Forum Moderators: open
I am running out of patience and am too about to jump on the band wagon.
What am I going on about you may ask? Well here it is.....
I am trying to run an honest business here - One website, very comprehensive - no duplicate sites, no nonsense link pages, etc. But I am finding it increasingly hard to compete with the link popularity spammers of the world.
Let me go into more detail:
I sell widgets - blue widgets, red widgets, brown widgets - widgets, widgets, widgets - you name it I sell it.
Heres the problem :
I sell all my widgets off one website www.widgets.com - for red widgets I have a page www.widgets.com/redwidgets for blue widgets www.widgets.com/blueswidgets ,etc, etc. As far as I am aware this is fair practice and not spammy.
In order to promote my website and increase my PR, I spend most days swapping links with other relevant websites. I have found it necessary to setup sub link pages for each widget cataegory and swap links with other specilaist widget sites. E.G on my red widgets links page you will only find links to red widget related sites, on the blue widgets links page you will only find links to blue widget related sites, etc.
PROBLEM: I have ONE website, the competition (IN DROVES) is setting up ONE WEBSITE per category
e.g www.red-widgets.com www.blue-widgets.com ,etc. Its not just a few domains - its HUNDREDS - if not thousands and its not just one or two operators doing this - its MANY MANY MORE.
This gives them an UNFAIR advantage - WHY? Because each of these websites have their own links page and all theses links pages(on all domains) are more or less identical. So all they have to do is find 100 link partners for www.blue-widgets.com and then offer these link partners the opportunity to swap links with www.red-widgets.com, www.brown-widgets.com , etc, etc.
Starting to see the trend?
So poor me, who can only swap ONE link with jo-shmo is competing with these spammers that can swap 100 links with jo-shmo each pointing to all of their separate domains.
See what I mean? Jo-shmo will only link to my site ONCE (One domain - one link). The spammers get 100 links pointing to 100 differnt domains.
My point is that, I and many others are losing ground and if we dont split up our sites into millions of specailist domains and follow these tactics then we will swept under the carpet.
Is this what link popularity and pagerank is all about?
I seriously hope Google and the like are aware of the problems this technology is creating.
I think Google need to include somekind of better filter to pickup on these duplicate external link pages and BAN ENTIRE sites that use these devious tactics. I have seen, on very few occasions, these duplicate links pages getting PR0'd, but the index pages of the domains still have PR7.
The general concensus in the past few posts has been - divide and conquer - if you have the content for many niche sites, then fair enough do it - it makes good business sense. (correct me if im wrong).
But look at this way:
1 site - large covering several areas - thats a good resource for users - lots of information there.
10 sites - cummulatively with the same content as the large site, but using sub domains to target niche markets.
This would be the position that nervous SEO is in, am i right?
The point is that the 10 sites are valued higher by Google as cummulatively they have 10 times the amount of incoming links than 1 large site. (assuming that there is a limited number of sites in that market willing to link to them, eg 50 sites all link to the big site - 5o inbound links; 50 sites link to each of the 10 sites - 500 inboud links - all linking to each other in some way).
Obviously this is a hypothetical situation! :)
Perhaps this is more a flaw in Googles ranking system, but even cumulatively, these sites should not have such a noticable advantage over a large site with the same content.
Each group has the same value to the users after all.
So surely an organisation who sets out to intentionally gain such an advantage (by whatever technique), is spamming?
Isnt that what spam is?
Creating sites for the SE's not the users?
Just my thought on the matter! :)
JOAT
How many more endless debates of, I'm ethical but he's a spammer, no you are , are not, you are, are there going to have to be before all so-called SEO's realize that you can not demand accountability from SEO'S without demanding it from search engines too.
This question can never have a resolution until search engines stop making up vague rules with each new deal of the deck. Isn't anyone going to realize that until there is a set list of guidelines to follow, and some kind of appeal process, (in other words, accountability), we are each of us one update away from being another spammer.
When one company can place a label on another company, hold court, pass sentence and execute without a fair defense offered, then you blaming me for your problems and calling me names is just about the epitome of overlooking the obvious problem.
