Forum Moderators: open
That was so frustrating. I was pulling my hair out. I'm just glad that is fixed.
[google.com...]
(If they had been honest about it, and put a small graphics link to their home page, I'd have been happy to support them. But as a matter of principle we delete it because they were underhand :)
Such a ban would have to be manually done by a Google employee.
Don't get too paranoid - have you seen the *real* spam out there :)
[edited by: Chelsea at 11:06 am (utc) on Feb. 3, 2004]
Does it mean that I can not link my searchform to Google search using the variable site:mywebsite.com? or link to Google news or Google picture for specific keywords?
Tommy
yep same here I've got a PR6 using 1x1 for spacing on the index page
1 x 1 pixel links are used by web traffic counters though. I wouldn't like to argue whether Google has a white list of accepted traffic counting URLs though.
I also heard that if you don't sacrifice a goat on the eve of every new moon while facing towards the North Star singing La Bamaba then you'll have the ferocious wrath of the Google gods bearing down on you
Damn, so that's what I've been doing wrong. I always face South. Thanks for the steer ;)
>> 1x1 pixel gets you banned... madness, sheer madness!
Title is:
Back in Google after 1x1 Pixel [b][red]Link[/red][/b] RemovedAnd that is something done for the Search Engines and not for the visitor of your site. Thus it could get result in a penalty.
Why is everyone pretending otherwise?
Is it to do with concealing the great Google mystery from the uninitiated? - because there is no great mystery.
It's a search engine which has never responded to spam reports, except with algos. We all know this.
And its present algo is in a severe mess. Perhaps we should all stop stringing poor folks along and admit that the great Google God is a small guy behind a curtain with a loudspeaker, with far too many obsequious and willing followers.
self edit: started to rant
Based on columns design, my PR 6 site has lots of 1x1 pix on every page. It is necessary to avoid the collapse of empty columns used for spacing. Lots of pages of this site rank on top ten for a great variety of keywords.
I often think many people here live in a parallel Google universe where all these penalties actually exist and take place! I'd be scared to create a site and submit it to Google if even half the rubbish peddled here was true but thankfully it isn't not because I say so, or read it somewhere or base it purely on conjecture but because you see it in black and white everywhere, everyday and always have done. 99.99999% of these sites exist without a care in the world. It's like thinking you are gonna get knocked down by a bus, struck down with some horrible disease, fitted up for a murder you didn't commit... the chances are soooo small you more likely to die of the stress induced worry!
My developer used some java code that made the thing look like a 1x1 pix link. I did not approve this and was not told that is how he fixed the problem
Do you mean JavaScript?
Using JavaScript wrongly must be far more likely to provoke the wrath of Google/the guy behind the curtain than any 1x1 pixel.
Especially if re-directs or poorly performed obfuscation are in use.
[edited by: Chelsea at 2:57 pm (utc) on Feb. 3, 2004]
Where did I ask for advice it was just and info post.
Sorry for that. Thought this was a discussion forum.
My developer used some java code that made the thing look like a 1x1 pix link.
So, just to clarify, what you're saying resulted in your site being removed from Google was not a 1x1 pixel link, but something done with java[script] that "looked like" one?
If that's the case... well, those are two quite different things and it wouldn't be correct to say that you're "Back in Google after 1x1 Pixel Link Removed." Or do I misunderstand?
Just for the record, I've used a 1x1 pixel image link on every page of several sites for many years. It links to a tracking script. The URL of that script is disallowed in robots.txt, since I don't want it spidered (that would rather mess up the count). Since it's disallowed and invisible, it's fairly obvious that it's not an attempt to fool visitors or spiders, but rather part of the site's infrastructure.
The fact here is that Chicken Juggler's page got removed. He then removed this script/image link, and the site came back. C.J.'s trying to do us a favor by warning us off this technique. While it's unlikely that I've used anything like it, personally, I'd like to see more details and a little less rancor.
Thanks,
Jim
Also, don't give this image a "suspicious" name like "link.gif" or "spacing.gif".
Besides: pretend u'r at the Googleplex. What use would it have to penalize pages using small (<2x2 pixel) images? They are used by too many sites, and even if they would all be punished (which they WILL do - if it really cleans their results), it's not currently a problem.
IF they were to check it, I suspect they will have pre-filters first. E.g. check how many images are links on a page, if more than 10 continue checking. Check how many images are smaller than 1k, if more than half, continue. Etc. This would eliminate massive spam, but still keep most if not all of the sites using it for stats/spacing in the index.
Anyway, I can find no evidence of penalty on sites using lots of small images for spacing, whatever size.
