Forum Moderators: open
I came across a website ranked #1 and I noticed that it has hundreds of incoming links coming from guestbooks. In fact, it looks like each guestbook entry is identical as if the posts were automated. My question is: wouldn't Google frown upon this? Does Google detect this sort of thing? Would Google punish the website for this?
Thanks,
Mark
I did not mean so you could not be traced, I meant in case numerous items started appearing on your flexible friend!
Have they pulled the ads rfxdg1rfxd1?
[edited by: rfgdxm1 at 5:40 am (utc) on May 22, 2003]
Yes, very cheesey. Too good to be true. Give my credit card info? Sure!
Obviously they don't want to risk using the guestbook spamming method on their own website - they are not so stupid as to risk being obliterated from Google IF/WHEN the anti-guestbook algo is applied.
I see some people are worried about the misuse of credit card number. That particular person/site is using paypal and clickbank for CC procesing so he does not have access to your CC number. That guy may be a spammer but a credit card thief is something he is not looking like.
For those who doubt that 300K guestbooks even exists I suggest that they google for matt's guestbook. This search alone brings out 50K results *most* of which are pages on which matt's guestbook script is being used or they are related to person named Matt. Then there is a company that alone is hosting around 70k guestbooks that are listed on google.
I hope mods don't mind me bringing in specific search term.
I did it. I found the company that promotes sites on "guestbooks" and I purchased a package. All posts were to one company that runs a guestbook service. Going through the logs, it appears that many of them were not really functioning boards. None of them appear to be spidered by google. Overall, I suspect this is just another scam. Save your money.
Guestbook spamming has its own benefits without factoring in an increase in pagerank.
$10 for 10,000 guestbook placements creates a lot of potential for click-throughs.
There is no intrinsic connection with google selling Adwords for guestbook spammers and the customers of these spammers increasing their google rank and so making this a google-specific problem.
Google is selling Adwords to spammers, but that is a separate issue. Do you care that other search engines are selling placements to guestbook spammers? Selling placements to spammers is not a google-specific problem but you are treating this one as such because you do not like the possible side-effect of an increase in google ranking.
Results 1 - 100 of about 984,000. Search took 0.68 seconds.
Now, click through to the end:
Results 501 - 530 of about 984,000. Search took 0.47 seconds
Of the "about" 984,000, there were actually only 530. ;)
1) It is still Spam. Google, I thought, did not like Spam. But then true, I do not appreciate Google allowing email list providers on adwords (or even as a search term for that matter). As I consider this aiding and abetting. But then, I am just plain "unlucky" that I have apparently subscribed voluntarily to so many list providers, and have a well abused guest book that is meant to be for customers only.
2) As they state on their site, it is for get rich quick schemes. The implication in itself is wholly negative.
On the other hand, as far as the real problem goes, it is true that Guestbook spamming will get you further in Google than any other engine.
>$10 for 10,000 guestbook placements creates a lot of potential for click-throughs.
however, this is a contradiction, apollo:
>Selling placements to spammers is not a google-specific
>problem but you are treating this one as such because you
>do not like the possible side-effect of an increase in google
>ranking.
If i don't like the pr boost in google rankings through "click-through targeted guestbooks signing", IT IS in fact a google specific problem. Google could either stop it or accept or ignore it. However, it'll always affect google's scoring.
>1) It is still Spam.
Yep Gordon.
Any chance you could sticky me the search terms you see this for. I have also seen it for one particular search term of interest to me, but not for others. Which makes me wonder if it is an algo, or manual Google Spam report removal.
It would be a scary thing if one could just sign a site to 1000's of guestbooks, fill out a spam report and watch their competition get manually removed for certain keywords or however they do it. I would imagine once Google manually tinkers with your results it could put you at a disadvantage on certain terms forever.
So, did GoogleGuy ever say that Google does remove otherwise clean sites for excessive guestbook links?
(edit.. what I'm seeing on -in is that a freeforall linksmanager-dependent site has disappeared... well that's a start... uk.co still there tho)
I certainly hope that the algo is just negating guestbook links and that Google never removes a site for having mostly guestbook links.
It's far more likely that Google would use a large number of guestbook links as just one factor in a site's "spam score." In other words, if a site was otherwise clean, Google might give it the benefit of the doubt; but if the site also used other questionable techniques (extensive crosslinking, for example), it might get pushed into a "red zone" where it would earn a penalty or ban.
OTOH, Google might simply ignore guestbook links. But even if guestbook links didn't tranfer PageRank, it could make sense for Google to lift an algorithmic eyebrow when it encountered sites that used massive guestbook linking.
It's far more likely that Google would use a large number of guestbook links as just one factor in a site's "spam score." In other words, if a site was otherwise clean, Google might give it the benefit of the doubt; but if the site also used other questionable techniques (extensive crosslinking, for example), it might get pushed into a "red zone" where it would earn a penalty or ban.
This would be a really bad way for Google to handle guestbook links. Much better to just negate them as having any value on PR or anchor text.
A while back, I placed comments on about 20 guest books with my name as the anchor text.
Low and behold, when you search my name, the site I used for the link is in first place and it does not have my name anywhere on the page or in the code. This is beating sites that are from schools named after my name and should be in first place.
So, I think I can conclude that at least for my name, guestbook links do count and anchor text weighs very heavy at this time.
This would explain why so many sites dropped when the links for the last two months were taken out.
Right. Stop and think. If the algo can identify that links are from guestbooks, then the algo can just say "Ahh...this is a guestbook. All links here should be ignored."
I am seeing the same thing you saw in your original post. 400 plus Guestbook links with many of the link pages having a PR5 and PR6.
If all last months backlinks are not showing, then this spammer only has a small portion of his spam links showing!
What looks to have happend is there is a chunk of links that have gone missing (with associated anchor text) - but they are not just the most recent links going back. There is fresh data in the index so if you just recently got a bunch of links with relevant anchor text then your site is probably doing well in the index.
Also - if your site has been around a long time and you have a lot of older links then you may being doing ok.
If you have links in the missing period (which i think stretches between say March-April back to end 2002 or early 2003 then you may have fallen a lot.
Add on top of that sites that very recently got tons of guestbook links & this could be the reason why so many dubious quality sites have jumped.
When the links come back & the guestbook filters kick in (if they exist) - the story should look a lot better
I still don't understand why to show the searchers those spammy results first and then apply the filters. Why not the other way round?
