Forum Moderators: open
They are using hidden div. (visibility: hidden;) there are too many links in it. links go to same webpages with different header. these webpages go to the homepage.
I have reported them several times. It is really easy to understand how do they abuse. If one of google employee see this site they will drop it. but there were nothing happened to website. they have been use this spam at least since 6 months.
Thats why i really affraid that this company paid to google.
Is this posibble? If i have $1,000,000 to pay google can i make spam.
Or google still not enough good to catch hidden div?
I will keep reporting these sites maybe i will success.
thanks
For all the police/snitches here, there is no reason to post about it.
There's even less reason to engage in name-calling.
Well when someone is buying PR or using techniques that are not ethical... it might be giving them positive results, however it hurts *tons* of other people in negative manner..
This is all a matter of opinion.
Personally - I think paying $300 a year to yahoo to be listed in their directory is "not ethical", but because yahoo is a big company - it is ok.
Any company with money can buy PR - hey issue a press release with PR Newswire.
Everyone complains that spam is against the rules. None of these people seem to have a problem with the rules of this forum "If you have spam to report, please report it to Google. We are not the Google spam reporting system ..."
People get around this by making posts such as "Is the spam report broken" "Can I buy off Google" and such.
Everyone knows the google spam report url. Some use it as their version of SEO. Google will obviously take your post more seriously if you include your nick. They have said this many times. Now if people would follow these clues - they wouldn't be getting beat by people using invisible text in the first place.
Just as SPAM reporters think it is unfair to them to have all these spam sites above them - others feel that this is a waste of google's time. Virtually none of these complaints are made in an altruistic attempt to help google improve their algo. They are made by WEBMASTERS who want to eliminate their competition.
I found a site that has all these off topic links at the bottom - they claim to be a "search engine", but have off topic links using anchor text to:
Lottery
Pets
Web Hosting
Banking
Insurance
All of these are competitive areas and this place is obviously using their high PR to get traffic to these pages. No one cares when they are a multi billion dollar company called yahoo though.
If john smith ads those links to his website - that is spam.
You are right, and I'm sorry if I offended those who report spam.
I guess there are some here who are not trying to better their ranking but go out of their way to try to help Google become a better business out of altruism. :)
My thought is, just fess up. Say, "This page ranks higher than mine and I want them gone." Don't pretend that you are saving the web because the pages users are seeing are terrible and you want them to get better.
If you search for "Sponge Bob" and get an adult page, that's one thing. If you search for "hotels in kalamazoo" and get a page about hotels in Kalamazoo, the end user does not care HOW the page achieved that ranking.
It is, as Chris says, simply an seo strategy. IMO, an unethical strategy, but we were all raised to view "telling on people" differently.
When GoogleGuy pops up, it is as though a first grade student sees his teacher and yells, "Bobby's not playing nice!"
Either way, most of us would agree with the charter in that facilitating spam reports is not a great way to go for forum3.
I guess there are some here who are not trying to better their ranking but go out of their way to try to help Google become a better business out of altruism. :)
Believe it or not, there are some of us who actually use Google to search for things. :-)
I don't report spam very often, but when I do, it's usually because the offending site (a) wasted my time by not delivering what it promised and (b) compounded the offense by using questionable SEO techniques to push its way ahead of genuinely relevant and useful sites. As a user, I find search-engine spammers as annoying as e-mail spammers and telemarketers, and I'm happy to help Google get rid of them.
As for the forum charter, it doesn't say that spam can't be discussed here--only that spam shouldn't be reported here.
As a user, I find search-engine spammers as annoying as e-mail spammers and telemarketers, and I'm happy to help Google get rid of them.
I respectfully disagree. I think you are looking at this from a webmaster point of view - ok a webmaster who uses google :)
I think people get upset at telemarketers and email spammers - as they take away from their time.
If someone is looking for [instert drug name here] - they will find LOTS of "spam" sites. Why? Because 99.9% of sites on that drug are attemting to sell it. But people will find what they are looking for.
If it is on topic - it doesn't bother me. What bothers me if I search for something - and they say "we don't have such and such, but you can search for it here".
That to me is spam (and I have seen this fairly rarely). They aren't offering what I searched for, but clearly were trying to get my traffic.
Just my 2 cents.
Back to the original topic - I agree with shak - you can get lots of pens and maybe even a blanket or two - but google doesn't fool with the regular listings. They don't need to - and the adwords people couldn't do it if they wanted.
And also - I agree with what you were saying about the discussing spam, but it is obvious some people are trying to discuss specific cases to try and get their SPECIFIC cause won over.
My site was banned because I used hidden text. I argued my point at the time, asking why I should get banned for using hidden content made visible onmouseover. I have spent ages re-designing my site so it has no hidden content at all, but still makes text visible onmouseover using a scrolling division.
Why should I have to spend so much time re-designing my site, when larger companies seem to get away with using the same process?
And now it seems hidden content is being allowed, after I was told to change my hidden content as it results in a ban (which did happen as I was not fast enough).
Google, make up your mind! It's causing me un-necessary updating. I could have just left the site the way it was! It worked fine, with no spam.
And be fair yourself if your asking us to be fair!
If you remove the hidden text and wait 30 days all should be well.
If its not you may be tripping another spam filter.
<IFRAME style="margin-top:6px; width:96px; height:96px; overflow:hidden;border-width:2px;border-style:inset" frameborder="0" name="drummerlink" src="drums/rhythmlink.html?tempo=240?rate=1.3"></IFRAME>
Might cause a problem, maybe better to go for a flat html page rather than using the 'overflow:hidden' as this technique has been put to dubious applications.
or I could use id="div" style="overflow:scroll" followed by document.getElementById("div").style.overflow=("hid"+"den").
I am going to persist with my dynamic site, but do I always have to be one step ahead of Google? Do I always have to work around the big G when larger companies can do what they want.
Iframes with scroll bars remind me of the framed site times, although I appreciate that your site is an expression of how you would like to portray your business.
Why not try some flat pages, they are easier to navigate and more in your face with content. Also most surfers are used to scrolling down the page rather than picking up an Iframe scroll bar.
I'm not sure that I agree with the conspiracy theory, SE's make up there own rules and if you want your site to stay in the listings its better to build a site with longevity in mind.
Will you always have to stay one step ahead of Google?
Two is better but one behind works as well.
I cannot have a flat or static website. I need alot of text to be displayed as close to the original object as possible. I don't want to have clients scrolling up and down the page repeatedly, I am sure they will not use the site to its full capabilities.
I first started using hidden text, then layered text, then changed it using innerHTML. Now I use scrolling text, as I thought this would be best for G and Me. Everthing can be seen in most browsers (well, in the cross-browser version in creation) and if JS is off, still all text can be seen. Clients can either view the text using the associated mouseovers or the scrollbar.
As I have said so many times before, the internet has alot more potential than Google allows for. I WILL NOT change my site to a static or flat document, it just wont work. I would prefer to advertise an alternative SE that does index my site, and near the top for most 2-word phrases. If G can't handle me, I'll move.
Well, not to worry if Microsoft get their SE underway.
