Forum Moderators: open
Influential search engines Google and Yahoo has disabled links to WhenU, a adware manufacturer that they've accused of using “cloaking” to trick search engines into favourably ranking decoy pages that redirect visitors.
Yep, We have seen many CEO's claim third party incompetence to disguise their own! If you choose to play with fire, you choose to take the risk of getting burnt.
Don't come running claiming innocence when it happens!
I personally think there is nothing wrong with playing with fire.......I just have a problem with those that whine about getting burnt!
Mike, I think not. Some of my bad boys are PR0, but they are still indexed and still get some Google traffic. It seems like you have to commit level of sins beyond most peoples comprehension to get totally banned these days!
Ain't life good ;)
That article focuses on what the company sells, but the real story is what the people did to optimize their site. I'm curious if it was one of those things where a keyword stuffed page with an onrollover in the body tag redirects visitors. I've been seeing a lot of those lately.
Look for "<snip>" and you will see why there are a lot of those. How do you file a spam report for some software that extends across 125,000 pages?
Its unfortunate that this was not the one google blocked.
[edited by: WebGuerrilla at 4:36 pm (utc) on May 14, 2004]
[edit reason] Please review the forum charter [/edit]
whatever seems pretty clever to me
so congrats to whoever came up with it
score another point for seo over phd
hehe
steve
With that many sites it is either one very busy Entrepreneur or Ill advised SEO firm. Don't want to be there when the --it hits the fan. I am sure someone at G has read this by now.
Sometimes it takes simplicity to fool the technical PHD mind.
<added>And Good for G to block/delist adware companies</added>
one very busy Entrepreneur or Ill advised SEO firm.
It's obvious now that some folks here are scrambling ;)
Pretty quick action by G..
There's been a lot of news items in the mainstream press about corporates's need to optimize, and what we're seeing here is consumer ignorance in action. Unfortunately, as SEO reaches the mainstream, we're probably going to see more of this.
On a side note:
One of the Forums at the Nov 2003 Ad:Tech [ad-tech.com] was:
Track 1: Marketing Strategy (Sponsored by WhenU)
Doh! :o
Are you saying that contract work is just thrown up on the website without your approval or review or explanation as to HOW you are Optimizing?
Just like everyone today "It's not MY fault, it's somebody elses" I'm getting really tired of people not taking responsibility and accountability for their actions. He hired 'em so whether you like it or not buddy, it's YOUR fault ultimately so shut up and learn a lesson from it. Stop pointing fingers!
Pharma drug sites may get hit hard. Buyer beware when it comes to SEO. It's not just the little guys who claim ignorance about SEO or simply don't want to take the time to understand how it really works and put the work in to do it right. People want "checkbook" SEO in the organic results. They don't want to be bothered with the work and coordination involved, just want the traffic for a nice easy (sometimes fat) check.
So are the two companies sharing a blacklist now?
Sure makes ya wonder.
In this case, it is not just a case of improving their own SERPs, but trying to get rid of a thorn in their posterior.
They found a legitimate reason to get rid of the listing, and since they could also see value in having that company get no traffic, they pointed out the problems to the other major player.
This way they get rid of them without having to go through another searchking type of "scandal".
IMO, distributing trojans is not a business model, it's hacking.
According to the article, he filed spam reports at both engines.
[benedelman.org...]
Specifically, [benedelman.org...]
[edited by: Marcia at 4:14 am (utc) on May 17, 2004]
[edit reason] All links MUST be clickable. [/edit]
Lots of inference, little fact, lots of chat about technology as if it was interesting (the stuff he describes is relatively simple), and alot of implied intent (unfair, based on the evidence presented).
It could have been good for everyone; it is bad for most everyone.
Once again casts SEO in a bad light, make it sound like Google is the good guy, and even seems to imply that we should all follow G's guidelines or we are improper. Ever try and follow a broad guideline? Get real.
This guy writes about tech like a total amateur, and yet feels ok trashing a company without any real evidence. He should get sued.
No, I have nothing to gain nor lose from this event. I just hate BS and propaganda.
[edited by: Marcia at 7:05 am (utc) on May 17, 2004]
[edit reason] Political reference removed. [/edit]
Its always amazed me that Google hasn't just run a spider from a new IP address, with a different user agent, across urls reported for cloaking. Then send a 'regular' Googlebot from a published Google IP address in behind him to spider the suspected sites. Then the 'bots could meet up back at the 'plex for a beer and compare notes on what they indexed.....
Then the 'bots could meet up back at the 'plex for a beer and compare notes on what they indexed
If you cloak in a way that does not reflect your content, then that is considered spam.