Search engine spam could not exist without search engines. It takes two to tango. And I say they are every bit as much to blame for creating spam, as they are for fighting it. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is and all of us calling each other names without demanding the same from search engines as we demand of each other, is a huge tactical mistake.
Who cares?
...before all so-called SEO's realize that you can not demand accountability from SEO'S without demanding it from search engines too.
Search engines are accountable... "to their users", and from this prespective that's all that matters.
Good "user" search engines enjoy enormous usage, those that don't and/or attempt to focus on something other than the user, are not used for very long.
...Isn't anyone going to realize that until there is a set list of guidelines to follow, and some kind of appeal process, (in other words, accountability), we are each of us one update away from being another spammer.
Newsprint and magazine have a hundred years of guideline development, radio -- 80 years, TV -- 60 years... search engines about 10 years, and about 40 to go to mature.
When one company can place a label on another company, hold court, pass sentence and execute without a fair defense offered, then you blaming me for your problems and calling me names is just about the epitome of overlooking the obvious problem.
Generally speaking, the only obvious problem I (personally) see is complacency. If we are quite comfortable where we are at, and make little attempt to analysis and learn, guage, adapt and improve over time, we lose. Simply put -- that's business.
Search engine spam could not exist without search engines.
and real world junk mail wouldn't exist without the postal service.
It takes two to tango. And I say they are every bit as much to blame for creating spam, as they are for fighting it. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is and all of us calling each other names without demanding the same from search engines as we demand of each other, is a huge tactical mistake.
What amazes me... is that (example: Google.com) is so filled with nothing but spam (except for my site - ((whose ever site that is)) ) that they have 150+ million searches conducted per day and all those individual Google users don't seem to mind all that spam.
I think the tactical mistake can quite simply be fixed by campaigning to all those search engine users to start watch TV again.
Sorry I forgot, its too expensive to advertise there. ;)
Hope you don't think I'm picking on you.
The medium and the messenger are not the problem. Lack of experience and understanding is.
>>even cumulatively, these sites should not have such a noticable advantage over a large site with the same content.
Why shouldn't they? Google has made the determination through the design of their algorithim that those sites are indeed more relevant. The fact that those that choose an alternative method of deploying their content on the web don't agree with it is irrelavant.
>>Each group has the same value to the users after all.
Which is exactly why it isn't spam. As others have pointed out, Google's job is to present results that its users will find relevant. The end user does not care at all about how any company sets up their site(s).
All they care about is whether or not they found what they wanted. As long as that happens, Google won't spend any time or resources to remove what only competitors see as spam.
************
couldn't agree more.
Surely I'm just not getting your sarcasm and sense of humor. Are you really saying that search engines have the right to do anything they want and that I have no choice but to accept that? Are you really saying that only a search engine can define quality or spamming? That all of us poor dumb webmasters are too complacent to know the difference so it's all right to leave those tough decisions in the hands of the search engines?
So what you're suggesting is all of us resigning ourselves to being grateful for any traffic we get and as a way of paying pentance to the all powerful google, we should turn in everyone that we find doing anything we don't like and demand they be removed as a way to help the search engine? We should not ever deal with the idea that it could be me next. Or, god forbid, even you.
You are welcome to believe what you want, but I choose to believe that you are no more or less of a spammer than I am and that we are both professionals who deserve at the minimum the respect of other professionals. And that this issue is never going to be resolved until we all expect at least what we are prepared to give. Respect.
They could spend two minutes sending an email asking you not to do something that was never even posted publicly as easily as they could spend two minutes penalizing you. Anyone hear about what happened to webacademy specialists? Wiping someone out and then waiting for them to come crawling begging for forgivness is not how professionals act. I beleive it is time that the focus got off of who is a spammer and who isn't and on to the fact that there are businesses at stake. Employees, payroll, taxes. You know, real businesses. It is never going to be seen that way as long as this silly debate rages on and I don't ever see it stopping until we demand accountability from them and us.
A little off topic but I also believe that anyone who believes a search engine, (Yes even the great and infallible google), is accountabble to the searchers and not to their stockholders is a little naive. Ok, Ok, a LOT naive and if they really are a business then NOT expecting them to be accountable is naiveus maximus.
