Don't think there's a reason to clean up the WSO forum? Guess again!

113 replies

It might be controversial, but it looks like Google is going to start hammering on BlueFart techniques and the sites that promote their use...

http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/2010/04/30/google-spam-report/

Recently Matt Cutts has announced on his blog that Google will now be letting companies report other websites that might be taking spammy approaches and clearly violating the Google webmaster guidelines! Is Google running out of abilities to track all black hat techniques?
If someone comes across another website performing any spammy or black hat SEO techniques such as cloaking, hidden text, misleading words or deceptive redirects you can now submit the websites information to the following link:

https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/spamreport
So cleaning up the WSO section could help to keep Warrior Forum from being hammered by Google for promoting SEO techniques that could be deemed a violation of their TOS and practices.
#clean #forum #guess #reason #wso
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Anyone who didn't see this coming, raise your hand... and give yourself a Gibbsmack.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2044101].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tommygadget
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Anyone who didn't see this coming, raise your hand... and give yourself a Gibbsmack.


      Paul
      I thought that was a Gobsmack Oh well...

      TomG.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2044347].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
        Paul,

        An NCIS fan?

        Tina
        Signature
        Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
        Fast & Easy Content Creation
        ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2044357].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author designfuschion
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Anyone who didn't see this coming, raise your hand... and give yourself a Gibbsmack.


      Paul
      Paul,

      An NCIS fan?

      Tina
      LOL..

      *Ouch*..So thats how Tony feels...

      Anyway,
      I fully support cleaning up the forum.

      hahah ncis (the original not LA) rocks!
      Signature

      Wordpress Install service. PM me for rates and packages or what you need and we can work something out.


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2044403].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Anyone who didn't see this coming, raise your hand... and give yourself a Gibbsmack.


      Paul
      They didn't see this coming, they shouldn't be in b1@ck h@t in the first place.

      Rule numero uno is to always expect to get caught eventually.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045268].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rod Cortez
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Anyone who didn't see this coming, raise your hand... and give yourself a Gibbsmack.


      Paul
      <Smacks himself silly>

      RoD
      Signature
      "Your personal philosophy is the greatest determining factor in how your life works out."
      - Jim Rohn
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045388].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Anyone who didn't see this coming, raise your hand... and give yourself a Gibbsmack.


      Paul
      See it coming? Google's had this ability for years. I was posting in 2002 that the biggest risk to black-hat SEO wasn't getting caught by the algo, but rather being reported by your competitors.
      Signature
      Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
      Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046275].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Kurt,
        See it coming? Google's had this ability for years.
        Yep. I was referring to them pushing it to the fore. It has to happen, and people have to do it. Otherwise, we're going to see even more serious degradation of search results.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046543].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          Kurt,Yep. I was referring to them pushing it to the fore. It has to happen, and people have to do it. Otherwise, we're going to see even more serious degradation of search results.


          Paul

          I know most people here are probably marketers first and consumers second,
          but I do a ton of searching online for stuff that has nothing to do with IM
          and I can tell you honestly...I don't know how some of the crap that ends
          up on page 1 of Google gets there. I certainly find it hard to believe that
          there is nothing better. And sometimes, I have to go as far as page 3 to
          find something worth while. This is especially true in the health niche.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046560].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Jill Carpenter
            Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

            I know most people here are probably marketers first and consumers second,
            but I do a ton of searching online for stuff that has nothing to do with IM
            and I can tell you honestly...I don't know how some of the crap that ends
            up on page 1 of Google gets there. I certainly find it hard to believe that
            there is nothing better. And sometimes, I have to go as far as page 3 to
            find something worth while. This is especially true in the health niche.
            People in general want fast and quick solutions. What you are finding on the front are what the general public wants IMO. No one wants to work to be beautiful or healthy or lose weight. Hand me a magic pill that will work over night. If it appears to be working, I'm going to tell all my friends about it. Unfortunately it won't be until months later that I will realize it doesn't really work or work long term - but by then the damage has already been done.
            Signature

            "May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046669].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
              Originally Posted by avenuegirl View Post

              People in general want fast and quick solutions. What you are finding on the front are what the general public wants IMO. No one wants to work to be beautiful or healthy or lose weight. Hand me a magic pill that will work over night. If it appears to be working, I'm going to tell all my friends about it. Unfortunately it won't be until months later that I will realize it doesn't really work or work long term - but by then the damage has already been done.

              Actually, I'm referring more to the 150 word articles on some health issues
              that are not only horrible, but the whole first page is the same article just
              reposted on each crappy site?

              Good user experience?

              I think not.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046700].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Brad Gosse
    Cleaning up the WSO forum is long overdue. I think we have lost a percentage of the good people who bought there already due to the black hat stuff in there.

    THis is great news for all the warriors who are building real long term businesses!
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2044367].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
      Originally Posted by Brad Gosse View Post

      Cleaning up the WSO forum is long overdue. I think we have lost a percentage of the good people who bought there already due to the black hat stuff in there.

      THis is great news for all the warriors who are building real long term businesses!
      Yes indeed.

      I might even launch one in there now.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2044393].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jazbo
      The problem is Brad that rule 7 says:

      "NO Software Or training material can be sold here that violates the TOS of other services or that teaches people how."

      So that would mean that (reading between the lines on one of your WSO's) that impersonating a woman online to get someone to sign up to a dating site would contravene their affiliate TOS.

      So how far are you advocating cleaning it up, as even you have been apparently breaking it? Im not being "funny" with you, just pointing out that you obviously want the place cleaned up and therefore saw that WSO as "legitimate", but according to rule 7, it isn't.



      Originally Posted by Brad Gosse View Post

      Cleaning up the WSO forum is long overdue. I think we have lost a percentage of the good people who bought there already due to the black hat stuff in there.

      THis is great news for all the warriors who are building real long term businesses!
      Signature
      CONTENT WRITER. Reliable, UK-Based, 6 Years Experience - ANY NICHE
      Click Here For Writing Samples & Online Ordering
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2044473].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
        Originally Posted by jazbo View Post

        The problem is Brad that rule 7 says:

        "NO Software Or training material can be sold here that violates the TOS of other services or that teaches people how."

        So that would mean that (reading between the lines on one of your WSO's) that impersonating a woman online to get someone to sign up to a dating site would contravene their affiliate TOS.

        So how far are you advocating cleaning it up, as even you have been apparently breaking it? Im not being "funny" with you, just pointing out that you obviously want the place cleaned up and therefore saw that WSO as "legitimate", but according to rule 7, it isn't.


        Twitter software, which could be used to create more than one account, would probably also fall into the same category, unfortunately.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045105].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Brad Gosse
        Originally Posted by jazbo View Post

        The problem is Brad that rule 7 says:

        "NO Software Or training material can be sold here that violates the TOS of other services or that teaches people how."

        So that would mean that (reading between the lines on one of your WSO's) that impersonating a woman online to get someone to sign up to a dating site would contravene their affiliate TOS.

        So how far are you advocating cleaning it up, as even you have been apparently breaking it? Im not being "funny" with you, just pointing out that you obviously want the place cleaned up and therefore saw that WSO as "legitimate", but according to rule 7, it isn't.


        I think you have it all wrong
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2048686].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by jazbo View Post

        impersonating a woman online to get someone to sign up to a dating site would contravene their affiliate TOS.
        I'm unable to see why. Can you quote a portion of such a TOS document? I can't see any language in the TOS of the sites I've checked that says anything at all about this.
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2049086].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jude.A
      Originally Posted by Brad Gosse View Post

      Cleaning up the WSO forum is long overdue. I think we have lost a percentage of the good people who bought there already due to the black hat stuff in there.

      THis is great news for all the warriors who are building real long term businesses!
      I totally agree with you 100%
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045269].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DogScout
      Originally Posted by Brad Gosse View Post

      Cleaning up the WSO forum is long overdue. I think we have lost a percentage of the good people who bought there already due to the black hat stuff in there.

