Lower rankings if using ranking software

[dina]

Hi all!
I realise this is not strictly spam question, but if SE, specially Google, 'lower rankings for sites that are using ranking software', they obviously do consider it as spam. And I've seen a lot of talk about that thematic on various forums. There were threads about WPG in this forum too, but I could not find information on this aspect.

My firm uses WPG regularly every two weeks for all our customers (all on the same IP), and even I have to use it sometimes for specific sites. I can see that some of members here use it as well. I know WPG supposedly fixed all problems in new version (old one could not get results from some SE at all till that change) and the upgrade is free. So now I have WPG 1.6. (but my Traffic Analyser is not
working for I can't log via old serial and my firm didn't pay for new - bought Code Defender instead - I still wonder why).

Is WPG 1.6 really safe to use now, especially with Google, or not, for they did not mention emulating a browser (like AgentWebRanking) or any other difference in accessing SE than before?

I can just see that it works with all SE again. But I could still see on Google that all kinds of checking the results is actually
forbidden. :)

[ihelpyou]

NO reporting software is "safe" with Google. You are always using it at your own risk. If you have to use it, use it wisely, use it late at night as far as PST... where Google is located, use it sparingly. You truly do not need to run a report every two weeks. Once a month is a plenty. Google updates once a month anyway. Clients should concentrate on how they can sell better, and not worry about where they rank cause ranks can take time, and ranks go up and down constantly. They should not fret over it.

It is against Google's TOS to use ranking software and we all have to remember that. If you use it wisely and sparingly, you should not have a problem.

[dina]

Thanks. I do use it sparingly and don't check Google at all. And my IP at least changes inside my provider's IP range. :)

I'm more worried because the firm use it so often and for all customers. And will continue to do so cause it's our policy. I'm afraid it might be a problem for the overall firm's treatment on Google and all those different sites on the same IP there. There is really no obvious reason why, at list some sites, should not be in Google at all. And there is literally no site in last few months that got a ranking in Google index.
Would it be better if they use something like Agent Web Ranking or any other software emulating a browser? I could try to recommend something to them. Not sure it would work, though.:)

[ihelpyou]

This sounds like a classic case of a "marketing firm" that wants it's clients to think they know the search engines. Am I right? I see this all the time where a marketing firm all the sudden puts other services on it's site to attract clients, whether they know anything about it or not. The clients are usually pretty niave about things and do not realize the harm a firm like this could cause. They might feel that by putting other "services" on their site they can get a higher price for the overall services. Bet I'm not far off here. :)

dina,.... it should be your mission to educate this firm on the ways of the engines. This should be your primary goal. You seem to know quite a bit about the search engines anyway. This firm should listen to you. You are showing a willingness to learn by being here and asking questions. Very good! Marketing firms in general never know much about the search engines, while most simply "think" they do. This gets clients into trouble, then they come running to the true SEO's, wondering why they cannot get any ranks.

[dina]

Well, you are both right and wrong. :)
Believe it or not we are actually SEO firm. Unfortunately, our methods do look even to me as they do to you:
a classic case of a "marketing firm" that wants it's clients to think they know the search engines.

it should be your mission to educate this firm on the ways of the engines. This should be your primary goal.
And it is, really, but it's rather risky and very slow, you know. As I live where I live I could not afford to be thrown out. And I just might if I have one too many suggestions. Other employees just don't do such things. I thought, obviously very naive, that if you suggest something to benefit the firm (with thorough analyse and genuine proof of it in your spare time) they would be happy but was rubbed instead, with something like: interesting and long but don't do it ever again except when specifically asked. So I have to back off often, even when I know I'm completely right. But, I'm learning on my mistakes!:)

I know they would not change the 2 week policy. Would software emulating a browser be better than WPG if that's the case?

[ihelpyou]

Since I don't know too much about wpg, would not know what to tell you. I guess the answer would be yes. BUT, in your firm's case, it sounds like Google has already penalized or banned your IP's anyway. I am sure this is the case. Any SEO that thinks they can do clients that way is waaaaay mistaken. Putting sites on their server is bad business no matter how they describe it.

You just keep plugging away with them. An SEO who truly thinks he is an SEO, and is truly not, is the worse kind. :) You can help them dina. Don't lose your spirit and don't let them take you down.