Not picking on you, just being a medium, or a messenger or maybe just a problem.
All they care about is whether or not they found what they wanted. As long as that happens, Google won't spend any time or resources to remove what only competitors see as spam.
Yup! And when the masses start finding nothing but irrelevant stuff... they'll go somewhere's else.
Obviously they are finding what they want.
Like the SE's, the recruiters really represent both sides of then transaction, but have greater allegience to the employers, since that's where the revenue stream is. Like the SE's the recruiters try to determine the criteria that will make their clients (the employers) happy.
In order to assess the employee candidates, recruiters evaluate them based on some criteria which they keep to themselves. They don't tell them "wear this and say that when I evaluate you and I promise to put you at the top of the list". So the employees are left to guess at what will make the recruiters determine they are worthy, and then put forth that image. Same as our pages, we try to see what google looks for, then we present that image.
Maybe the employees wear cloths they wouldn't otherwise wear. Maybe they affect manerisms that they otherwise wouldn't display. Are they thus cheating? Possibly. Could they say "these clothes bring no value to the employer, therefore it's unethical for me to wear them just to get a job, so I won't?" Well, they could, but those employees would be left in the unemployment line.
But look at what happens. The employees who take the trouble to dress the part and make the extra effort will probably do those same things in other aspects. By presenting the best dressed employees to the employers, the recruiters are presenting employees that have demonstrated the'll meet the recruiters requirements. We can expect this group of employees will also go out of their way to meet the employers' requirements, even though those requirements may be quite different from those they were evaluated on by the recruiters.
Similarly, web pages that have been carefully manicured to meet the SE's (sometimes artificial) requirements are probably ones that have been carefully worked to meet the needs of their potential browsers. It seems highly unlikely that one would go to the trouble of optimising a page (or mutliple domains as the case might be) for google, but not take the time to present a page that has some appeal to the surfers who find it. So google ends up presenting worthwhile pages to their clients.
Challenge: Who can get more farfetched than that? :)
Challenge: Who can get more farfetched than that?
RossWal --- talk about puking, vomiting, and spewing spam! ;)
Pretty good!
he's my hero.
Its not irrelevant.
Its the same content. It has the same value.
Why should it be valued higher by a search engine just because it is split into different sites?
Does this increase the value of the information? Of the website as a whole?
Spamming keywords is using excessive amount of keywords is it not? Then why is spamming domains (or sub domains) any different?
Another point, but perhaps not applying to all cases...
...those using sub domains may pad out the content with optimised text. Yes, it can be done (and most likely is) with single sites, but doing it on a larger scale (10, 20, 50 sites), does this not contribute to the mass of useless information that is out there?
RossWal (welcome to WW! :))
Great recuitment ananlogy, but im afraid the recruitment industry has the same flaws as ours....individuals get **** on left, right and centre, and there is very little they can do about it.
Its all very well to say....do your CV well (read optimise your site)....do well at the interview (read add good quality to your site)....get experience (read reciprocal links), but in practice its not that simple.
Temps have absolutely no rights (at least in the UK ... dunno about the rest of the world) and are treating very poorly.
There is currently EU legislation coming into play to remove power from the agency back to the employer in order to protect the rights of temps.
Just my thoughts on it though! :)
JOAT
(great threat BTW)
WebGuerrilla ,
>I just love the concept that any strategy that is
>different and more effective than yours is spam.
>It's absolute nonsense and a waste of time to sit
>around and complain about the fact that a competitior
>had enough sense to learn and understand the basic
>concept of "divide and conquer."
Ok, so you say: Don't waste your time with complaining. Go for the successfull strategies of divide and conquer ... regardless if the loosers call it spam. Sorry, i don't love your concept!
Go for the successfull strategies of divide and conquer ... regardless if the losers call it spam. Sorry, i don't love your concept!
With the only acception that if you're at #1, I'll bet you don't do everything you can to push yourself down to #100 and give the sites below you a break.
