Forum Moderators: open
Liam
[edited by: liamgt at 10:06 am (utc) on Oct. 31, 2002]
GoogleGuy has *specifically* stated Google doesn't penalize for guestbook entries. I can easily imagine in big money, highly competitive e-commerce markets the competition hiring some bored teenager to sign their competitors URL to 1,000 guestbooks. Thus, if djgreg got a penalty, it must be for another reason.
I said long ago and pointed Google to the fact that competitors were posting other people's URL's into guest books to drop their value. GG said that this would have no effect. Obviously it does (not least as I saw GG's comments way earlier in this thread about one site having keyword intensive image names and many guest book entries).
So I think that Google should, as I have said many times before, just ignore gsbk.html to guest.html pages. I mean how difficult can that be for them?
As someone who has suffered from having their sites dumped in guest books, and after hearing GG say it has no effect a while back, now the express implication from him that it does. Is a source of some concern to say the least.
At one stage many moons ago, Google encouraged guest book entries. I think it is time for them to let you waste your time submitting your site and mine (for different reasons) into these places.
Wait Wait Wait.... i had backlinks before 4oct as well.
i know for 100% certain that my last month's everflux listings are not indexed this month.
But why are my backlinks before 4oct also gone then?
chips, it just raises more questions.
[edited by: ikbenhet1 at 12:16 am (utc) on Nov. 2, 2002]
Ikbenhet1... exactly... although I redirected my dmoz link...that link is like hmm atleast a year and a half old...
Well I will be lurking on and off here...tonight is a work night on updating n stuff... will keep an eye on this but its making me dizzy... i think i will order several bottles of wine with dinner tomorrow night :)
It may be GG just noticed the guestbook entries, and while that couldn't get a site banned from Google wondered if the site in question had been doing some shady, on page trickery. Because of the possibility of competitors using this guestbook trip to sabotage the competition, I sure as hell hope Google isn't penalizing sites for this. Also, it occurs to me that for this to be an automatic penalty, Google would have to know what pages in fact *are* guestbooks. If Google knows which pages are guestbooks, all they have to do is not count links that are found on those. Solve the problem at the source.
I agree that Google should ignore guest book entries, but I don't believe they do for 2 reasons;
1) Do a link: (for a competitor's site) on Google. And there they are, guest book entries.
2) GG made a statement, in what I believe was a moment of "anger" earlier in this thread, that a particular webmaster's site had a large number of guest book entries. I think some Freudian truth came well out of that.
Even if it is only one of several things combined that can get you penalized, I believe Google do penalize for multiple guest book entries. I would like to see any statement from GG that says explicitly this is not the case (in the context of other factors), but I can not.
The problem is, if you do a good and fair job for all, you have to make sure your site is surfer and Google friendly. But that leaves you vulnerable in today's competitive markets. If you do too well and rank high, can some nasty little oik simply drop your ranking but dumping your domain into guest books (especially guest books on certain sites). I beieve the answer is yes.
As it is clear Google do not ignore clear (guest.html etc.) guest book entries (by token they show in link:). I think it is time they did. I even believe they would win (along with Joe Public), if they ignored links in /links/ directories or with .html names that include "links".
InetMarketer, you've got quite a few keywords stuffed in alt tags? And it kinda looks like you went on a guestbook signing binge? And you've got over a 100 links on that domain to an SEO that talks about the pharmacy template sites that it creates? I'm not hopeful right now, I have to admit.
I must say that I agree with PoorOldMe here. From following GG’s many comments on this web site over a long period of time I do believe that a competitor can hurt you. If you have several of these factors that are not suppose to get you into trouble working against you, like overusing WPG on a domain in combination with lots of links from bad guest book and FFA pages, I think you have a good chance of getting penalised. I think that a site without high quality incoming links like from DMOZ could be particularly vulnerable to this type of penalty.
I am not sure what the solution is. Maybe it is to discount guest books etc. like some people have suggested. However, I think that GG should be careful about making statements like the one above, which can be interpreted as if these things can get you into trouble. If some or all of these things can get you into trouble it is better if fewer people know about it, and thereby less innocent sites might be damaged by unscrupulous competitors.
Now, if GG was 100% correct when he made the statement that nothing a competitor can do will hurt you, of course it doesn’t matter if he makes these types of comments. It is just that he has made some statements that can easily be interpreted as if things like using WPG and signing Guest books can actually have a negative effect on your rankings.
BTW, if you read this GG I hope you don’t misunderstand my comments. I would like to complement you on the fantastic contribution you are doing by participating on this board. Unless you are part of the Google management I doubt that they really understand the enormous PR value your participation on this board has for Google. But just keep in mind that we Webmasters don’t need to, and certainly don’t have the right, (like some people seems to think), to know everything that makes Google what it is. I even wish that you would remove that green little bar from the toolbar. :)
I certainly hope Google doesn't have a secret policy like this. And, note that the vulnerability here doesn't extend just to today's competitive markets. If people know that a site appearing in lots of guestbooks can get it banned at Google, people might sabotage sites just for reasons of spite, malice and revenge. Don't like some guy on Usenet who flames you a lot because you are an idiot? Then add the site in his .sig to a couple hundred guestbooks and screw him. Or, this could be done for reasons of ideology. My main site is a neutralist recreational drug site. Now imagine the possibility of some zealous anti-drug crusaders from the Partnership for a Drug Free America or such deciding to try and knock as many drug sites on the other side of the issue by spamming their URLs to guestbooks? Just a handful of sucj people could do this. And, consider any controversial political issue. Abortion? Gay Rights? Gun control? Imagine the possibility of people on both sides of those issues spamming guest books with the URLs of the most notable sites of the opposing point of view? This sort of mischief with guestbooks could happen just as easily with sites about controversial political issues as well as highly competitive e-commerce sites.
