Forum Moderators: open
A competitor in a new keyword that we'd like to make headway in is using 500-1000 words on the home page at the bottom in the same color as the background...so they are invisible.
Is this an offense that I should submit to google as spammy? And should it worry me about looking upon me as a tattletale....or should I just not worry about it.
And if I do submit it to google, I think I remember being told by googleguy to mention webmaster world somehow.
I hate to be a tattle tale, but the site is tricking visitors, IMHO..
Thanks,
Dunnthat
Invisible text is a no no. Go ahead and report it.
JOAT
A competitor in a new keyword that we'd like to make headway in is using 500-1000 words on the home page at the bottom in the same color as the background...so they are invisible.
Pure coincidence. Google uses a system called PageRank (install the toolbar) that primarily uses off the page criteria to rank sites. Hidden text or kw stuff pages will have little if any effect on Google. We are talking the difference of 1-2 positions at most. If it is more than that, then it must be a pretty soft kw and there's no sense in worrying about anything but your own pages.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 9:33 pm (utc) on Nov. 22, 2002]
I don't agree about PageRank being the end all be all of ranking. They use that to gage the importance of the page and then on page data to place it in the SERP for the searched for term. Pick a competitive term, you can find plenty of lower PR sites out ranking higher PR sites... to make sure I wasn't putting my foot in my mouth I just tested 'search engine optimization' and the #1 site (BC) has a lower PR than the #2 site.. I checked thru to the 2nd page and the PR is not consistently High to Low.. it's mixed.
Granted, to get in that game you have to have something more than say a 1 but you can still boot a higher PR if your page is more relevant based on onsite criteria.
Since the last change in Google, when the PR Rankings have all been shifted (mine from 6 to 5, many others the same), it has started to knaw on me a lot more about the way my competitors have been cheating.
In the top ten spots for my major keyword, two companies hold 6 spots, each company has three different sites, basically selling the same product, but with a different wrapper (different discussion altogether). Now of these 6 sites, 4 of them are using hidden links. The other two just have a butload of links.
Apparently from what I'm seeing Google doesn't give a hoot what you have on your site, as long as you have umpteen links on your front page, you must be important so you get to be placed at the top of the rankings. Now some sites have found a way to make that look nice, while others simply try to hide it. Those that are hiding it are cheating, and they know it.
Regarding reporting them. Boy, would I just love to send Google a little note about what these tricksters are up to. However, I don't want to be the one responsible for getting them booted out of Google. I mean, they are trying to make a living, albeit not an honest living, but they may have children to feed like I do.
If you are like me, you don't want to resort to such trickery or you may get busted as well. It's gotten to the point where I am so PO'd about what these sites are doing that I'm going to do something about it, but I don't know what.
Basically there are two options.
#1, tell Google directly
#2, send the offendors an email and tell them you know what is going on and give them an opportunity to play fair first.
With option #1, you may actually move up by making room at the top by getting rid of these guys.... good for you.
With option #2, if they make visible the invisible links, then they may just stay where they are, but then they may be playing fairly. The problem would be that you would not rise by eliminating them.
It just depends on how you look at it. Option 1 puts more food on your table, and removes it from them, where option 2 means less food for you and more for them. However with Option 1, you would be killing their sheep and serving it to your family, where with option 2, you may be serving your own smaller sheep to your family.
It all just depends on how hungry you are.
They rank in the top 5 twice with this particular site.
I'm not sure what I'll do....I was just curious as to how offensive a cheat needs to be before other members here say "enough is enough"
I don't want to starve anyone, but then again, I still have to design my site to beat out others in the top 10. Eliminating him only frees up 1 slot and that will be filled by #11.....so I'm not sure if it will do any damage in making room for me.
But I'm just tryin to figure this out like everyone else in their particular industries and I can appreciate well designed pages and I'm offended by slick-cheating tactics.
Thanks all,
Dunnthat
Build those words into usable, readable text on the page if they need to be there that badly.
Dunnthat
Report it - it sounds like blatant spam.
This leads to poor search results: detrimental to both the Search Engine and to honest webmasters.
You're not being a snitch - you're doing everyone a favour.
Mention WebMasterWorld in your report as suggested by GoogleGuy.
My problem is that I am really hungry. Right now I am at the point that if my site position and sales do not improve, then I may be out of a job. Before Yahoo went all Google, my site was #1 for my keywords. Now I'm number 13 behind these jokesters. My sales are down to 30% of what they were, and they weren't enough in the first place.