I'll bet you relish in the fact that you are #1, you quite enjoy the extra visitation and don't give a second thought to all those listings below.
I'll even go out on a limb to say -- I doubt you contact all those below you and assist them in placing above your listing(s)...
So in the end I guess it really depends on which perspective and "ranked position" you currently find yourself that defines how you perceive the "divide and conquer" strategy.
As long as we are "winners", we care less about the losers (that's fact)... and if we are losers, it's someones elses fault.
Generally speaking that's business... and like it or not business is about being competitive.
Lastly... exactly how many customers come our way, and we tell them to go to "that competitor" because his products or services are far superior than ours.
NONE!
I think the main issue here is not the practices that are being employed, but more the difference between them.
On the issue of using sub domains or alternative URLs to target niche markets:
For large companies where there is a genuine business case for using this technique, then personally I say, fair enough. For example, Sony use a subdomain for their online games section, Station. There is a lot of information there and it is suitably unique to warrant seperate consideration by the SE's.
But I think the problem is when Bob's widget shop splits its 100 page site into 10, 15 page sites (10 original pages and 5 pages of dupe content or padding) to target different markets.
This is pointless, as a good web desginer should be able to make the original site easy to use for users, as well as optimise the pages for all the keywords that 10 seperate sites would target. It also contributes to the amount of excessive crap there is out there.
I think this is spam. It holds no benefit for the users and is obviously intended for the search engines.
As for it being a good business move, and the "if you cant beat them, join them" mentality, I dont see why your average webmaster should comprimise their professional integrity because other people are.
I have known people to make a good living out of mugging people and getting away with it - it doesnt mean i should do it as well.
On the subject of not lowering your sites ranking out of fair play for those below you....
We're not saying Googles system is totally wrong....the vast majority of sites that rank well deserve to be there. But there are still a few who dont and that's the issue that needs to be addressed.
My 2c (well, now its about 20c, but whos counting_ :))
JOAT
Is it okay to set up numerous domains - one for each specialty category - and then get linking partners to link to ALL of these domians. Basically do linking homework for the first site and then use the same infrastructure for all the rest?
Is this not the ultimate spam technique?
Why do they need to link to multiple sites of the same org?
If anyone asked me to di it, i would ask for the URL to the parent site and link to that.
But is it spam....?
Who knows?
It depends on the situation I suppose. How much of their content is duplicated? Could they just as easily have one site covering the same information? Is their heavy interlinking going on between the sites?
Talk about a grey area! :)
JOAT
IMO I think this is spam and offenders should be punished.
But so far so good for them - and if it continues then I will have no choice but to employ the same tactics because slowly but surely I am being pushed down in the serps.
Bottomline : One site selling multiple products cant compete with 100 separate sites - And this all boils down to a Link Popularity advantage for separate sites.
More opporyunity to get KEYWORD RICH TEXT LINKS to all the separate sites.
Know what I mean?
But this must be placed in context. Let's forget the word "spam" and look at reality.
When a person is competent at developing sites to appear high in ranks they have generally learned how to ride on the edge. More often than not past experience has dealt them a penalty or worst a ban, but they have learned from past mistakes.
A thousand sites linked together can produce lots... A thousand sites linked together can get banned.
A single site can produce lots... A single site can get banned.
Mom & pop doing their own site (or 1000 sites) can and will get banned far easier than a professional optimizer, simply because they're successes are based on pure luck (not knowledge and skill) and they tend to ride the wave right over the edge without even knowing while the professional optimizers successes are based on past experiences (and this generally means being burned in the past).
If you have never trained as a pilot, never flown, took-off or landed a plane, just riding one doesn't mean you will be successful when the pilot has a heart-attack.
Simply: just because you own a web site doesn't mean by owning a thousand will produce different results.
For the first part, it seems to me that, ideally, the important human side of the Google equation - ODP - could play a large role in the question of the relevancy of large domains vs. multiple domains by providing large sites a listing at each level of their site.
To use the previous example of day tours, I could have one large site - world-day-tours.com which has US, South American, European, African, and Asian day tours that go all the way down to the level of world-day-tours.com/us-products/missouri-products/st-louis-product.html. Or, I could create not only a site for every city, but each state, and each country. I have no problem with either approach but, unfortunately, my larger competitors often employ both!.