      THis is great news for all the warriors who are building real long term businesses!
      can't find my thanks button, I am sure I missed the post that explains why, but thanks.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045338].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Precious-Ngwu
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2044407].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      Not only did I see it coming, I warned people a long time ago that the
      sh*t was going to hit the fan and they laughed at me...like they usually do.

      Well, we'll see who's laughing when the smoke clears.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2044423].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Martin Luxton
        And it will be very informative to take note of the people who bitch unreasonably about the cleanup.

        Martin
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2044445].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DogScout
        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

        Not only did I see it coming, I warned people a long time ago that the
        sh*t was going to hit the fan and they laughed at me...like they usually do.

        Well, we'll see who's laughing when the smoke clears.
        Don't feel bad, they laugh at me too.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045309].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author laurenceh
          I'd be a little concerned the same as Daniel in that, although I do not do anything to go against any site t's and c's, is it not possible (knowing how unpredictable the G can be) that a competitor may report your site on a whim, and Google could decide due to your backlinks, content, adsense, whatever it may be that they want you penalized?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045323].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by laurenceh View Post

            I'd be a little concerned the same as Daniel in that, although I do not do anything to go against any site t's and c's, is it not possible (knowing how unpredictable the G can be) that a competitor may report your site on a whim, and Google could decide due to your backlinks, content, adsense, whatever it may be that they want you penalized?
            Actually its been taken a bit out of context. I covered this about two months ago in a post that got alot of people upset. Matt's post was to get reports to improve the algorithm that he said they are working on.

            Its not that Google is going to start relying primarily on reports to do clean up. The reports help them to fine tune the new algorithm. The other shoe hasn't even fallen yet and won't until the new algorithm is implemented. Theres a good chance that by the end of the year no one will even care that the WSO section was cleared of backlink services. They may be entirely redundant as I've told people repeatedly.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045396].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author laurenceh
              Ok I get it.

              That would make a bit more sense I guess. Stay ahead of the game is the key I guess as always.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045427].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              Theres a good chance that by the end of the year no one will even care that the WSO section was cleared of backlink services. They may be entirely redundant as I've told people repeatedly.
              I just added a note on my Yahoo Calendar for Dec. 31st 2010. We shall see what changes have been made.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045467].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author rapidscc
            Originally Posted by laurenceh View Post

            I'd be a little concerned the same as Daniel in that, although I do not do anything to go against any site t's and c's, is it not possible (knowing how unpredictable the G can be) that a competitor may report your site on a whim, and Google could decide due to your backlinks, content, adsense, whatever it may be that they want you penalized?
            I just hope that Big G will have a large review team to back this up. Some people will report anything just to see a good thing destroyed.

            Did you see what happened to that "Make Money Blog" though it got resurrected after a day or two, it still made news all over the place.

            I know there's probably a good reason why it went down for a few days
            but think about it. What if that happened to a site you worked hard on?
            What if you were working honestly and diligently for a long time on that
            project?

            I know the main topic of this is the WSO section but I think the
            "report the spam" portion of the post should also get some attention.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2048716].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dhira
            Originally Posted by laurenceh View Post

            I'd be a little concerned the same as Daniel in that, although I do not do anything to go against any site t's and c's, is it not possible (knowing how unpredictable the G can be) that a competitor may report your site on a whim, and Google could decide due to your backlinks, content, adsense, whatever it may be that they want you penalized?
            That is the only problem. How closely will they look at what's reported.
            What if it's a false report... then what -any penalty for that?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2049141].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Midas3 Consulting
              Originally Posted by Dhira View Post

              That is the only problem. How closely will they look at what's reported.
              What if it's a false report... then what -any penalty for that?
              If indeed they pay the slightest attention to submissions made via it,
              and I strongly suspect it has more to do with generating a psychological
              deterrent than it does a realistic mechanism for reducing link spam, then
              they will be extraordinarily careful with it.

              As I've said above, it is actually impossible to determine in regards
              a back links campaign whether the site owner carried it out for their
              benefit in the SERPS or whether a competitor did it to nobble their rival.

              If they are able to do anything at all, it will be with kid gloves and a
              huge degree of investigation which in my opinion would be utterly
              unfeasible in reality.

              What could however happen is that any ON page naughtiness,
              cloaking, old style doorway pages, misleading opt ins, cookie stuffing
              on exit trial by popup and so on may be more aggressively dealt with.

              We have sites in the SERPS which have no other base other than
              to teach people how to game Google's system and they rank well.

              They are huge sites, Google doesn't even remove massive volume
              sights who teach people how to game their algo's, does anybody really
              think they are going to develop a team of people running about
              responding to every Tom Dick and Harry who reports a site
              they think has to many links.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2049179].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author globalpro
    Ya think Di Nozzo... Gibbsmack.

    Good one Paul.

    Thanks,

    John
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2044452].message }}
  • Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

    So cleaning up the WSO section could help to keep Warrior Forum from being hammered by Google for promoting SEO techniques that could be deemed a violation of their TOS and practices.
    So, following this line of reasoning, any PLR and spinner posts/WSOs would be the next to go, right?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2044817].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
      Kevin,

      Where does it say that PLR is against the TOS of Google? Or spinners, either, for that matter?

      Tina
      Signature
      Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
      Fast & Easy Content Creation
      ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045045].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dave d
        Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises View Post

        Kevin,

        Where does it say that PLR is against the TOS of Google? Or spinners, either, for that matter?

        Tina
        Tina I think he is speaking in general terms with regards to a product or service that violates a sites TOS. ie PLR vilolates ezine articles TOS.

        Now I dont see the point of this thread because Im guessing that if WF was deindexed from Google Allen would not give 2 hoots because I suspect he would still make a killing anyway because he does not rely on traffic from G or am I missing something here.

        What Im tryimg to say is that the WF is not some new kid on the block trying desperately to rank on G to make a few measly commissions. Its well established and whether G likes it or not is irrelevant.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045140].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mark Blaze
          Originally Posted by Dave d View Post

          Tina I think he is speaking in general terms with regards to a product or service that violates a sites TOS. ie PLR vilolates ezine articles TOS.

          Now I dont see the point of this thread because Im guessing that if WF was deindexed from Google Allen would not give 2 hoots because I suspect he would still make a killing anyway because he does not rely on traffic from G or am I missing something here.

          What Im tryimg to say is that the WF is not some new kid on the block trying desperately to rank on G to make a few measly commissions. Its well established and whether G likes it or not is irrelevant.
          Yes but alot of people selling things on the forum utilize the power of this site's backlinks and authority to get almost automatic high rankings for related keyphrases!

          Mark Blaze
          Signature
          Aweber BONUS! <- Email Marketing At It's Best!
          The Best Spinner BONUS!<- Article Spinning Made 110% Easier!
          Unique Article Wizard BONUS! <- 2000+ Backlinks + Traffic With Each Article!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045180].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Jill Carpenter
          Originally Posted by Dave d View Post

          Tina I think he is speaking in general terms with regards to a product or service that violates a sites TOS. ie PLR vilolates ezine articles TOS.

          Now I dont see the point of this thread because Im guessing that if WF was deindexed from Google Allen would not give 2 hoots because I suspect he would still make a killing anyway because he does not rely on traffic from G or am I missing something here.

          What Im tryimg to say is that the WF is not some new kid on the block trying desperately to rank on G to make a few measly commissions. Its well established and whether G likes it or not is irrelevant.
          Ezine does not entertain articles on the subject of PLR - but they don't ban you for trying to submit the article. They just tell you they don't like the subject on their site.

          Do a search on this page for reference to PLR or Private Label Rights:

          EzineArticles.com Terms of Service for Authors

          You won't find it.

          PLR is mentioned in the editorial guidelines - they just tell you it will not be included in their directory if you try to submit it.
          Signature

          "May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045224].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author theverysmartguy
            Originally Posted by avenuegirl View Post

            Ezine does not entertain articles on the subject of PLR - but they don't ban you for trying to submit the article. They just tell you they don't like the subject on their site.

            Do a search on this page for reference to PLR or Private Label Rights:

            EzineArticles.com Terms of Service for Authors

            You won't find it.

