc) on July 2, 2002]
I don't have any problem with Peter contributing to this thread to tell his side of the story, but we do need to keep things inline with our SOP's. So lets try and stay away from using specific examples.
WG
It's still possible to rank well while using zeus. (because you'll most likely be getting reciprical links from non zeus users) but a link from a zeus user is worthless in terms of pagerank to the recipient.