[dina]

in your firm's case, it sounds like Google has already penalized or banned your IP's anyway. I am sure this is the case.
Now, that is a comforting thought! :D

As for my spirit, here is a hint for you: I was in Croatia in '91, Sarajevo '92, Belgrade '99, together with my (then) little daughter, and am still reasonably normal. After that, it would be rather hard for anybody to take me down.:)

I know I'm boring but I just have to ask another question:
Who the hell are http://www.IamAnastyLinkFarm.com/ ? ( :) )
I've just found my firm is on their rather huge link list?

[ihelpyou]

I don't know, but as long as you do not link back, you are fine. That is why I will be editing out that Url as I do not wish to be associated with them either. :)

[dina]

Sorry for the inconvenience, I wondered whether to put the address but you already have some similar addresses in other threads (Are These Ethical SEO Techniques Or Not? #2). By the way, they are in Google index with about 100 links to them.
'as long as you do not link back, you are fine'
You have to sign in to be in their directory! Don't you think its like with those guestbooks mentioned in another thread here?

[Alan Perkins]

Hi Dina

May I say what a pleasure it is to read your posts. You are clearly a thoughtful and intelligent person. I only hope your "firm" doesn't ever come reading these boards ...

Ranking reports are a form of spam, but there is also a question of ethics. If a SE asks you not to run ranking reports on their site, but you can get away with it without being penalised, do you do it anyway? - that's the ethical bit. It's spam because a search engine hasn't asked you to do it (i.e. it's unsolicited) and, in some cases, has even asked you NOT to do it.

My own position on this is slightly unusual, and I'm not trying to advocate it, I simply state it to offer something to think about. I don't run ranking reports, at all, on any search engine. I try very hard to educate clients in the futility of these reports. In their place, I provide traffic reports, which of course places no burden on search engines at all. I show where the traffic is coming from, around what keywords, and what happens to it after it arrives. Increased traffic is what the client is really interested in.

IMO, clients are all too easily duped by rankings. Typical examples:

a #1 position on an uncompetitive key phrase is quite easy to achieve on any SE yet drives little traffic
a #1 position on an unpopular search engine will drive far less traffic than a #5 position on a popular search engine yet appears "better" in typical ranking reports

Consider the burden that ranking reports place on search engines. Using very conservative numbers, say there are 10.000 active SEOs in the world each with an average of 10 clients (making 100,000 sites actively doing SEO), each site has 20 key phrases and the top 30 results are checked with a "page" consisting of 10 results. That's 6 million page requests per search engine per month as a conservative estimate...and for what? After the first couple of months, most clients don't read the detailed ranking reports anyway and after six months or so, they finally realise it's the quality traffic, not the rankings, that they are interested in. So, why add to the search engines' burden and the client's information overload by generating ranking reports? If you ask me Google's got it dead right.

Regarding whether you have been banned from Google, you can check the existence of your pages in their (and others')index(es) using this handy little tool. (http://www.searchmechanics.com/look/look.htm) Often a "classic" SEO, such as one that places a lot of emphasis on doorway pages and on-the-page factors, has trouble ranking well in Google, but it doesn't mean they have been banned.

IMO you cannot emulate a browser to run a serious number of ranking checks and expect to get away with it. Let's say you didn't only emulate a browser but really used a browser, and employed a building-full of cheap labour to do your ranking reports for you. To a search engine, the load on their servers is the same. They really don't care whether you use people or robots to do it, it's the fact you are doing it at all that troubles them.

As for that link farm - you need to find out whether your firm is a willing or unwlling participant and, either way, get out of it!

[ihelpyou]

Oh, anything with more than 20 links on a page or so I will not link to. If you have to sign in for that one, then it is not a link farm.

Bad SEO is one thing but a bad SEO with a link farm is even worse. :)

[dina]

First I have to apologize for a slow reply, but I've just got another site to make.
As lucky as I am, this is a client with hidden input on his main site. Also usually asks for redirection to his main site soon after the parallel site is finished.
God, it never ends. :)

Secondly I have to apologize to all as I know this is going to be a long message. I'll try not to do it again. :)

Than I have to thank Alan for his kind words:
Why Alan, the pleasure is all mine. You are really a complete gentleman - the knight suits you really well. :)
But, I'm not so sure about my IQ. In fact I'm so intelligent that I was at all possible places where the war started in my (former) country. And so intelligent to write so much about my firm although there is a chance somebody would read it. The truth is I hope nobody would as I've already tried sending all kinds of links to useful sites and concrete advises
without any effect. That in combination with not putting the home page and the name of the firm might help. But, I might be wrong this time and I know it's not a wise thing to
do. So I'm glad at least somebody still think I'm not a complete idiot despite all the above. :)