            PLR is mentioned in the editorial guidelines - they just tell you it will not be included in their directory if you try to submit it.
            A lot of those articles still make it through though.

            And another thought on that, they will probably change that in the future, because they are entertaining the idea of having authors sell articles, and article packs through ezinearticles for profit sharing.

            Anyways, that was just my though on that, not trying to change the topic subject or anything.

            -- Jeff
            Signature

            "Doing nothing is worse than doing it wrong."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045880].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author JohnQuiet
            Originally Posted by avenuegirl View Post

            Ezine does not entertain articles on the subject of PLR - but they don't ban you for trying to submit the article. They just tell you they don't like the subject on their site.

            Do a search on this page for reference to PLR or Private Label Rights:

            EzineArticles.com Terms of Service for Authors

            You won't find it.

            PLR is mentioned in the editorial guidelines - they just tell you it will not be included in their directory if you try to submit it.
            I am not sure exactly what he was posting on ezine, But John Rhodes said on one of his recent webinars that ezine KILLED his account completely for posting a "PLR" related article. I am assuming that he was posting a "how to do" PLR spinning article.

            Just thought I would add this. I do agree that you should "make the" content your own by adding substantial value...

            JohnQuiet
            Signature
            It's Time for Christmas Cookies!
            Discover Your "It" for FREE at FindYourIt.com
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2048540].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Jill Carpenter
              Originally Posted by JohnQuiet View Post

              I am not sure exactly what he was posting on ezine, But John Rhodes said on one of his recent webinars that ezine KILLED his account completely for posting a "PLR" related article. I am assuming that he was posting a "how to do" PLR spinning article.

              Just thought I would add this. I do agree that you should "make the" content your own by adding substantial value...

              JohnQuiet
              Just to clarify on the PLR topic, PLR is not sold with the express purpose of people adding this content to Ezine articles in order for it to work. You have to also consider the many different formats that PLR can come in. For example, video loops that can be edited, music for introductions, etc.

              Where as the main intent of most who look into xrumer is to create massive links which affect a huge variety of sites and search engines.

              And the same with Twitter automation software - it is used to expressly fool the Twitter site.

              Now, if I was told PLR was no longer a valid offer here, I would be more than happy to abide, but I am guessing what is being addressed first are softwares and systems whose primary intent is to cause some kind of chaos and unethical marketing.

              Content providers IMO fall into a different category.

              And I think I mentioned this before, but articles are duplicated all over the web - as videos are shared and even public domain materials. When you have rights to this content, they become simple tools for the artist to re-create a better version or re-invent.
              Signature

              "May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2048663].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author J Bold
          Originally Posted by Dave d View Post


          Now I dont see the point of this thread because Im guessing that if WF was deindexed from Google Allen would not give 2 hoots because I suspect he would still make a killing anyway because he does not rely on traffic from G or am I missing something here.

          What Im tryimg to say is that the WF is not some new kid on the block trying desperately to rank on G to make a few measly commissions. Its well established and whether G likes it or not is irrelevant.

          Wrong. How did you first get here? I first got here from a google search. Maybe you didn't. However, I think a lot of people first get here that way. I think this forum heavily relies on good rankings in Google! I never would have come here, most likely, if not for finding it on a search.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045759].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
            Originally Posted by redicelander View Post

            Wrong. How did you first get here? I first got here from a google search. Maybe you didn't. However, I think a lot of people first get here that way. I think this forum heavily relies on good rankings in Google! I never would have come here, most likely, if not for finding it on a search.

            Not to mention that at some point, some crafty lawyer is going to figure out that sites promoting techniques interfering with the operating terms of service of another business might just be found laible for tortious interference of the performance of an agreement by sympathetic jury.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045773].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author JayXtreme
              Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

              Not to mention that at some point, some crafty lawyer is going to figure out that sites promoting techniques interfering with the operating terms of service of another business might just be found laible for tortious interference of the performance of an agreement by sympathetic jury.
              They'd have to be majorly sympathetic... and the lawyer would have to be on meds.

              :: back to your debate, I'm not into it... just avin' a read my house isn't affected here...
              Signature

              Bare Murkage.........

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2048622].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
                Originally Posted by JayXtreme View Post

                They'd have to be majorly sympathetic... and the lawyer would have to be on meds.

                :: back to your debate, I'm not into it... just avin' a read my house isn't affected here...

                I don't trust courts to find logic, reason, or truth and wouldn't put ANYTHING past a bottom feeding lawyer. Shakedowns really do happen.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2048726].message }}
      • Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises View Post

        Kevin,

        Where does it say that PLR is against the TOS of Google? Or spinners, either, for that matter?

        Tina
        First, I didn't mention Google in my post.

        Second, I didn't mention what my personal position on PLR is, only that the general direction this discussion is taking around here seem to apply to PLR as well as to proxies.

        Is all PLR used to trick Google? No. Sometimes it is used to create a product or to fill out weak content on a blog. I get that.

        But it is also regularly used to trick Google. Google says the following in their "quality guidelines" (after encouraging "honest" webmasters to report sites for "spamming Google"):

        Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content
        When you click on the link to their definition of duplicate content you get:

        However, in some cases, content is deliberately duplicated across domains in an attempt to manipulate search engine rankings or win more traffic. Deceptive practices like this can result in a poor user experience, when a visitor sees substantially the same content repeated within a set of search results.
        To me it sounds as if Google is saying for INDEXED PAGES, PLR would be considered spam.

        Now, if a person wishes to use PLR in some other way, then it makes sense to make it invisible to the search engines via a no index tag. But if the goal is to get indexed and get higher page rankings or traffic using spun PLR, then it looks like that person would be making Google sad.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045473].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Jill Carpenter
          Originally Posted by Kevin-VirtualProfitCenter View Post


          To me it sounds as if Google is saying for INDEXED PAGES, PLR would be considered spam.

          Now, if a person wishes to use PLR in some other way, then it makes sense to make it invisible to the search engines via a no index tag. But if the goal is to get indexed and get higher page rankings or traffic using spun PLR, then it looks like that person would be making Google sad.
          The issue here is think of all the numbers of article directories there are, and then consider all the people who submit to these directories - putting links in their resource boxes - and then think when there is a great article of all the people that want to put that "duplicate content" on their sites. Forget that the article is associated with the same name all over the place. That same content can wind up all over the place even while it is original to begin with. In a lot of ways this is no different than some people taking PLR and putting it on their sites. They just put a different name on it. And hopefully when it is written content that they are displaying publicly they are going to rewrite it.

          Even youtube encourages the same video to be shared across the web on as many sites as possible. They give us all an embed link.
          Signature

          "May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045535].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
      Originally Posted by Kevin-VirtualProfitCenter View Post

      So, following this line of reasoning, any PLR and spinner posts/WSOs would be the next to go, right?
      This town needs an enema.

      Maybe, just maybe, people will realize that what they're doing isn't actually "marketing" and they'll actually have to learn how to create a real product, with a real presence, with a real market demand, using real strategies that involve real, sustainable business models based on fundamental concepts that were well-established, well-proven, and well-refined long before Google ever existed.

      This one trick pony crap of dreaming of beating the algorithm of a search engine being the pot o' gold at the end of a rainbow is nothing more than a grizzled ruffian with a pudgy fist full of betting slips at a horse park.

      It's seedy, it's not even a sustainable business model because it relies upon breaking TOS of Google and many other sites. It's not a business sytem because it breaks the moment Google changes the rules.

      It attracts the worst kinds of business people (LAZY... in fact, I don't even want to call them business people... hustlers with their 3 card monty game on the street corner) into an entire industry segment that is sagging under the weight of scams, garbage products, garbage sites, garbage content, and garbage practices from one end of the business spectrum to the other. I'm not saying that everyone that engages in article marketing and PLR is scammer garbage - but you absolutely understand what I am saying. The entire practice has sunk lower than whale poop... and that sinks to the bottom of the ocean and there isn't anything lower than that.

