Forum Moderators: open
It is a fact that Macneil has been banned or whatever from G and has 2 'undamaged' domains left.
What should he do next?
My suggestions:
aa) de-link these domains from your banned domains
bb) expand topical content for these domains
bbb) delete those pages that were duplicate content in your network (I asume that it was your travel-tips part) and link to the respective pages on your travel-tips site
cc) for the deleted pages, establish a permanent redirect, so visitors from SEs other than G still find the content and SE robots get the chance to update their index
dd) For the banned part of your network, you should only keep the main pages with location specific content and start rebuilding them using steps aa) to cc)
Hope this helps a little ...
And the web is an equally valid marketplace as any other arena, and more so than most. It's origins or intended uses have no absolutely no bearing on its current role. You might as well deride the Yellow Pages (UK business directory) because it started off life as a tree and you shouldn't advertise with a tree. It's nonsense.
The sooner people get rid of the bowing-and-scraping attitude that Google is some kind of god and we should be grateful of any scrap of benefit it throws our way, the better.
Everything Google does, without exception, is done to make money.
I really have to disagree with you here. That may be the way that you operate a business, and your life. But even many public companies will make decisions that will reduce profits, but they do it anyway because it is the right thing to do.
Their general goal is to make money, but there are many decisions made each day at google that are based on right and wrong, not just how it will affect the bottom line.
Just because a company provides something for free doesn't exclude it from restraint of trade laws. Just ask Microsoft ... they got whacked while giving away IE for free.
Correct. In particular, heavily crosslinked sites matter to Google because of the effect on PageRank. A search engine that doesn't use how sites are linked as part of their algo wouldn't see this as abuse. Google is definitely setting artificial rules.
Just because a company provides something for free doesn't exclude it from restraint of trade laws. Just ask Microsoft ... they got whacked while giving away IE for free.
But you didn't get that free something, without buying something first.
Furthermore, the restraint is yours... Google isn't competing with you.
Google has market share, you wish to exploit that market share... Google does not say you can't.
I really have to disagree with you here. That may be the way that you operate a business, and your life. But even many public companies will make decisions that will reduce profits, but they do it anyway because it is the right thing to do.
We'll have to agree to disagree, then. Sure, companies make decisions that cut profits - in the short term, but there's always a financial reason behind it if you look hard enough. It's simply an investment in the future.
But you didn't get that free something, without buying something first.
It's very rare that you need to buy something first to get something else for free. It defeats the purpose of having given it away in the first place.
Most of the utilities on my PC were free. They were free not because the companies are "nice" but because in exchange they got my email address and I get bombarded with 50 "upgrade to XYZ Pro" messages every day. Which is fine, and it's something they make a profit from, but buying something first is rarely a pre-requisite.
Sure they do ... just ask anyone who has ever gotten a PR0 penalty.
Google, whether they ever intended to or not, has arguably become the entity with the most control over online commerce. With this control, comes the responsibilty to play fair, explain the rules, etc.
As for the topic at hand, I have sites on different servers, pertaining to unrelated or peripherally related topics, which link one to the other; and I have subdomains on varying topics; but I haven't created sites for the sole purpose of building up my own linkbacks, certainly not with duplicated content. I won't question the intent, but I can see that Google might have had reason to, either through it algorithm or by hand in reference to a complaint.
[edited by: ciml at 10:18 am (utc) on Mar. 5, 2003]
[edit reason] See Sticky [/edit]
Sure they may do all kinds of things designed to "look" like just trying to help, (such as accepting porn ads but not tobacco ads to give the public perception of trying to protect our children from the dangers of smoking by teaching them the benefits of masturbation instead), to be able to claim to be doing good, but the truth is it was to generate goodwill or get some press or distribute hype, which in turn increases profit.
And about that restraint of trade debate, cmon kids. Anyone notice MSN.com's PR lately? Are they a competitor? What an unfortunate little glitch.
A search engine does NOT make money by giving away search results. They make money by selling crap. Usually ads. That makes them a competitor of us all. What if they decide to start making a buck off of generating leads for insurance companies and all of us in the lead generating business suddenly discover a "glitch" like the one that seems to have happened to msn.com? Is that restraint of trade? Is that unfair practices? Does that deprive the general public of options that may have been a better choice?
I'm not going to waste my time arguing this. With the latest announcements they have made about delivering ads to third parties, that shouild make it excruciatingly clear that they are an ad company and the search was only to generate eyeballs. But no, the debate still rages on with statements like:
decisions made each day at google that are based on right and wrong, not just how it will affect the bottom line.
(HAHAHAHAHAHA, sorry but that one always makes me laugh).
People are going to see what they want to see irregardless of what is in plain view. That includes me. Which is why I won't get into this argument. I've got work to do. I've got clients expecting me to get them some traffic so they can afford to make decisions based on just right or wrong regardless of profits.