So now I'm in the big ethical debate. I don't want them to cheat anymore, but should I fight fire with fire, or water? I'm actually going to go to my bosses boss and let him decide. It's his company, not mine... I may pilot the ship, but he's the captain... if he says "fire a shot across the bow" then I will... if he says "aim for the gas tanks", then I will, but I'm going to close my eyes when I pull the trigger.
>v#1, tell Google directly
Help yourself. I've heard a figure that 19 out of 20 spam "reports" are not acted upon because they are incorrect assertations (eg: it wasn't spam to Google).
On the page criteria counts for (my guess), less than 15-20% of the algo at Google. That 20% isn't manipulatable by keyword stuffing - it is simply ignored. I am of the opinion that keyword Density is not even calculated beyond simple occurence checks (1,2,3,4...etc, but not in relation to kw density in any sense other than the number of times the keyword is seen before obvious junk page triggers kick on).
How can you test this? Try this:
Take a top ten page that has set in the top ten for atleast 6 months under any keyword or phrase. Redo the entire page in any style, format, or construct you want. Just make sure to keep similar content with title and major kws still occuring in the text.
I've done that very test with 20 pages with 5 different "templates" over six months. Zero discernable changes in rankings. eg: on the page criteria is a washout regardless of structure and often the content itself. As long as you hit the high notes [webmasterworld.com], the page rank will make the page sing for months and months.
This is my first post, so pardon me if I do something wrong:
Along this same thread, I have run into a site that has a lot of outbound links with no anchor text. For example:
<a href="site1"></a>
<a href="site2"></a>
<a href="site3"></a> etc. etc.
All of these sites (perhaps 30 or so)appear to have been built by the same webmaster and appear to have been built for various clients. It's possible the client doesn't even know the links are in the code.
Does Google follow these links and does it confir pagerank?
Is it something to report?
I have been in business (real world business, i.e. the one that pays the pension) for (probably) too long now ..the whole thing interests me and the web interests me even more, but it will be no different (at least not in our lifetime..oh I wish)
it's a job it's dog eat dog(excuse the pun!)..but how many people know what it really takes to put money where mouth is....and if you are in a situation to gain an advantage by taking a "that's not quite right, but it's not illegal route" would you?
It's quite all right to have ethics when you are earning a salary...but when it comes to the "being the boss" and taking the decisions, a larger/braver company will obviously take advantage of what they know (or can afford/or a "loophole") and if that is "cheating" then so be it...it will happen, where will your ethics be when it comes time to draw your pension?
It's exciting but it's not the "be all and end all!"
Sorry devil's advocate an all that!
It must be late ;)
Suzy
But i've changed my mind. It's my content that makes users happy. i get emails every day from strangers who say how great my site is. In the long run, that's what i'm after.
i DO think i would report blatant cheating. Why would someone hide text except that they know it's wrong? There are very very few people who actually "feed their children" from web earnings, and those who do ought to understand the importance of acting properly.
There are very very few people who actually "feed their children" from web earnings, and those who do ought to understand the importance of acting properly.
Maybe I live in the weird online world too much, but I know tons of people whose sole income is from their websites. My "kids" are furry & feathered, but nonetheless, the web is all that's keeping them in kibble and pellets, and with a roof over their heads.
As for the report vs not report question -- I guess after being here a while I've changed my opinion from reporting to not reporting. I reported some horribly blatant spam (and they were *below* me in the SERPS) not too long ago, but I've come to the conclusion that the system being used to cheat must be known to Google, so my report wasn't going to make a bit of difference. I'll just do the best that I can do to compete. Of course, the cheater's thousands of sites come up in all kinds of irrelevant categories, so I figure I have a much better chance being surrounded by his sites than other sites that are more competitive with mine. Throwing keywords onto a page doesn't make that page about those keywords.
I have faith that Google will eventually toss the obvious spammers. The clever ones...well, maybe they can teach me a thing or too. ;) Oh, I kid. I kid.
AAnn
I've made my choice... I reported it. I make my car and mortgage payments based on my web sales, so I want people to trust their google results since that's where my hits come from.
And if I can contribute to help eliminate crappy sites, then my well designed sites should rise to the top for people searching for my widgets.
Thanks for everyone's input and maybe now I won't be such a lurker.