      Yeah, firehose the entire manure pit out with prejudice.

      Guys like Seth Godin, Vaynerchuk, Eben Pagen, Chris Brogan, Andy Beal, Guy Kawasaki, et al... they don't sit around with an army of barely literate offshore grunts armed with article spinners, plagarizing whatever they can scrape to hawk some second rate, schmucky e-book crap that was cut and pasted from 3 other PLR products at some obscene, fraudulent price.

      Damn this rant is so good, I think I will make it an official blog post.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045225].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
        Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

        This town needs an enema.

        Maybe, just maybe, people will realize that what they're doing isn't actually "marketing" and they'll actually have to learn how to create a real product, with a real presence, with a real market demand, using real strategies that involve real, sustainable business models based on fundamental concepts that were well-established, well-proven, and well-refined long before Google ever existed.

        This one trick pony crap of dreaming of beating the algorithm of a search engine being the pot o' gold at the end of a rainbow is nothing more than a grizzled ruffian with a pudgy fist full of betting slips at a horse park.

        It's seedy, it's not even a sustainable business model because it relies upon breaking TOS of Google and many other sites. It's not a business sytem because it breaks the moment Google changes the rules.

        It attracts the worst kinds of business people (LAZY... in fact, I don't even want to call them business people... hustlers with their 3 card monty game on the street corner) into an entire industry segment that is sagging under the weight of scams, garbage products, garbage sites, garbage content, and garbage practices from one end of the business spectrum to the other. I'm not saying that everyone that engages in article marketing and PLR is scammer garbage - but you absolutely understand what I am saying. The entire practice has sunk lower than whale poop... and that sinks to the bottom of the ocean and there isn't anything lower than that.

        Yeah, firehose the entire manure pit out with prejudice.

        Guys like Seth Godin, Vaynerchuk, Eben Pagen, Chris Brogan, Andy Beal, Guy Kawasaki, et al... they don't sit around with an army of barely literate offshore grunts armed with article spinners, plagarizing whatever they can scrape to hawk some second rate, schmucky e-book crap that was cut and pasted from 3 other PLR products at some obscene, fraudulent price.

        Damn this rant is so good, I think I will make it an official blog post.
        Dang...where is that "THANKS" button when you need one....?

        *THANKS*
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045275].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author alextsui
        Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

        This town needs an enema.

        Yeah, firehose the entire manure pit out with prejudice.

        Guys like Seth Godin, Vaynerchuk, Eben Pagen, Chris Brogan, Andy Beal, Guy Kawasaki, et al... they don't sit around with an army of barely literate offshore grunts armed with article spinners, plagarizing whatever they can scrape to hawk some second rate, schmucky e-book crap that was cut and pasted from 3 other PLR products at some obscene, fraudulent price.

        Damn this rant is so good, I think I will make it an official blog post.
        Michael,

        I like the way you string long sentences together all in one breath. You sure have a way with words!

        Regards,
        Alex
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045468].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
          Originally Posted by Don Schenk View Post

          Oh wonderful! I thought he meant Cincinnati.

          :-Don
          Well I AM pretty open with my views about the Over The Rhine Street Car Bridge To Nowhere project, but that's a completely different forum.

          Originally Posted by alextsui View Post

          Michael,

          I like the way you string long sentences together all in one breath. You sure have a way with words!

          Regards,
          Alex
          I'm intentionally toning it down for a PG audience! If I really cut loose, I'd have to charge $65 a seat to laugh at me for a couple of hours.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045509].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mr2monster
        Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

        This town needs an enema.

        Maybe, just maybe, people will realize that what they're doing isn't actually "marketing" and they'll actually have to learn how to create a real product, with a real presence, with a real market demand, using real strategies that involve real, sustainable business models based on fundamental concepts that were well-established, well-proven, and well-refined long before Google ever existed.

        This one trick pony crap of dreaming of beating the algorithm of a search engine being the pot o' gold at the end of a rainbow is nothing more than a grizzled ruffian with a pudgy fist full of betting slips at a horse park.

        It's seedy, it's not even a sustainable business model because it relies upon breaking TOS of Google and many other sites. It's not a business sytem because it breaks the moment Google changes the rules.

        It attracts the worst kinds of business people (LAZY... in fact, I don't even want to call them business people... hustlers with their 3 card monty game on the street corner) into an entire industry segment that is sagging under the weight of scams, garbage products, garbage sites, garbage content, and garbage practices from one end of the business spectrum to the other. I'm not saying that everyone that engages in article marketing and PLR is scammer garbage - but you absolutely understand what I am saying. The entire practice has sunk lower than whale poop... and that sinks to the bottom of the ocean and there isn't anything lower than that.

        Yeah, firehose the entire manure pit out with prejudice.

        Guys like Seth Godin, Vaynerchuk, Eben Pagen, Chris Brogan, Andy Beal, Guy Kawasaki, et al... they don't sit around with an army of barely literate offshore grunts armed with article spinners, plagarizing whatever they can scrape to hawk some second rate, schmucky e-book crap that was cut and pasted from 3 other PLR products at some obscene, fraudulent price.

        Damn this rant is so good, I think I will make it an official blog post.


        Damn, I wish there were a thanks button right now.....

        I've been trying to say this for a long time now, but you articulated it perfectly.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045526].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Durham
    I love this Michael Hiles guy! Michael, you are inspiring at best, and always amusing at least! No sarcasm just truly enjoy reading your posts.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045235].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Daniel Brock
    I can forsee a lot of problems with this - especially for the people who like 50+ websites.

    Your earners could get knocked off without you knowing...

    I'm also going to bet that people are going to use this maliciously to knock their competitors off the rankings...

    I don't know about this one...
    Signature
    Clickbank #1 Best Seller: The Deadbeat Super Affiliate.
    Click here to learn how to make money online in your bath robe and gym socks!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045242].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author R Hagel
      Originally Posted by Daniel Brock View Post


      I'm also going to bet that people are going to use this maliciously to knock their competitors off the rankings...
      That's only a problem for those who're going against the TOS. If they're not going against the TOS, then they don't have anything to worry about.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045273].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author timpears
      Originally Posted by Daniel Brock View Post

      I can forsee a lot of problems with this - especially for the people who like 50+ websites.

      Your earners could get knocked off without you knowing...

      I'm also going to bet that people are going to use this maliciously to knock their competitors off the rankings...

      I don't know about this one...
      I think that Daniel is right. I foresee some issues too. There is a fine line in many things. And no matter what anyone is selling, I am pretty sure that someone could find a way to misuse it and violate someone's terms of service. So where does it end? I really hate it when rules depend on someone's subjective opinion.

      I don't visit the WSO forum very often, but I noticed that some of the offers were really suspicious. But I have seen folks complain about products they have been selling for a long time, get the boot. Products that I would have thought were part of normal internet marketing. But, then what the hell do I know. I am still a newbie.

      I am wondering if back linking, back link lists, and link wheel services and such will go away. I hope not, but I can see an argument under this rule, I think. That is what I mean about subjective. Who knows? Only Paul Myers I guess.

      Anyway, that is my $0.02. Take it for what it is worth.
      Signature

      Tim Pears

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046648].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    I guess some people - not me - will have some problems with WSO's. Both sellers and the forum.

    There is a thin line between some stuff discussed here.

    But I am on it for a clean house.

    Tired of dust.

    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045317].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Originally Posted by cjmo75 View Post

    Wow, Google wants us to "tattle" on our fellow marketers now. Every day they get more and more ridiculous IMHO.
    That's very close to what I used to hear as a marketer when I'd report email spam. It wasn't until the problem got as bad as we had predicted that people started understanding. By then, it had become an expensive nuisance, and one that forces people to filter spam and run the risk of losing legitimate messages in order to keep their mailboxes usable.

    I think a lot of people here don't understand the damage this stuff does to the system, or just how quickly it proliferates.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045355].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Raydal
    I don't know how well this is going to work for Google because other
    sites like YouTube carry 'flaggin' tools and I still all kind of trash
    on the site.