However, to mitigate the PR/linking-power effect of one's hundreds of legitimate, related, cross-linking, (and splintered, less user-friendly) sites, it seems as though DMOZ could help the larger site - and thus the user - tremendously by providing a listing at each relevant level in the chain.
To use a PR example, let's say the PR in ODP of the WORLD Day Tours cat is 7, USA Day Tours is 6, MISSOURI Day Tours is 5, and ST. LOUIS Day Tours is 4. If one has created a large, well-organized site with quality, original content at each level, then by all means IMHO, they should receive a DMOZ listing at each step of the chain. (Puhhhlease, BTW, I hope the DMOZ princes will refrain from re-submitting the pre-internet idea of the importance of the physical location of the site-owning company - but that's another topic.)
This admittedly powerful link -especially at the upper cat levels - would go a long way toward making it equally as desirable for larger companies to create larger sites as it would be for them to splinter their content into many smaller sites. This would make for certainly a higher quality web and a better experience for the end-user for one simple reason as a company's resources could then be spent more on improving and updating content, rather than publishing and managing websites, or soliciting links.
Secondly it seems, at least in the "day tour" industry, that Google has, to its credit, worked to help the little guy or perhaps the quality, local company by tilting the algo field toward the more local, focused site - i.e., st-louis-day-tours.com. Most likely, I would assume, this has been accomplished by rewarding the concentrated theming of a site that deals specifically one issue/item/product. If you don't think this is true, try looking for any example in GooHoo where a local, focused domain doesn't beat a larger domain in the SERPS - (ok, I'm sure there's a couple). By this I mean, search for ST. LOUIS WIDGETS and you'll get a whole page of hyphenated sites selling only St. Louis widgets before you get to a larger (possible excellent) widget site which also serves the St. Louis market.
Something is skewed. Whatever it is, maybe a tweak back in the other direction is warranted. I would imagine it would take a few adjustments to strike the right balance for the user. To me, that means being EQUALLY able find a.) a company in St. Louis that sells day tours, or b.) a mammoth MS owned entitly that sells SL day tours, as well as day tours in many more locations, or c.) a large, independent wholesaler OR affiliate (with new content) that sells SL "day tours", as well as day tours in many more locations. Right now, it appears as though the ALGO-GOD's commendable desire to help choice "a.)" above, has resulted in multiple, almost identical and information-less (hey, why screw up my theme with useless facts) websites dominating the SERPS to the detriment of the legitimate business interests of "b.)" and "c.)" above and to the detriment of a higher quality experience for the end-user.
Both of these things are possible, practical and I think would help toward stemming the overwhelming rush - not only in my industry - toward creating hundreds/thousands of product specific websites. :-)
Ok, now where's my coffee...
Mark Candiotti
[edited by: Mark_Candiotti at 12:06 pm (utc) on Nov. 22, 2002]
...those using sub domains may pad out the content with optimised text. Yes, it can be done (and most likely is) with single sites, but doing it on a larger scale (10, 20, 50 sites), does this not contribute to the mass of useless information that is out there?
I can think of two reasons why Google or another search engine might want to penalize or at least neutralize any benefits that might come from a "let's try 100 domains" approach:
1) Large numbers of related domains clearly are intended to gain an advantage in search indexes, not to serve users. (And users, not SEOs, are the search engine's target audience.)
2) Large numbers of related domains make the SE's spam detection harder and more expensive.
"Most sales do not come from search engines..."
I don't understand why this fact seems to continually be overlooked: How do you think these purely online, respectable companies BUILT their base and from where they had the opportunity to provide excellent service from a well-organized site? Where do you think the initial traffic came from? It's hard to get going with the new garbage everywhere that (back on topic, please) relies on Link Pop. I've offered a few practical solutions to a very real problem. Do you have anything to help move us forward?