Now, I must tell you all there might be a misunderstanding about my firm. Truthfully, my firm is not showing these rankings to fool the clients:

1. using 'uncompetitive key phrases' is certainly not my firm policy, for we optimize for key phrases chosen exclusively by the customer. But, that could also be the cause of useless campaign, for their phrases could unintentionally be very uncompetitive as well as phrases that have so many competitors that it's impossible to rank high. I think it would be much better if we choose some of their phrases that are good both for rankings and traffic. And if they don't have them we should suggest some too. I find Wordtraceker rather helpful there. As I'm not allowed to optimize for phrases that I find the best I try to optimize sites for 2 groups of phrases - customers' (where there are often phrases good for easy ranking which nobody search for) and other group which is good for traffic - but that group is never shown in ranking reports for nobody asked for them. I hope it helps the clients, cause I also feel that the best would be to educate them, but have to settle for what I can do.
2. We also never show SE that are not relevant in reports. But,
unfortunately we run WPG twice a month, not only to show rankings to clients (we do it once a month) but to see if we should do something else if rankings are not good. And, also unfortunately, we have only one IP for all customers.
3. We don't use cloaking. Except, if the customer, unfortunately, specifically ask for it (and they do sometimes, like the one I got now).
4. We generate 1, 2 or 3 parallel sites that are at least moderately designed sites, with accent on optimization.(although we do have only 15 to 20 hours to finish about 15 to 20 pages)
5. We submit manually
6. We used to make separate sites with doorway pages, when it was done by nearly all, but even them are not so bad - not identical, have text, pictures, links ... and it looks we will abandon them completely, for they are not getting anywhere recently, or to be more precise we will make them as just normal, key phrase targeted pages.
7.We never use invisible links or link farms or linkexchange directories for our clients.

So, you see, our worst sin would be that we desperately try to do whatever the clients want and don't try to educate them and explain them what might be better for them. And I personally think it's just because we don't want to do nything to loose them. Also, I think there is more attention on quantity than quality and no encouragement to learn more, which is never a waste of time. I think the luck of new information might be the reason why we keep using WPG so often from the same IP and why we try to do truly
impossible tasks like 'optimizing' for a couple of hundred phrases (per rather small site) nobody search for and with competition about zillion. It looks as I'm the only one that think so in the firm, so I might be completely wrong.

I, personally, also tend to think as you Alan that ranking reports are a form of spam, considering the burden that ranking reports place on SE. But a lot off people use it still, even the prominent members of this forum(WPG, Topdog, Agentwebranking are mentioned in a lot of threads). Even my own feelings are divided, for as long as there are SE and SE optimization the urge to check rankings is so 'humanlike'. Also, if we have to look at add words and
sponsored (paid) sites at the top of Google results and are offered to use toolbar, first showing and later (probably on purpose) not showing the real results (a lot of talk about that on other forums), I'm not so sure they have the right to
punish for using ranking software. Not to mention other SE whose politic is even more influenced by 'sponsoring', which has nothing to do with quality. But, hey, I really don't want to start any discussion! As I can't make up my own mind, who am I to tell others what to think?

I know that my firm has to use concise ranking reports as our clients ask for them (not only that they obviously read our reports after 6 months and more, but they ask for them if we are late - probably partly our fault cause we do nothing to
educate them, but it's also possible that if we try to explain it's not necessary they would think it's just our excuse not to show them real results, as they see many, many firms offering them). Anyway, I was just asking if it would be safer, or to say it directly less noticeable, to use browser like software, for than it would perhaps be less dangerous for that same clients, as they would be the victims if that cause SE to ban our firm's IP and thus their sites. Ethical code should be refered to them as well as to SE.

I personally use searchmechanics and other similar tools and WPG just when I'm told to, which is rather rarely really, and just for one customer at the time. And, by the way, my parallel sites for spammy 'main' site I discussed in the other thread, are definitely not in Google (but are on ODP, AOL,
Netscape, Iwon, HotBot), so perhaps they are already banned and I'm too late in trying to brake the link.

As for the link (Windiablo Promotions) I asked about, it is more sophisticated than classic link farm:

In this context, if you feel that your site will be an additional resource in our Directory , click on Addresource
So, my firm is obviously willingly participating (but only for our own site).