    So if they cannot use their technology to catch these sites how
    could they man a reporting channel of this nature. I think this
    would be a deterrent rather than a practical solution.

    We'll see.

    -Ray Edwards
    Signature
    The most powerful and concentrated copywriting training online today bar none! Autoresponder Writing Email SECRETS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045362].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author laurenceh
    So Paul, are you worried that good sites may get caught in some of this crossfire, and end up as collateral damage?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045370].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Robert Puddy
      Originally Posted by laurenceh View Post

      So Paul, are you worried that good sites may get caught in some of this crossfire, and end up as collateral damage?
      They might, but thats not a reason to stop the clean up.

      Anything thats spun, scraped or in any way doctered specifically to clog up the internet, circumvent the original reason for the site being created should be burned, slapped and quartered.

      Its just spray paint gaffitti.


      I just went down to brown sector and looked over the threads in the WSO forum, and came away needing a shower... Its the same when you do a search on google,
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045415].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Laurence,
      So Paul, are you worried that good sites may get caught in some of this crossfire, and end up as collateral damage?
      Yep. Gonna happen, at least until they get the process developed.

      Spam filtering took a long time to get to the point at which the false positive rate was acceptable. But it had to be done, in order to make email properly usable again. The hassle in the meantime was a pain, though, to say the least.

      It would be interesting to go back through the threads and see which people are selling links and also complaining that Google is trying to respond effectively and keep their search results relevant...

      A lot of the problem they're addressing with this starts right here.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045461].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author FrankBowman
    Tell me how this is not censorship?

    Ooo, if I don't do what Serge and Larry like, then they'll de-index my site?

    While I agree the WSO forum is mostly crap, this is just Google flexing its muscle.

    ...and ratting out other sites because Google can't keep up with Bl*ck Hat Techniques?.........didn't the Soviets and Nazis employ the same methods?

    ........sounds like censorship to me.

    Go ahead start slamming me.

    Peace
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045408].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author R Hagel
      Originally Posted by FrankBowman View Post

      Tell me how this is not censorship?
      Because you are still free to do what you please on your own site (provided you abide by the other relevant TOS, such as your host, payment processor, and any other entity with which you have a business relationship).

      Cheers,
      Becky
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045448].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jill Carpenter
      Originally Posted by FrankBowman View Post

      Tell me how this is not censorship?

      Ooo, if I don't do what Serge and Larry like, then they'll de-index my site?

      While I agree the WSO forum is mostly crap, this is just Google flexing its muscle.

      ...and ratting out other sites because Google can't keep up with Bl*ck Hat Techniques?.........didn't the Soviets and Nazis employ the same methods?

      ........sounds like censorship to me.

      Go ahead start slamming me.

      Peace
      Hey, you are more than welcome to do what ever you want on your own blog. The issue is you may get dumped by every search engine (depending on what it is you are doing).

      And then you can just go and start up your own search engine. Nobody is stopping you.

      Google doesn't "owe" us anything. Allen and this forum don't "owe" us anything. And the opportunity to post a WSO is a privilege not a right. Even being a member here - if you are free or paid - is just a privilege.

      What goes on here is not a democracy (although some would like to think it is). While we have and do make suggestions or requests from time to time, there is nothing saying what the majority wants is what they get necessarily.

      Do I think Google gets a bit too big for it's britches? Sometimes. And I have to weigh in where it has been of some kind of benefit to me.

      While currently they appear as the top dog and trend setter - don't think they are guaranteed this for all eternity.

      All you need to do is look back at every industry and you will see that a lot of companies that may have started the game, but are now either gone or have had to merge elsewhere.
      Signature

      "May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045493].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Frank,
      Tell me how this is not censorship?
      Well, for one thing, they're not telling you what you can and cannot say. They're simply choosing whose speech they want to support. In very broad ways, that aren't based on the ideas, but rather the mode of expression. Sort of like me telling someone I'll toss them out of my house if they use certain language. I'm not telling them what to think, just what they cannot say in my home.
      ...and ratting out other sites because Google can't keep up with Bl*ck Hat Techniques?.........didn't the Soviets and Nazis employ the same methods?
      One more Godwin violation and I'll censor you right out of the place.

      There is a rather large difference between "We don't want to give your competitors free advertising if they try to trick us" and "We're going to kill millions of people, and you're one of them if you don't help."


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045498].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mr2monster
      Originally Posted by FrankBowman View Post

      Tell me how this is not censorship?

      Ooo, if I don't do what Serge and Larry like, then they'll de-index my site?

      While I agree the WSO forum is mostly crap, this is just Google flexing its muscle.

      ...and ratting out other sites because Google can't keep up with Bl*ck Hat Techniques?.........didn't the Soviets and Nazis employ the same methods?

      ........sounds like censorship to me.

      Go ahead start slamming me.

      Peace


      Google.com is google's property. They can put whatever they want to put on there just as you can put whatever you want on your sites. You're not being censored... feel free to do whatever you want, but Google doesn't have to give you the platform to speak on.

      Don't like that? Build your own platform.



      People tend to forget that google is a FOR PROFIT company, and as a FOR PROFIT company, they care about the user experience that they give to their "customers". If what you're doing or saying doesn't line up with that message, google doesn't HAVE to display your stuff. It's THEIR business.

      Just like you're not forced to share certain messages with your customers that you may or may not agree with.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045557].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author apol
    Anything thats spun, scraped or in any way doctered specifically to clog up the internet, circumvent the original reason for the site being created should be burned, slapped and quartered.
    I guess everyone specially in the IM scene will have a big problem on that...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045449].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author laurenceh
    Incidentally just to clarify the "stay ahead of the game" statement, I do not mean find new ways of tricking the system, but rather keeping away from any of the new waves of "front page guaranteed" tricks that try and buck the system
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045452].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
    Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post


    So cleaning up the WSO section could help to keep Warrior Forum from being hammered by Google for promoting SEO techniques that could be deemed a violation of their TOS and practices.
    Of course, there is a big difference between this and Rule #7.

    Hypo 1: If forum ABC has a TOC that says you can't post links to commercial sites in your sig, and you do that...then OK, you violated that site's TOS.

    Hypo 2: If I buy a link on site ABC, am I violating ABC's TOS? Nope. Am I violating Google's TOS? I don't believe so. Sure, they might decide to slap site ABC etc. in terms of PR or SERP ranking, but that has nothing to do with violating a site's TOS (including google's).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045463].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

      Hypo 2: If I buy a link on site ABC, am I violating ABC's TOS? Nope. Am I violating Google's TOS? I don't believe so. Sure, they might decide to slap site ABC etc. in terms of PR or SERP ranking, but that has nothing to do with violating a site's TOS (including google's).
      I think Google has made pretty clear that buying links does violate their TOS. I'm not calling it right or wrong but thats just how they see it and its their site.

      edit. Never mind on the rest - its been dealt with.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045512].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Mike,

        For the record, I haven't touched anyone's sig file for that this time around (except an ad for Xrumer services). That was someone else, and I'm not sure who. Like I said... One thing at a time. Sig files are the very bottom of my list. LinkAloha is a special case, too. One wonders when seeing those if the system was used to create the profiles on which they appear. I haven't looked into that yet.

        As far as Google and what they rank and how, I don't see that as a TOS issue. It's their policy for their index, but it has no effect on what you can and cannot legitimately do. There is nothing unethical, for example, about buying a link to get traffic. If there was, Da Goog would be the chief culprit. (Can you say "Adwords?")

        Google just says how they'll respond to that action as regards their listings if they discover it. And note that they do NOT consider paid banner ads and the like as inappropriate, nor do they penalize the sites they link to. It's only stuff that appears to be done to manipulate rankings.

        They have to do that in order to deliver relevant results to their visitors.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045574].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        I think Google has made pretty clear that buying links does violate their TOS. I'm not calling it right or wrong but thats just how they see it and its their site.
        Well, I agree that buying links could potentially impact one's ranking and PR in Google, but Google is voluntarily reviewing sites/pages and putting them in their directory. When I put up a site I don't ask Google to get in their directory.

