Forum Moderators: open
Instead of hidding text by making it the same colour as the background or using microdot links which are easy to detect, you can hide it behind an image! There's nearly no way a robot can detect it.
Anyone else got any techniques the robots can't easily catch?
This thread would be a nice way to kill off a competitor....
Just a thought.
Or perhaps, (and this is a stretch,) WebMonkey is really a Google employee making sure the spam they cannot detect is 'squashed' in front of our eyes?
I seem to remember a thread about 'game theory' that Google uses...
<added> Just a stupid theory coming from a doped-up-allergies-with-a-cold-on-top-of-it-medicated-ah-forget-it:>) </added>
[edited by: ScottM at 9:58 pm (utc) on Sep. 14, 2002]
I don't think WebMonkey is a Googler in disguise.
Funny theory, though. :)
[edited by: Giacomo at 9:48 pm (utc) on Sep. 14, 2002]
I've been thinking about using "display:none" for printer-friendly pages using CSS: can we still deem that technique "Google-safe"?
[edited by: Giacomo at 9:56 pm (utc) on Sep. 14, 2002]
Nick
...it's just not possible for the small guy to be on the front page without "cheating" a little when you're competing against the big boys and their high pagerank cross-linking back scratching cronies.
That's just not true.
Regardless where on the web you post an url - it's out in the public and easily trackable.
This is an open board. We have members coming from all angles of the industry. It's one of the strenghts of this board.
We are all responsible for our actions. We have members who believe firmly - or claim so in public - in cleanliness as guiding principle.
We have members who define their ethics along the lines of giving the user what he searches for.
We have many members, myself included who do not believe in the value of turning others in, because this damages the position of webpromoters in relation to search engines.
This thread has demonstrated all those conflicts and different interests.
Welcome to the real world.
When you are competing loyally and you find sites ranked #1 using trivial deceptive tricks, I think it is not only your right to report them, but also your duty to all search engine users.
I'm not questioning the legitimacy of "web promotion" here: I just believe that a spam-free search engine will be a Good Thing for everybody in the long term (users, webmasters and SEO's as well).
It wasn't his site.
We've got an around-the-clock crew, both for the entire board and for this forum, which has 4. ciml posted twice just preceding, he's one of them. However, according to the Terms of Service [webmasterworld.com], we do not discuss moderating issues out on the board, which is covered and very clearly stated in item #25:
Discussions about moderator or administrator actions are welcome in email or local private messages, but should not be discussed in public forums.
What people report is between them and Google; it's just against the terms of usage to try to do it here:
From the Google News Forum charter:
If you have spam to report, please report it to Google. We are not the Google spam reporting system or the place to "shop the competition" knowing that Google techs may read it. Posting someone elses url is no different than violating them by posting their name and address. That includes posting of Google search terms.
It's been said repeatedly that Google respects our TOS, just as we respect theirs. And it's so.
This thread, to me, illustrates more graphically than ever that people will go to any lengths to rank well, and if they haven't succeeded in ranking well, they'll go to any lengths to knock their successful competitors out of the way.
How we interpret someone's actions or motivations is up to us as individuals to decide for ourselves. Personally, my criteria for purity of motivation for "helping" Google stay pure is not by the one who snitches on whose who rank higher because of frustration - it's when someone sitting in the top spot has gotten past the others goes on a "mission." That's about the only time we can actually know what we ourselves are motivated by.
We'll all draw our conclusions from this discussion, but the fact of the matter is that any web page out on the internet is open to scrutiny in some way or another. Down on the 4th or 5th page it's pretty safe, but it's dangerous up on top.
It's pretty obvious by reading back around the beginning of the year that adjustments are made that inflict automatic penalties. Still, ultimately we're all responsible for whatever risks we choose to take.
ScottM:
This thread would be a nice way to kill off a competitor.
I think you're correct hehe [at least in a general paranoid but also real scenario..].
I don't know at all about WebMonkey.
But, I'm sure, some sad folks try to use this forum only to damage his competitors.
