Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.234.244.30

Message Too Old, No Replies

Top Factors That Google Doesn't Like

     
12:43 pm on Nov 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 3, 2004
posts:333
votes: 0


Firstly, a quick background: I am often approached by client who have been contacted by someone offering to get them better rankings doing this or that. Often these practices are (what I consider to be) of dubious or detrimental benefit and I prefer to back up my opinion with those of others in the wider community. As such I often refer to threads in this forum and others.

There have been thousands of threads on this site and many other regarding the 'good practice' factors which Google likes. The are many of them bring together those threads into comprehensive advice.

However, what I am looking for a top list of definately what NOT TO DO in Google. Those activities that will have detrimental effect on your website should you try them. I don't know if such a thread already exists or whether this could become one.

I understand Google's guidelines touch on several techniques to be avoided - but maybe we could create something more comprehensive. I believe what to avoid can be as useful as a best practice guide.

Any thoughts?

PS- wasn't really sure where to post as this isn't really Google News as such - so apologies if this gets moved.

7:41 pm on Nov 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:May 26, 2000
posts:37301
votes: 0


Off-page: Backlink manipulation of any kind - link buying and selling for PR purposes, link farms

On-page: Hidden content that cannot be made visible by an obvious user action.

9:44 pm on Nov 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 16, 2003
posts: 615
votes: 0


Keyword stuffing (body and title)

3 way linking

5:01 am on Nov 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 19, 2004
posts:1939
votes: 0


Creation of thousands + of stub pages for the purpose of gaining traffic and selling ads (no content, only optimized titles and ads

Thin affiliates (websites without unique content or purpose)

"3 way linking"

This might not be accurate enough. I would suggest that "3 way linking for the purposes of developing one way inbound links" is a better way to frame this one.

There are many times I have given a link from one website which benefited the user, in exchange for a link back for another website which was much more useful for both my consumers and the user.

It is the intention behind the link that often draws the curtains of the overall 3 way game plan.

6:44 pm on Nov 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 25, 2003
posts:2527
votes: 0


"It is the intention behind the link ..."

That's very important to remember. Google does not ask you your intent. They just drop you. Whatever COULD be a spammy thing can get you dropped even if it is legit and/or even if you did not do it.

10:27 pm on Nov 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 17, 2004
posts: 237
votes: 0


Definitely clocking can get you into troubles.

I would also add duplicate content as a significant threat, either in the form of scrapes or with your CMS, although I wouldn't classify this as something that Google employees "don't like".

Also too much fiddling with 301s, 302s and the like, as well as too much fiddling with nofollows I'd say are things not too friendly with Google.

3:18 am on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Full Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Jan 9, 2007
posts:254
votes: 0


Excessive usage of onpage anchor text for links such as blue widget, green widget, black widget.
8:27 am on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 17, 2004
posts:1354
votes: 0


- Cloaking.

- Link buying, 3-way linkbuilding, 'link wheels' or any other manipulative linking tactic.

- Keyword spam / stuffing.

- Slow page load times due to excessive media (ab)use.

11:04 am on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 30, 2004
posts:1148
votes: 0


- Anything that annoys the user for example pop ups/unders.
11:22 am on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member sem4u is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 18, 2002
posts:3061
votes: 0


- Hidden text and/or links.
12:12 pm on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 3, 2004
posts:333
votes: 0


Hi,

Some great reponses - what is meant by clocking? Do you mean cloaking?

Also, a guy here at work has a theory that two of the same words together has a negative affect. E.g. "expert widget" "widget expert services". Usually happens when "expert widget" is a title and the "widget expert services ..." opens the following paragraph.

Not sure I have seen this myself.

12:21 pm on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Mar 29, 2007
posts:592
votes: 0


Also, a guy here at work has a theory that two of the same words together has a negative affect. E.g. "expert widget" "widget expert services". Usually happens when "expert widget" is a title and the "widget expert services ..." opens the following paragraph.

Not negative exactly, but if you are targeting "widget expert services" on other page then should avoid it use at the very beginning of page targeting "expert widget".

IMO, if primary keyword comes at the beginning of page content it would give more benefit.

1:12 pm on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 17, 2004
posts: 237
votes: 0


tenerifejim it was from speed of typing... meant cloacking...
3:10 pm on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:June 3, 2007
posts:6024
votes: 0


Over optimisation...there should be a big thread somewhere.

Repeated/identical titlebars!

9:44 pm on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:June 3, 2007
posts:6024
votes: 0


How about repetitive downtime?
8:43 am on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 31, 2001
posts: 1357
votes: 0


In my niche every one of the things folks say not to do (except cloaking) is being used and not penalised. What I think is obvious link buying/manipulation done by ham fisted low wage so called SEOs with links from off topic sites with the wrong geo targeting does not result in a penalty even when reported.

I suspect that there is a threshold and you can do some of these spam tactics provided you stay below that threshold. There may also be a cumulative threshold so a little bit of a few bad things can get you penalised. I also think that the scale of the threshold is fairly crudely set to US standards. For example I guess that the web is at least 10 times bigger in the US than in the UK, perhaps much more. The threshold is therefore set ten times to high to catch UK transgressors. In the UK some of my competitors have clearly bought a few hundred links but if Google only reacts when a few thousand have been bought they will never be caught, they are quite literally operating under Google's radar.

It would be nice to think that someone in Matt Cutts' team would get their head out of their US a*** and sort this one out.

Cheers

Sid

[edited by: tedster at 9:20 am (utc) on Nov. 24, 2009]

12:18 pm on Nov 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 4, 2004
posts: 186
votes: 0


On-page: Hidden content that cannot be made visible by an obvious user action.

Tedster - How does this work? I've content in multiple tabs that are accessible with JavaScript. Would Google know any different if I disabled the JavaScript so a user couldn't see it.

Also, I think this content should be devalued as it's not there upon first load. It might be a factor for the 200 Factors in Algorithm Thread [webmasterworld.com].

6:02 pm on Nov 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:May 26, 2000
posts:37301
votes: 0


I've had pages doing this for years, and I've noticed no problems. If you disable the JavaScript, it probably would not get caught by an algorithm. But if the page is ranking for a significant search term, then the human editorial army would be reviewing it, and that's how it would be caught.

According to the leaked human reviewer training documents, one of the major focuses is hidden content. There are so many ways to hide things on a web page with today's technology that a 100% algorithmic approach would be a nasty undertaking. It would probably generate too many false positives, even as it missed major infractions. Google really doesn't need to worry about missing hidden content if it doesn't generate lots of traffic for the page.

1:19 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member

joined:Apr 19, 2006
posts:805
votes: 0


I would like to throw adsense out there as part of this. If it's MFA then Google will cut you from the herd pretty quickly.
12:44 pm on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 23, 2004
posts:574
votes: 2


Article sites = link farms

It's only a matter of time IMO

...or at least they'll be devalued

 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members