        I don't see how one violates the TOS of a directory which voluntarily decided to add your site. Doesn't one have to agree to a site's TOS, to have to abide by it and hence potentially break it?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045589].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
          Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but in regard to Google, you don't use
          them...they decide whether or not to use YOU. So if you want to go and
          create 100,000 MFA spam blogs, go right ahead. But Google doesn't have to
          place your in their index. That's how tons of MFA business models ended
          up going belly up many years back.

          Now, if you're using their paid service, such as Adwords and Adsense and
          commit click fraud or something else, that's different. That's a violation of
          TOS. But as far as what you want to do with your own site, create 10,000
          backlinks in a day, use PLR or whatever, hey...knock yourself out. It's your
          site and you can do what you want with it.

          Just don't expect Google to give you any love.

          But I can't exactly call this a breaking of TOS because again, you're not
          asking Google to index you. They're either doing it or they're not depending
          on what actions you take.

          Again, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the way I interpret it.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045627].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
            Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

            Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but in regard to Google, you don't use
            them...they decide whether or not to use YOU. So if you want to go and
            create 100,000 MFA spam blogs, go right ahead. But Google doesn't have to
            place your in their index. That's how tons of MFA business models ended
            up going belly up many years back.

            Now, if you're using their paid service, such as Adwords and Adsense and
            commit click fraud or something else, that's different. That's a violation of
            TOS. But as far as what you want to do with your own site, create 10,000
            backlinks in a day, use PLR or whatever, hey...knock yourself out. It's your
            site and you can do what you want with it.

            Just don't expect Google to give you any love.

            But I can't exactly call this a breaking of TOS because again, you're not
            asking Google to index you. They're either doing it or they're not depending
            on what actions you take.

            Again, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the way I interpret it.
            I'm with you Steven. Obviously if one is using Adsense and/or Adwords, then that opens up another can of worms and one has to make sure to follow Google's TOS to the letter. But, if you just have JoeSchmoe.com, do with it what you want (of course their might be issues if you care about Google SERP ranking or PR).

            Tom
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045661].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

          I don't see how one violates the TOS of a directory which voluntarily decided to add your site. Doesn't one have to agree to a site's TOS, to have to abide by it and hence potentially break it?
          Tom I may have misread you. I thought you were referring specifically to buying a link. I wan't commenting on how I perceived it I was commenting on their prohibition regarding buying links. You can of course do anything you want with your site and they can feel free to deindex it as well. No TOS broken just no more relationship (and there is a kind of relationship if you depend on them for traffic) because from their viewpoint a line was crossed.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045720].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            Tom I may have misread you. I thought you were referring specifically to buying a link. I wan't commenting on how I perceived it I was commenting on their prohibition regarding buying links. You can of course do anything you want with your site and they can feel free to deindex it as well. No TOS broken just no more relationship (and there is a kind of relationship if you depend on them for traffic) because from their viewpoint a line was crossed.
            No, you didn't misread me. I was specifically referring to buying a link (but I believe it also applies to other backlinking methods too), and that I didn't view it as breaking a TOS of Google (as you didn't agree to any such TOS), but of course could have other ramifications in terms of Google's voluntary search engine. My post relates to the OP who described all the backlinking methods as a violation of Google's TOS (which I don't think is true).
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045742].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

              . My post relates to the OP who described all the backlinking methods as a violation of Google's TOS (which I don't think is true).
              Okay I get you but I also get the OP. Whats the practical distinction? So Google eliminates my listing because it doesn't like what I did even though I didn't agree and so am not bound to their TOS. Same result. Its a technical point with no practical distinction if I want to get Google's traffic and am doing things specifically to move up in their serps.

              I think Google allows paid backlinks all the time in the form of Corporate partnerships. I see followed links all the time on top sites where there is a monetary payoff. I'm not defending Google or getting on anyone for paid links. People will disagree but I alo think in terms of relevant content no one does a better job of junking up relevant content than adsense.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046226].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                Okay I get you but I also get the OP. Whats the practical distinction? So Google eliminates my listing because it doesn't like what I did even though I didn't agree and so am not bound to their TOS. Same result. Its a technical point with no practical distinction if I want to get Google's traffic and am doing things specifically to move up in their serps.
                Yes, its a technical point, and I agree that the practical distinction vis-a-vis google really isn't much (if any).

                But, in light of the "Rule 7" crackdowns for violating other sites' TOS's in the past 36 hours, I wanted it to be clear that these backlinking methods were not violating the TOS of Google.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046237].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                  Tom,
                  But, in light of the "Rule 7" crackdowns for violating other sites' TOS's in the past 36 hours, I wanted it to be clear that these backlinking methods were not violating the TOS of Google.
                  I repeat: This action has nothing to do with Google. It relates to the sites the links are placed on, not how the Big G deals with the sites the links point to.


                  Paul
                  Signature
                  .
                  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046244].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
                    Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                    Tom,I repeat: This action has nothing to do with Google. It relates to the sites the links are placed on, not how the Big G deals with the sites the links point to.


                    Paul
                    I'm with you Paul. I am merely pointing out the inaccuracy of the OP's statement and trying to make sure we use the right verbiage around here.

                    The OP started this thread with "So cleaning up the WSO section could help to keep Warrior Forum from being hammered by Google for promoting SEO techniques that could be deemed a violation of their TOS and practices. "

                    Tom
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046267].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Robert Puddy
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                Okay I get you but I also get the OP. Whats the practical distinction? So Google eliminates my listing because it doesn't like what I did even though I didn't agree and so am not bound to their TOS. Same result. Its a technical point with no practical distinction if I want to get Google's traffic and am doing things specifically to move up in their serps.

                I think Google allows paid backlinks all the time in the form of Corporate partnerships. I see followed links all the time on top sites where there is a monetary payoff. I'm not defending Google or getting on anyone for paid links. People will disagree but I alo think in terms of relevant content no one does a better job of junking up relevant content than adsense.
                Your over anaylising... I'm not sure if your being pedantic or not

                Google can do what ever they like to thier own site, you on the other hand can not do what you want to their site.

                And backlinking doesnt go against a TOS. there is no TOS for being indexed on google because its thier choice wether they include you or not.

                they dont even have to include you in the serps if you do everything right, not if they dont want to.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046256].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by Robert Puddy View Post

                  .

                  And backlinking doesnt go against a TOS. there is no TOS for being indexed on google because its thier choice wether they include you or not.

                  they dont even have to include you in the serps if you do everything right, not if they dont want to.
                  Again what practical difference does that observation make if your site is deindexed? Nada. thats all I was saying. Nothing pedantic about it.
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046309].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Zeus66
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        I think Google has made pretty clear that buying links does violate their TOS. I'm not calling it right or wrong but thats just how they see it and its their site.
        I'm pretty sure Google is referring to buying a link on a site, not buying services that go out and get links for you that are not paid links. But really, if we're going to talk about backlinks and Google, any link you create yourself is black*hat, right? It's not a real "vote" for your site from another. I realize that's not the same as directly violating the TOS at Google, but in spirit it's the same thing.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045652].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
          Originally Posted by Zeus66 View Post

          But really, if we're going to talk about backlinks and Google, any link you create yourself is black*hat, right?
          Not if you created it to tell people about your service instead of to get better rankings.

          There is a difference between walking up to hundreds of people, starting a conversation, and working in a way to give them your business card... and walking around with your box of business cards telling people "take one" without preamble or explanation. Both will eventually result in you giving out 500 business cards, though.

          Google's TOS are designed to discourage walking around with your box of business cards saying "take one." But starting a conversation is a different matter. It's all about what you're thinking when you do it.