(hahahahahahaha)
Interesting about msn.com's PR ... though the search.msn.com page does have a PR9
I dread the day when the search engines stop trying to make money "directly" through ads and get into the affiliate game jeeesh talk about dominating ... someone searches for insurance google point's them at their insurance affiliate ... etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,
and i think them days are coming, kinda makes affiliate program managers obsolete ;-)
If not, may I be the first to say... Welcome!
I don't recall ever saying that they were not in the business of making money. But I am glad to say that morals ARE involved in most decisions by most people and people run those companies.
I guess I'm glad I don't live in your world. The company founders that I deal with on a regular basis are good people. I have delt with true scum executives, but they are truly a minority.
How about a CEO of a company that has his company supply their product below cost to third world health workers, and has never publicized it? He did it because he knew it was needed and they could not afford to pay for it and it would do some good.
Yeah, I guess I live in a better world than you do. I think I'll stay here.
AMEN! Anyone that doubts this, just sit back and watch it happen.
I've been getting a lot of Browser Crashes lately. With this last crash, I did what I haven't done before and clicked on the button to send Microsoft an error report. After doing so, Microsoft's diagnosis (which can be found by clicking on the link presented) was that the Google Toolbar was the only possible cause of all these crashes.
Maybe this explains the Microsoft Page Rank?
Yeah, I guess I live in a better world than you do. I think I'll stay here.
I think we'll have to make do with the real one ;)
"I built one website of approximately 50 pages. I then copied it 70 times. I then went back and changed the front page of each of the 70 websites."
macneil, this would be far outside of most search engines' guidelines. For Google, the relevant guideline is "Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content." I wouldn't be surprised if doing this caused problems for your domains. WebmasterWorld doesn't allow specifics to be posted, so I can't be sure for your specific web site.
Hope that helps,
GoogleGuy
The market is usually pretty good at getting rid of unneeded third parties (affiliate sites)in the long run.
The question is- would the SE make enough to offset the lost PPC revenue from affiliates.
Content rich affiliate sites will always get traffic .(for the content :)
Good point, Googleguy. If we ignore the crosslinking part, by definition what he did was spamming.
Personally, Google rules my world. I am very very fond of the company. But, one should not deny the transformation that is taking place with our favorite engine.
To Google's defence, HOW CAN YOU BLAME THEM? We will take the ride with you....similing the whole way.
I agree with the tradeoff between ppc revenues and an affiliate program approach ... but why do the 2 have to be exclusive ...
If someone searches insurance have the top 2 be paid monthly, the right side ppc, and then slip in a few affiliate programs (that also just happen to have a lot of content ;-) and push the rest of the results down the page a little further
Macneil - You’d be amazed at the number of vocal anti-spam folks who are the same people that are flooding your email with “buy cheap Viagra” stuff. Don’t fall for it. I’ve actually been spammed by anti-spam folks that are on this forum with SEO marketing. You simply did too many Google no-no’s and got dumped. Just cut your losses and start over with new domains. Keep note of how long it took to get dumped, how much you made in the meantime, and what (if anything) would be worth trying again. Nothing in this arena lasts forever anyway (including Google).
A search engine does NOT make money by giving away search results. They make money by selling crap. Usually ads.
You could say the same thing about THE NEW YORK TIMES or THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, which would be out of business without advertising. But to continue drawing an audience for that advertising, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, and--yes--Google must maintain the product quality that their readers expect. If THE NEW YORK TIMES were to turn into the equivalent of your local shopper or Google were to become a warmed-over Overture, they'd lose their audiences and the major part of their revenues.
Bottom line: Google has good business reasons for delivering quality search results, regardless of any noble instincts that its owners may or may not have.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Google search will go away. But with 75% market share and a capitive audience, they MUST start innovating. Google is caught right now in a pickle as I have said before- between their free search and their bottom line. With 10 upon 10s of Millions of people a month on there SERPs, GOOGLE WOULD DIE if they didn't make more money. Ad Management (and acquisitons)is the best and most obvious alternative. (because they are too sensitive to their past and won't move into PFI or better PPC placement)
The problem that many of us see is the new business condition that will be created within Google as a result of making this change. Why? Because relevancy and free listing(the life line of Google (75% market share)) does not equal pay per click. There are extrodinarily different animals.
Googles' unique search algo combined with their AOL and Yahoo agreements will buy time for Google to innovate in the ad managment world. Those that are seeing the transformation take place likely realize that for the next coupld of years, Google search will remain predominate. After that and with new players on their way and with 100s of millions in profit, things as we know them today will look altogether different.
This is a normal maturation process for any business and Even our beloved Google can't escape these factors.