I'm sorry if I sound a bit quick, but it seems anytime someone tries to look at ANY solution to the spam, someone always says something on the order of "Build it well with honor and they will come." Some of us, believe it or not, have ALREADY done this, respectably, with high quality and HAVE been playing fair. This thread is addressing those who have done that, and are now speaking of what they have experienced. We KNOW to work from quality - that's the given upon which the thread was started. So, again, let's not revert to cliches, let's try to move forward with new ideas. Thanks.
MC
How do you think these purely online, respectable companies BUILT their base and from where they had the opportunity to provide excellent service from a well-organized site? Where do you think the initial traffic came from?
If you look at the Media Metrix top 500 sites you'll find that very very few built their initial business through search engine traffic.
The vast majority got their start through well executed publicity and/or advertising campaigns which then led to word of mouse referrals. The search engine traffic came much later once they had a strong toe-hold in their niche with lots of other sites linking to them.
We're trying to come up with practical solutions
The practical solution here is hire a professional.
A good general rule. -- "If you pay you play".
Companies listed above you are either lucky or obviously spending money to compete at a higher level.
The latter is usually true.
Now you can pay by learning more to become an exceptional SEO'er.
>>>>> The advantage here is an addition reveneue stream, but this does take a certain amount of time and unless your primary business can afford to lose you for a while, I suggest you continue to improve from the inside - like customer service and support.
A hire minimum wage student who is already "web savvy" in surfing. Pay him/her to get in WebmasterWorld search, read, ask questions and before long you have the best darn SEO'er in the neighbourhood. They just can't casually look over a few threads though.
PPC - a sure fire way of beating any #1 ranked position, or
Hire a professional.
In the end... the fore-mentioned companies most likely did just that.
Large numbers of related domains clearly are intended to gain an advantage in search indexes, not to serve users.
While it is true, but is also true that many single domains are also developed with the sole intention of gaining an advantage in search indexes, not to serve users.
nervous_seo : What you are worried is that someone is competing for you in having the top rankings, they are spending a lot more and it is likely that you may loose them in future. This is because you also realize the commercial value of these top rankings and don't want to miss the advantage of being there.
Top rankings in the same niche may mean different things for different companies and would have different commercial value for each. e.g. top 10 rankings for widgets may have commercial value of 500$ for A, 5000$ for B, 50000$ for C and 500000$ for D.
The situation earlier was that C and D had not realized the value of those top rankings and A and B dominated them. Now, in the changed situation, C and D have also realized the importance of those top rankings and are now interested in getting those at any cost.
Since C and D are now ready to spend, they can afford to spend more for getting those rankings. Of course, A and B find it difficult now to compete with them because C and D would have a bigger budget to spend on SEO and web promotion.
>> I just love the concept that any strategy that is different and more effective than yours is spam. <<
I weary of the number of different threads complaining about competitors whose 'offence' is basically to rank ahead of the specific poster.
>> And if I was searching the web for day tours in Boston and I ended up at boston-daytours.com instead of daytours.com/boston/, I wouldn't care. All I would care about is whether or not I could book a tour of Boston. <<
Indeed... and in the REAL world the first domain is rather more useful to the public than the latter... they will remember it. But oh... I forgot... some people have a problem with a dash in the name, presumably because their own domain name is not so specific and helpful to the user.
Come on... get real. If the people moaning spent the time they burn worrying about competitors on improving their own sites/positions they might just find themselves ranking ahead. And as for pleading with Google/etc to issue another blind shot purge and damage thousands of other webmasters as a substitute for this.... well.... no comment. Hope you have a nice x-mas too!
Link popularity helps a great deal, yes... but it can be developed more ecomonical than setting 2, 5, 100, or thousands different sites all saying the same thing...
"I am good, I am great, come to me, at this site, or this one, or this one or this one..."
Does this instill trust... not a chance!
In the end it's all about interconnectivity. The more connected you are the better for you.
Link popularity hasn't screwed up the web - that's what the web is all about.
Take a look at all the best "top 100 sites" on the web. Every one is a single domain (not 2 to 100), but each in connected by millions of sites because other web site owners see these sites as "authority" sites and worthy of their link.
If other sites are not linking to you (at all) this is the area you really need to concern yourself with.