          You can't really automate "what was this person thinking" (don't you wish you could?), but Google and Bing are getting better all the time at knowing what walking around with a box of business cards looks like. Just like the people at most parties, who can spot the gladhander a mile away and avoid him.
          Signature
          "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046011].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
            4) I've always thought the argument that Google doesn't want sites to buy links was specious at best. If company A buys space on my site to run a banner ad to promote a new product, and company B buys a link to promote their website, aren't they both buying advertising? Yet Google thinks Company A is fine but Company B is cheating. That's BS in my book. If you're buying space on another site, however big or small that space, you're buying advertising. Calling it buying links instead of buying advertising is just a way to discriminate.
            Yup ... all from the largest link buying arbitrage'r on planet earth. Google themselves. Kinda like the phrase - dont steal - the govt hates comeptition.

            Hypocritical at best, anti-competitive RICO at worst. YMMV.
            Signature
            Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046154].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
              Hypocritical at best, anti-competitive RICO at worst. YMMV.
              Neither. One implies a reference, the other an ad. They do not penalize sites that are linked through obvious ads. The latter could well fall under anti-trust law. The former? I'd bet heavily against it, non-lawyer status notwithstanding.


              Paul
              Signature
              .
              Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046173].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lukas
    right around the time they are offering SEO services for $25k/mo. Big Corporations are still alive and well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045472].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author FrankBowman
    BTW, where can I find this "Rule #7" and for that matter rules 1-6 also?
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045482].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tommygadget
    Yeah, firehose the entire manure pit out with prejudice.

    Guys like Seth Godin, Vaynerchuk, Eben Pagen, Chris Brogan, Andy Beal, Guy Kawasaki, et al... they don't sit around with an army of barely literate offshore grunts armed with article spinners, plagarizing whatever they can scrape to hawk some second rate, schmucky e-book crap that was cut and pasted from 3 other PLR products at some obscene, fraudulent price.

    Damn this rant is so good, I think I will make it an official blog post.
    Yes, I like that. My thoughts exactly.

    TomG.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045548].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mr2monster
    Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

    It might be controversial, but it looks like Google is going to start hammering on BlueFart techniques and the sites that promote their use...

    http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/2010/04/30/google-spam-report/



    So cleaning up the WSO section could help to keep Warrior Forum from being hammered by Google for promoting SEO techniques that could be deemed a violation of their TOS and practices.


    I'm wondering how many people will use this to report their competition trying to get a leg up...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045573].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jeswarrior
    They'll know better than to mess with the people who made them famous. As somebody said on a site out there, the people that visit these type of forums, including BlueFartworld, digitapoint, WF, etc. decide which site will be famous next and which site has to die. Google would not want this site all of the sudden bashing them and praising the new God Facebook. Imagine all webmasters, BlueFarters, backlink pimps, spammers, SEOers, and the rest of the marketing clan targeting and talking about anything other than facebook? The rest of the population will follow.

    I think Google needs to get back to search/indexing, quit overusing their power or stand to be put down like a bad dog by another engine. The main reason we have spammy sites and the problem they are in right now is ADSENSE and Google's big mouth (Cutts).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045607].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    Just some random thoughts I had as I read the posts...

    1) I'm all for cleaning up the WSO forum, but that's a side issue.

    2) Google has investigated sites that are reported for spam for years. I'm not sure this is anything new or that it will change much at all unless Google is proactive and really pushes it.

    3) If Google is going to take a proactive stance and encourage people to report spammers, then:
    a. If your site is on page one, expect it to be reported. Just like those lazy bums on our mail lists who hit the "spam" button rather than unsubscribing because it's easier - people will report the sites ahead of them in the SERPs and hope Google finds something wrong with them. I don't think too many people will take the time to actually investigate other sites, they'll just report them for something hard to know, like they suspect them of using paid links, and hope Google investigates them for everything.

    b. In some markets, expect your competitors to hire a backlink service to promote your site so they can report you for spamming. It's a huge can of worms.

    c. Expect people to outsource reporting your site for spam. When you can pay someone overseas $2.00 an hour to report sites above yours, over and over using a proxy, don't think for a minute some arse wipes won't do it. How much damage it will cause is the only question.
    4) I've always thought the argument that Google doesn't want sites to buy links was specious at best. If company A buys space on my site to run a banner ad to promote a new product, and company B buys a link to promote their website, aren't they both buying advertising? Yet Google thinks Company A is fine but Company B is cheating. That's BS in my book. If you're buying space on another site, however big or small that space, you're buying advertising. Calling it buying links instead of buying advertising is just a way to discriminate.

    I should have taken notes as I read the thread, I had more but have forgotten.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045849].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author halfpoint
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      Just some random thoughts I had as I read the posts...

      1) I'm all for cleaning up the WSO forum, but that's a side issue.

      2) Google has investigated sites that are reported for spam for years. I'm not sure this is anything new or that it will change much at all unless Google is proactive and really pushes it.

      3) If Google is going to take a proactive stance and encourage people to report spammers, then:
      a. If your site is on page one, expect it to be reported. Just like those lazy bums on our mail lists who hit the "spam" button rather than unsubscribing because it's easier - people will report the sites ahead of them in the SERPs and hope Google finds something wrong with them. I don't think too many people will take the time to actually investigate other sites, they'll just report them for something hard to know, like they suspect them of using paid links, and hope Google investigates them for everything.

      b. In some markets, expect your competitors to hire a backlink service to promote your site so they can report you for spamming. It's a huge can of worms.

      c. Expect people to outsource reporting your site for spam. When you can pay someone overseas $2.00 an hour to report sites above yours, over and over using a proxy, don't think for a minute some arse wipes won't do it. How much damage it will cause is the only question.
      4) I've always thought the argument that Google doesn't want sites to buy links was specious at best. If company A buys space on my site to run a banner ad to promote a new product, and company B buys a link to promote their website, aren't they both buying advertising? Yet Google thinks Company A is fine but Company B is cheating. That's BS in my book. If you're buying space on another site, however big or small that space, you're buying advertising. Calling it buying links instead of buying advertising is just a way to discriminate.

      I should have taken notes as I read the thread, I had more but have forgotten.
      All of those points are great and when the first thread about this a couple of months ago came about most of the stuff in this thread was mentioned.

      Due to all of the above reasons, I very much doubt Google is going to start slapping sites on the basis of spam reports.

      The primary reason of the spam reports is so that Google can begin to identify common linking patterns and figure out a way to stop them for future updates to their algorithm.

      Google is thinking about the big picture and how to tackle people gaming their search engine as a whole - In reality, they couldn't care less about the majority of our sites and in most cases a few spam reports aren't going to result in much.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2045970].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Henrick1980
    "Wow, Google wants us to "tattle" on our fellow marketers now. Every day they get more and more ridiculous IMHO. "

    It's all about control, if google lose control of the ranking they perceive that others may steal their crown as the 'best' search engine - and that would mean advertising revenue disappearing. They will not let that happen at any cost, where your website appears doesn't matter to google!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046050].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
      It's all about control, if google lose control of the ranking they perceive that others may steal their crown as the 'best' search engine - and that would mean advertising revenue disappearing. They will not let that happen at any cost, where your website appears doesn't matter to google!
      This actually makes no sense. Google only controls the ranking in their search engine and no matter what anyone does, they always will.

      They don't, however, control the ranking in other search engines. They are not and never shall be the Guardians of the Internet.

      They do want to provide the best end user experience. They don't give two pennies for your site one way or the other.

      There are other ways to get traffic than through Google so if you don't like their methodology, don't focus on them for traffic.

      Tina
      Signature
      Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
      Fast & Easy Content Creation
      ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046159].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Zach Booker
    Time to start blasting competition with xrumer and then telling Google. ;-)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046714].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Midas3 Consulting
      Originally Posted by Zach Booker View Post

      Time to start blasting competition with xrumer and then telling Google. ;-)
      This is why I take this latest round of this news with a pinch of salt.

      It's pretty much impossible for Google to take action over sites
      which indulge in back linking stratagies because quite simply
      in the mega niches a market would spring up overnight in a huge
      way for industrial sabotage.

      Currently and for years, sites appear in the SERPS which have huge
      active communities dedicated to nefarious SEO tactics. Google
      has not removed them and in fact one of them is listed in top
      positions for various searches related to all kinds of shenanigans.