Then add the site in his .sig to a couple hundred guestbooks and screw him.
I don’t think it is as easy as signing a couple of hundred guest books to get someone banned. It is probably a combination of factors, and if many factors indicate spam then the ban goes into effect. I also think that “weak” sites without several strong inbound links are more susceptible to this kind of abuse. It is difficult to imagine Microsoft getting a ban because someone signed some guest books... :) Even if things aren’t as easy as rfgdxm1 suggest, it is bad news if we are correct and this information starts spreading. That is why I think GG should be careful with comments that can be interpreted in this way. On the other hand, maybe we are wrong and then these comments are completely harmless because nothing that a competitor can do, can hurt you.
The problem with this strain of this thread os that it is based on an interpretation of an offhand comment by GoogleGuy.
I don’t want to sound like I want GG to disappear or interact less with us, but it is more than one comment. If you were around at the time you may remember the same discussion regarding the use of WPG for checking ranking positions o Google? I have a short memory, but I believe there have also been other comments that could be interpreted as a competitor could hurt you.
In any case, I think it is important to remember that no system is perfect and there will always be loopholes that some people will abuse. I just think it is a bad idea to educate the webmaster community about those loopholes, just like the IRS won’t educate tax planners about potential tax loopholes.
PS. My sites have never suffered from any ban, and are doing well. So this is purely theoretical for me.
[edited by: Alby at 2:34 am (utc) on Nov. 2, 2002]
Just have to ask - Do we know that GoogleGuy is real?
Well, I'm sure if I spammed a few hundred guestbooks with Microsoft's URL, and then sent Google a spam complaint, all this would do is give someone at the Googleplex a laugh. However, what about if I am a competitor, and do the same thing to your hypothetical e-commerce business that makes just enough money to put a roof over your head and feed your family? The only way that lots of links from guestbooks should be a factor is if it is used to flag your site as suspicious, and then scrutinized VERY closely for other shenanigans that only you, and not a competitor, were involved in. If your site is clean, close scrutiny shouldn't be a worry.
>Even if things aren’t as easy as rfgdxm1 suggest, it is bad news if we are correct and this information starts spreading. That is why I think GG should be careful with comments that can be interpreted in this way. On the other hand, maybe we are wrong and then these comments are completely harmless because nothing that a competitor can do, can hurt you.
There's really no way to stop word from spreading. People who get penalized will know what they did. And some of them will post of what their sins were that got them banned in forums like this. Whatever the reasons are Google bans people, the word of them will get out even if Google doesn't say what they are.
Yep. The mods verify SE representatives with the SE.
edit>Wait it must be the 4:30 post. start worrying again, i made a mistake, the same one i made earlier today. very sorry.
for the mods, why can't you guys make a 'delete message' button till 5 minutes after the post?
I don't know how long you have owned the domain in your profile, but using the "wayback machine" at archive.org shows that the content was not entirely pure wayback. I don't know about back links and other things from that time. While I don't speak German, I think I understand the meanings of some of the words at the bottom of your main page from Sept 2001.
I don't think having content like that would get you a PR0 alone, but based on your earlier posts in this thread, I don't think you've been entirely honest and likely there is some other reason for the PR0 that you are aware of.
If not - wait and see - things aren't finished yet.
I'm very happy for the crew here, though, including GG. i learn tons of new stuff every month, thanks to you, and i've seen most of my pages move from 200 to the top 10 just by following the advice i get here.
Now maybe i get to see it all go away again because i put a keyword in the alt tag. hehe
>>Geez, keywords in your alt tags? Imagine that. Last web design book i read suggest this was GOOD web design
I don't think good web design has ever included putting keywords in alt tags UNLESS the keyword happens to describe the image. What happened was that people weren't content with adding a simple description, they filled the alt tag with keywords and often, the keywords had absolutely nothing to do with the image.
Meta tag are useless at this point because people spammed them to death. The same thing is happening to alt tags. Rather than use tools effectively, people exploit them, then wonder why the tools lose their effectiveness.
I don't consider this spam at all. Each of my images has a unique descriptive alt tag, but also a keyword to help bolster the presence of keywords on my page.
My pages are loaded with content, actually, but i want to do all i can to help them out.
In my opinion, what Google says they "may" choose to penalize me for is exactly what may boost my results in other engines. i guess i'm balancing one thing against another.
The other thing is footers that have keywords, but little useful content. i wrote a specific Spam report to Google about a competitor who is rated very close to me in results, asking about the competitor's use of footers. Not only did Google not reply, but poster in the Google public forum felt there was nothing at all wrong with these footers. My competitor continues to use them, continues to rate well, and is now an Adwords buyer too.
If footers are a problem, Google is saying nothing to indicate it (aside from a cryptic word from GG in this forum)
Investigating a manual spam complaint involves looking at all the evidence, direct and indirect, that we can find. djgreg, I noticed that several months ago, your domain was near the top of the list in terms of numbers of guestbook signed. At that time, signing guestbooks was a less-discussed technique. That could have been a factor for your domain.