That said, I think all theories are welcome, 'cause this is the goal of this forum, isn't?
cminblues
I've seen GoogleGuy wave his magic wand in both directions, to the dismay and joy of several over at
Group: google . public . support . general
Not since a number of sites were drooped in June and he was needed there though.
I often wonder (once anyway) if GoogleGuy really should be plural. And, more importantly, if there is only one GoogleGuy; why haven't we ever seen him and George W at the same place at the same time.
Hmmm..
Maybe GoogleGuy has just not ever invited George W to any of his shindigs.
>remove his site URL
It wasn't his site.
Interesting, in fact he's removed it from his profile now. Hmmm... :/
If it really wasn't his site, then he was obviously trying to get one of his competitors penalized.
If so, I just don't understand why he wouldn't simply report them via the feedback form on Google.
Assuming, of course, the site in his profile actually used any spammy tricks (I didn't check it out, but I hope GoogleGuy did).
I just don't understand why he wouldn't simply report them via the feedback form on Google
Well, it worked right?
Interesting thread...
Nick
Threachery - deceit - intrigue. Webmasterworld is more fun than watching soap operas. :)
But a human check is a whole 'nother story.
For a real eye-opener, try browsing in NN4.x with javascript turned off. Netscape 4 needs javascript working to render CSS! So if you turn off the js, all the hidden divs and css font tricks are now right there in plain view. So there's no need for a human visitor to do any very sophisticated analysis.
Well, I guess it was only a matter of time until someone thought of this. He was caught red-handed though, as the truth always comes out one way or another. We can just add this to the long list of amusing SEO tricks that would never work again (not that this one probably ever worked). Why does everyone in America still believe in "get rich schemes?"
Tedster -- your exactly right....
if you want to see some ugly webpages,
and see all those SEO tricks...download NN4
A few months ago I did SEO for an advertising agency and analysing the competence for the term "publicidad" (it was a site in spanish) I found a site in the #3 using the "new optimization tactic" (really, this tactic it's older than me.... ;) IMHO it's a pathetic tactic and obviusly I reported it to Google using the Spam Report. Ok, three months later and two more emails and the site is still in the #8.
Sorry, I really get tired of that mantra. It's not about "good content", it's about focused content which translates into the most relevant site for a specific set of keywords because of consistency in those words showing up in the content, file names, incoming links, outgoing links, etc.
googlebot has no way of evaluating content and despite the development of PR which is an attempt to grade sites, it really gets down to applying an algo to html to find the most relevant site for any given search. Quality has nothing to do with it. Trust me, I've seen way too many horrific sites with high PR's and high rankings.
Like I've said before, just link the hell out of your site, include your keywords in your hyperlinks, keep the html very simple and load it up with content that is highly focused and you'll do great. Oh, and title it with your keywords, that seems to be weighted outrageously high.
Sounds cheap, but it works and I deal with it every day with a certain group of competitors. Unfortunately, despite being pretty egregious about it, google has ignored my spam reports.
At any rate, when I see a pretty lame site ranking ahead of one of mine, it's usually as simple as dragging the mouse to see what's going on or looking at the code for hidden links. Google's infatuation with link popularity has bred this mentality and is a fairly lame means of finding the most relevant sites.
someone posted about a spam technique and the url (possibly the url)was in his profile.
Googleguy found out about it and took action.
When he evaluates the site in the url and determines it was spamming and puts a penalty on it...
IT WAS THE WEBMASTER THAT MADE THE PAGE NOT NECASSARILY THE POSTER.
In other words if it was a competitor and he got a penalty put on them, truly in the end it was still the content (spam) of the site that got them penalized and not the post itself.
The post merely brought a visit from someone with the ability to take action.
I think it is pretty funny myself.
I guess what I am trying to say is that as long as that url in the profile was actually reveiwed before being penalized it is 100% the "fault" of the page creator it got a penalty and not the posters.
Regards,
Todd
As a sidebar, Googleguy seems to be much more active in this forum than in his own lately.