Simply: If other site owners don't feel you're an authority on anything... search engines users will likely come to that same conclusion, regardless or your ranked positiion.
[edited by: fathom at 10:07 am (utc) on Nov. 23, 2002]
I weary of the number of different threads complaining about competitors whose 'offence' is basically to rank ahead of the specific poster.
In discussing search rankings, it might be wise to remember that:
1) Search engines are designed for users--not for the businesses that hope to gain referrals from search.
2) If a search engine wants to keep its audience, it needs to provide what users perceive to be quality search results.
From the search engine's point of view, there may well be an "offense" other than "ranking ahead of the specific poster." Anything that artificially manipulates (and therefore compromises the integrity of) search results is likely to be regarded as an offense.
To use specific examples:
Using titles that tell the crawler what's on the page is good. Google won't complain if your page about XYZ Corp's blue widgets is titled "Blue Widgets" instead of "XYZ Corp -Your One-Stop Resource for Widgetronic Solutions."
Similarly, having a link to your Blue Widgets page from the home page is good, and having links to that page from DMOZ and The World Wide Widgets Site is also helpful to Google.
Calling the site "Blue Widgets" if it isn't really about blue widgets, OTOH, is deceptive. (Just as having a hotel-booking page titled "Shelbyville Travel Guide and Tourist Information" is deceptive.) Because those pages are deceptively titled, they're corrupting the SE's search results.
In the same vein, creating 100 widgets domains and crosslinking between them is also corrupting the SE's search results by exploiting a vulnerability in the SE's link-popularity formula.
Some SEOs may believe that all's fair in love, war, and search-engine optimization, but the people who run search engines are likely to think otherwise. So are Webmasters who don't snicker or get defensive whenever the topic of SEO ethics is brought up.
Fathom, not sure if you were referring to me or not but I happen to rank very well across the board. I know the edges (well, as well as any of us) and can and will do multiple strategies. Given the climate, I will ramp up higher the "mass production" side of what I do and given Yahoo's suicide, I imagine there are quite a lot who will do this, too - but I'd rather not.
My point is that it doesn't have to be this way. I think it's bad for the web and it makes everyone spend their time or, ok, money on things it would be better spent on, such as better sites and a better product. We will all do whatever it takes to mold around the (ever-changing) "rules" we face as the SE's necessarily stumble around trying to figure out how to index the universe. Some of us are as obnoxious and cheating and defensive about this online as they are in everything they do in life. Some of us play tough and fair. Sure, it's a bit gray but I think each individual REALLY knows if they're crossing their line, or not.
So, since there must be a structure and an algo, and if it has to "choose" between several evils, I was merely suggesting that it might want to swing back toward NOT encouraging people to splinter up their larger sites into hundreds of smaller ones. I think that's bad for everyone. And I offered a couple of ways it might be accomplished.
This "topic degradation" - perhaps there's a formula for determining how many posts it takes :-) - of reducing the argument to "You must rank low and be whinging because you made a ranking suggestion" is second only to the "build it well and they will come" one I mentioned earlier.
If someone wants to intelligently discuss this, some of your arguments against/with me could be centered on:
1.) Do more specific sites actually rank higher, and is this because of the link-pop cross-link advantage they may have? 2.) Would the ODP folks or anyone see a value in listing each major folder/section/product/area (or whatever) of a larger site? Would a few high level DMOZ rankings help BALANCE against a splintered site, cross-linking strategy?
3.) Does theming seem to favor a smaller, more focused site? (this relates indirectly to link-pop)
I was hoping we could talk about THAT stuff, but maybe not.
"Some SEOs may believe that all's fair in love, war, and search-engine optimization, but the people who run search engines are likely to think otherwise. So are Webmasters who don't snicker or get defensive whenever the topic of SEO ethics is brought up."
Well said, EFV.
[Bud Fox, when you stare into the abyss and see nothing...]
Finally, my ULTIMATE thought about link-pop is this. It was a brilliant, original concept. Had there been a way to have kept it a secret from the start, the whole thing would probably have be working extremely well for a very, very long time. :-)
MC
