Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
hey Followgreg, if youadd EN (in capitals) to the end of the domain name of that website, you get a big list of pages all signed :s lol
I know! :-) That is what's driving so many people insane. these guys are very well known in Europe for years for using dirty tricks on thousands of sites (When I say 1000's it IS 1000's).
No penalty in Europe...they decided to start doing it in US now :-) Well Google says nothing at all so they continue of course...
And guess what, Google penalized here and there their clients sometimes but NEVER this company while they had they link on the cloaking pages or spam page! Easy to find out WHO must be penalized. ...But no, so far nothing, or they are under watch or they have someone working for them at Google, I start wondering because these guys are really well known for what they do.
It is not actually cloaking, they are using a script that says if the page is not loaded into a frame then redirect to the homepage. Very old school - bit like a 0 second refresh.
Bit surprised we are seeing so many examples of white text on white backgrounds though. (I would have thought that Followgregs example would have been picked up for that at any rate)
[edited by: Dayo_UK at 10:35 am (utc) on Nov. 3, 2005]
I'm sure this isn't what Google set out to do, hopefully Jagger 3 will help set things right :s
Well, I know it will be deleted maybe for the best of all I dunno, I just wanted to make a point, not that Google isn't a good engine, but that these type of companies (talking about the mother ompany, do a backlink analysis) should be penalized so competition is fair.
Now I'm not a very technical person, for me the definition of cloaking is: a page that is, stuffed with keywords and keywords rich hyperlinks, that search engines can see but human visitors can't, and THIS is the case.
Note: If you guys want me to delete my posts before any moderators do and avoid the extra work, I will but let me know quickly because I have to run out in 5 min. and won't be back before a few hours :)
[edited by: followgreg at 10:38 am (utc) on Nov. 3, 2005]
216.239.53.99
216.239.57.99
66.102.7.99
64.233.189.104 -- Nope these 4 won't stick
Here's Jagger 3:
64.233.161.104
66.102.11.99
;-) Just had to get my early morning prediction in.
Also check, with an open mind, on relevance. I think spam is often IGNORED by the spider and other legit factors are putting the sites high up. Google wants spam reports to see what spammers are up to. They then tweak the algo to ignore these tricks. That way, innocent company owners can still have their site ranking well based on quality of actual content etc., rather than being stuffed by a rogue webmaster. It would be good for the user and fair all round if google accepted that many sites are still good quality, despite having spam techniques written in by over enthusiastic design companies. The policy is therefore, ignore the spam and rank on legitimate factors only.... which is a much fairer system. If you try and make penalties for certain techniques, the collateral damage is too great.
Think about it, a competitor's site may be taking £millions from you....if I was sneaky, I could get a tame or planted employee to put spam on their site and get them banned. If Google just ignores spam, this sabotage would not work.
The forum is not for outing sites though.
So yes say what you are seeing - but dont point to examples.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 12:56 pm (utc) on Nov. 3, 2005]
64.233.161.104
66.102.11.99 - These are. Newly indexed sites are appearing here. Content sites above the sites that link to them. And different results from pre-Jagger, Jagger 1 and Jagger 2.
No tarot cards, no crystal ball,
afaik external links are not within the TOS anyway.
my favourite ami-2019f (result 2, with 10 results for Buy 40 Tablets of Generic Ambien 10mg for $78.95 without prescription - a strange result for a modem search!).
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 12:56 pm (utc) on Nov. 3, 2005]
One of the examples uses an iframe to hide the content. What is G thoughts regarding Text within the <iframe> tags - Ignored? Penalised? (Even if text is relevant eg Your browser does not support Iframes)
Always wondered that.
Seriously though, the correct place to report specifics is using the keyword jagger2 (we're still in part 2) on the spam report form at [google.com...]
istar and followgreg, these were both fine examples. We're working through the feedback now (and many people have noticed us taking action on reports), so it would just have been a matter of time. But since I saw the specifics.. :)
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 12:57 pm (utc) on Nov. 3, 2005]
Yes I agree I think these are the lastest results.
Hmmmm. Shiny .info domain..
Has a canonical url problem? ;) (Lol well the domain www.shiny.info does - he he - not the Modem example.)
Night GG - People will still say Jagger3 has started before friday though :)
[edited by: Dayo_UK at 11:31 am (utc) on Nov. 3, 2005]
November 3, 2005 @ 4:21 am
Mike, J3 has less to do with spam and more to do with general indexing.