      Now if a site has cloaked links on it, etc, then I can see Google
      taking action as that site has clearly added them, and that's within
      the site owners control.

      Past that, I think it will have very little real world impact, in fact
      if actively pursued by Google in relation to back linking manipulation
      etc it would have a reverse effect and cause an even worse situation.

      The "grass on a site" link has been around for ages.

      The WF may need to protect itself, as a host of content that
      explains how to game the SERPS etc but out there in the big wide
      world I can't see Google taking any more action on sites
      than they have previously, it's just not possible to prove who did what.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046739].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Time to start blasting competition with xrumer and then telling Google. ;-)
        Sure - but google may also decide to check the validity of the complainant's sites while they are looking at the reported site. It wouldn't be hard to identify malicious intent.

        Wouldn't that be a kick? Make a game of reporting competing sites and find their sites - and yours - are gone from Google....oops. Not saying it would happen, but it's food for thought.

        kay
        Signature
        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046780].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Midas3 Consulting
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          It wouldn't be hard to identify malicious intent.
          kay
          Actually it would Kay, very hard.

          Apps like xrumer simply provide forum spam back links to a chosen URL.

          There is no way whatsoever to determine who kicked off the Xrumer run.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046794].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Sure - but google may also decide to check the validity of the complainant's sites while they are looking at the reported site. It wouldn't be hard to identify malicious intent.

          Wouldn't that be a kick? Make a game of reporting competing sites and find their sites - and yours - are gone from Google....oops. Not saying it would happen, but it's food for thought.

          kay
          Stranger things have happened...

          Years ago a guy I worked with ratted out his ex-spouse and her boyfriend to the IRS.

          Then he got audited for the next three years by guess who?...Yup, the IRS...

          Be afraid, be very afraid...:p

          ~Bill
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046805].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Midas3 Consulting
            Originally Posted by Bill Farnham View Post

            Be afraid, be very afraid...:p

            ~Bill
            Hi Bill,

            The Google "snitch on a site" tool is anonymous.

            You don't need to leave any details.

            Just set up a random Google account and voila.

            One suspects it's taken with a huge pinch of salt in Google HQ.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046818].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
              Originally Posted by SimonHarrison View Post

              Hi Bill,

              The Google "snitch on a site" tool is anonymous.

              You don't need to leave any details.

              Just set up a random Google account and voila.

              One suspects it's taken with a huge pinch of salt in Google HQ.
              I suspect that this is the tip of the iceberg for changes and additions that we will see coming from Google over the next few months.

              Facebook just fired a direct shot across the bow with the "Like" viral site widget.

              Genuine friends of people don't "Like" and promote crap to their friends. Spamming affiliate marketing dolts and their distant MLM cousins do. If your best friend from college "Likes" something, it's a much better chance that the site is going to meet the whole word of mouth marketing rubric.

              On the other hand, Google semantic search has become a hit-or-miss proposition amidst the trash wasteland brought about at the hands of spamtastic backlinkers trying to force their relatively worthless creampuff autoblog to promote some equally garbacious Clickbank spetum.

              Google has to return to a level of legitimacy to remain competitive, and the only way to do that is to get all medieval.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046896].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Midas3 Consulting
                Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

                I suspect that this is the tip of the iceberg for changes and additions that we will see coming from Google over the next few months.
                Possibly but it won't change the issue in regards back links.

                There is no way for Google to determine whether it was the site owner
                or a third party who blasted a ton of "spamtastic backlinks" to the site.

                Facebook just fired a direct shot across the bow with the "Like" viral site widget.
                .
                Yep, it's also very very hard to game that system.

                Facebook , have over night created a more accurate measure of true
                popularity than Google currently has, or probably ever will.

                I would think, Google will be shaking somewhat, few people have
                really cottoned on to quite how breathtaking a development it is.

                Facebook has a huge and ever growing base, it could end up
                being a SE of choice if they go about it correctly.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046908].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
              Originally Posted by SimonHarrison View Post

              The Google "snitch on a site" tool is anonymous.

              You don't need to leave any details.

              Just set up a random Google account and voila.
              Hi Simon,

              LMBO at this line..."You don't need to leave any details."

              That's because Google already has all the details.

              I know what you are saying, but the thought of someone sitting at their everyday computer and 'tattling' to Google thinking they are 'anonymous' is a lot like a child Trick-or-Treating wearing a Holloween mask and thinking the neighbors they grew up around won't be able to tell who they are.

              ~Bill
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046905].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Midas3 Consulting
                Originally Posted by Bill Farnham View Post

                Hi Simon,

                LMBO at this line..."You don't need to leave any details."

                That's because Google already has all the details.

                I know what you are saying, but the thought of someone sitting at their everyday computer and 'tattling' to Google thinking they are 'anonymous' is a lot like a child Trick-or-Treating wearing a Holloween mask and thinking the neighbors they grew up around won't be able to tell who they are.

                ~Bill
                Hi Bill,

                Yah, for sure, the guys who don't know an IP or referrer from a DVD
                re-writer won't exactly require Holmes and Watson to track them down
                but those aren't the guys who will be playing the game if Google seriously
                adopted a back link police mentality.

                Removing a guy from no 1 , pushing you into that position can be worth
                hundreds of thousands of bucks a day at the top end, they won't be akin
                to kids at Halloween, it is extremely easy if you know what you're doing
                to be entirely anonymous.

                Putting all that aside Bill, even if Google did hold data in the form of ISP, IP,
                referrer, previous site history which is all doable, they still can't actually
                tie the individual to nefarious activities committed against somebody else site.

                Hell, they could just get somebody else to report it.

                It's so easy to get around in reality, whichever way you swing it,
                as far as back link practices go, it's simply not something Google
                can do much about.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046918].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by SimonHarrison View Post

        It's pretty much impossible for Google to take action over sites
        which indulge in back linking stratagies because quite simply
        in the mega niches a market would spring up overnight in a huge
        way for industrial sabotage.

        .
        That objection is not as strong as many think it is. Google has no great reason to love new sites. Sites that are presently ranking already have backlinks, authority and trust. BLasting them would not affect them - they already have factors that shield them from the negative consequences of a blast. those factors put them in the place they presently are.

        The only people that have reported problems with blasts are owners with young unestablished sites. They come into the SEO forums regularly complaining and yes for some of hem the sites disappear for MONTHS at a time and right after they did the blast.

        So it isn't impossible at all. It just wouldn't affect sites that have established them selves with authority, trust and good backlinks before the blast.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046873].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Midas3 Consulting
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post


          So it isn't impossible at all. .
          Don't understand your logic Mike.

          It's impossible for Google to take action because they would
          simply have no idea who instigated the back linking process.

          Whether a site would suffer a negative reaction or otherwise
          is entirely another matter.

          If somebody wangs out an xrumer run or similar, whether it
          has a positive or negative impact on the site isn't what Google
          cares about, they care about spammy back linking practices.

          That's the point of the OP's post.

          It is , impossible for Google to determine whether the owner
          of the site carried out the spammy backlinking or a third
          party did it then reported them to Google .
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046898].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WD Mino
    Hi Everyone,

    Strange to see people surprised by the actions of Google.

    Backlinks have always played a part in seo or what is known as site popularity. however, over the past many months it seems, google has been redefining itself and what it considers acceptable for both advertising and indexing. Now for them to have a ratting post I don't think it is going to go the way some think it could in fact backfire on the ones talking up like always forget the shortcuts and focus on your business step by step precept upon precept and all will be well.
    -WD
    Signature

    "As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"
    Coming Soon http://graphicsdon.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2046912].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Robert Puddy
    Im sure all they really want to do is look at sites that get reported and see if they are doing anything they can exclude by altering their algorythm

    A bit like virus and spyware companys who change their coding to deal with new threats.

    I know when i part owned a site that did URL checks for malicious malware downloads, we relied on customers telling us about sites that were able to get past our checks, so we could see how the codes was doing that

    when we knew that we could change the checks to include the new threat. I'm guessing this is the motive for google too

    Robert
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2049197].message }}

Trending Topics