Dunnthat
With all respect, I understand that Google is supposed to catch "perpetrators". However I question how smart Googles servers are when code like this sneaks by.
<body link="white" alink="white" vlink="white" bgcolor="white">
I know this is a 'popular' site, with many incoming links, so maybe that's why it still exists where they are. But what strikes me is that I have seen newer sites pop up in the serps higher than my site doing the same sort of thing, although these sites don't have as many incoming links. These sites webmasters figure if the guy on top can do it, so can they.
Why, just today, I noticed that one of the sites in the top ten actually has around 13 sites (I lost count after tears started streaming). Each of these site has hidden links, all linking back to eachother. And all of these thirteen sites is just a front to one online store where all of the purchases need to be made.
I'm trying to make a living as the webmaster for my company. I am playing by the rules. Yes, we all know what the rules are, as they are published. And you don't accidentally code links to be white and the background to be white. You don't just suddenly go "oops, what happened?".
GoogleGuy, if you want us to report these sites, than okay, but I will feel bad doing so. I just wish that Google was smart enough to catch such code as above.
These people don't need pensions, they cashed in on their options, but ask the rest of the employees where their retirement money is. :(
Meaningless in a world where we can mess with color from dozens of places. CSS, Javscript, Flash, dhtml, vb scripting - could be a perfectly acceptable declaration. Might even be a wysiwyg editor that generated it.
All you can do is to take care of is what's on YOUR page. You take care of home, and everything esle will take care of itself.
There are few free lunches these days. Building a good site takes work. Worrying about and playing games with other sites isn't going to make that happen.
People can only hold their chins so high while the rest of the world finds loopholes. Imagine that everyone in your office learned that if they knock the vending machine just right, that the candy will just fall down so that they wouldn't have to pay. Are you telling me you would keep putting money in the machine to pay for your candybar and smile each time? Wouldn't that just knaw on you? Don't you think eventually you would want to tell the vending company, or are you going to just keep coming up with better ways to put money in the machine?
Dunnthat
I was just trying to say that we can get too caught up with trying to do what's right, while others will ALWAYS look for, and take advantage of, loopholes as long as they exist
I'm not saying that I would, I just KNOW that it will happen, it's happened since time began and will continue, it's why we have so many different "committees" and a very complicated legal system...so to expect a "bot" to accept lots of "if this, then that" rules when people can't even get a lot of them straight is, I would guess, nigh on impossible. But good luck anyway..
That's my devils advocate bit over :)
btw..I'm on the side, that if it's blatant, then report it
"grey areas" require a bit more judgement hence this thread, and personally I would keep working on my own site and the marketing of it, as I think this would be a much more productive use of my time...but that's just MHO only!
Suzy
:)
In business, as in war, the taking part is NOT the main thing.
We all have our own moral code which we have to balance with 'business necessity' and different markets require a different 'business necessity' depending on how agressive and devious the competition.
Mostly I manage sites for others, so I let them make the decision about reporting the competition or not.
If it were my own site, whether I reported someone or not would depend on the market.
I have given up trying to justify the position morally or ethically - we are all starting from a different base.
this is why i am hoping that the ses themselves will find out on their own. i have an example that is IMO severer than the one mentioned at the beginning of this thread.
the seo of one of my client's competitors has optimized in the following way:
- one site that receives hundreds of inbound-links as the mother site (no problem so far)
- these inbound links mostly come from a site structure with excessive crosslinking: about 40 domains with partially mirrored content, every index is crosslinking to most of the other index-pages by a standardized link-block. this linkblock is hidden through white-on-white or extremly small text in blue on a blue backround.
i am asking myself, what's up here?
mirrored content is a severe no no, crosslinking with standardized linkblocks is pure spam and the best way to get a white one....so many people told on this board.
amazingly the crosslinking-domains haven't been penalised at all. on the contrary - they have excellent prs and feed it to the mother-domain.
i am wondering if googlebot is catching this type of spam only sometimes - maybe on national holidays (just kidding!) or if googlebot needs more time to detect theses structures?
I am convinced now that I need to level the playing field, by either option #1 or option #2 as I've stated before. By leaving these guys to keep on doing what they are doing, it just shows other site developers that you can cheat and get away with it, and might encourage others to do the same. I think GoogleGuy means it when he says that by reporting these tactics we can help to make the search results better.
This has been a great discussion.