But the site also have this:
Our Link Exchange is Powered by Zeus! - Click Here to Learn More
And I could see members have divided opinions on Zeus too. I just wanted more expert opinion on them, that's why I asked.
But ihelpyou, you has scared me to death by editing the link immediately. :)

Once again, thanks for your time and sorry to be so long.
I felt I had to clear the possible misunderstanding about my firm, which is neither good nor bad but just average. As I'm obviously alone in my intention to make it better, it might very well be my standards are too different from common sense ones, thus making others right and me wrong.:)

[ihelpyou]

Nope. As far as I can tell, you are the one who is right about almost everything.

A big thing with me is education of clients. If they know fully what to expect and what NOT to expect, they are much better off.

The search terms targeted are of the utmost importance with feedback required from Both the SEO and the client. You should spend lots of time with this through email AND over the phone.

Many firms kind of skip this important phase and simply do what your firm does.

[Alan Perkins]

So, you see, our worst sin would be that we desperately try to do whatever the clients want and don't try to educate them and explain them what might be better for themYou are right, that is the worst that you do. And it's hardly a sin.

I felt I had to clear the possible misunderstanding about my firm, which is neither good nor bad but just average.Don't worry, Dina, we can all see that is the case. In fact, your firm may well be above average, particularly while you continue to work for them.

Anyway, I was just asking if it would be safer, or to say it directly less noticeable, to use browser like software, for than it would perhaps be less dangerous for that same clients, as they would be the victims if that cause SE to ban our firm's IP and thus their sites. Ethical code should be refered to them as well as to SE.The short answer to your question is yes, in the short term, it should be safer. In the longer term, that answer may not hold.

As I'm obviously alone in my intention to make it better, it might very well be my standards are too different from common sense ones, thus making others right and me wrong.I really sympathise with you, but don't give up (I sense you would struggle to anyway...). Thousands of people are trying to "make it better", including organisations like W3C etc. It's just that, in your organisation, you are the only one! If everybody who was trying to make it better gave up, it wouldn't get better.

[dina]

I know my previous message was too long for anybody to notice this, so here it is again:

I have a client with hidden input on his main site, now. Should I use java script again? There is no point in notifying the firm for all the others have already done some work for that client and probably know it but don't really care. It's rather important customer, you see. So, I'm on my own here.
The client also usually asks for redirection to his main site soon after the parallel site is finished. So, does putting js have any sense? Also, our redirection is very 'poor' -not nearly enough IP inside. Should it be better or it doesn't matter as far as my site is in question?

[ihelpyou]

I don't know what to tell you dina. Your firm is doing things I would not think of ever for a client. Would not want to think of. :) They are not even optimizing the client's site. Simply building pages and using redirects. Very bad way to do things IMO, of course.

One thing is for sure, I would tell the client to DITCH the hidden text. AND, quit doing redirects.

[dina]

They are not even optimizing the client's site. Simply building pages and using redirects.

No! We are really not simply building pages. I have to work very hard to make real, different and well optimized site of about 17 - 20 pages.

It has to be another one, because client doesn't want to change his 'main' site. He obviously likes it a lot. :) And then I have to link it to his 'beloved' site (with hidden input, but doing rather well on SE). And then he would probably ask us to make the redirect on every page of my new, optimized site to his 'main'. He already did the same with the site my co-worker made for another branch of that firm (it's rather big and famous). Another colleague does that, but I know enough to see others have much longer IP lists than we do - they are published on webmasterworld forums and elsewhere. Nobody likes to do it so we are obviously not trying very hard on that. :)

Should I try to protect my site somehow, at least till they do the redirect, or it's not worth the effort?

I would tell my boss to tell the client to ditch the hidden text and quit doing redirects, but really don't think the client would listen. You see, he is doing very well with that site. For now. :)

[Alan Perkins]

Hi Dina

I know you have to be very careful to avoid giving too much away, but as yet I don't have enough to work out what your question is! So here's some questions of mine:

1) Does the work you do for your client ever get seen by any human users of search engines, or is it only designed to be seen by search engine spiders?
2) What is the redirect you refer to? How and when does it take place? And what do you mean by "our redirection is very 'poor' -not nearly enough IP inside"
3) What do you mean by "hidden input"?
3) What do you mean by "parallel site"?

[dina]

Hi Alan!
1) Does the work you do for your client ever get seen by any human users of search engines, or is it only designed to be seen by search engine spiders?
It is designed to be seen freely by both. It is just another site (keyword-keyword.com kind) about the same thematic, with completely different text.
2) What is the redirect you refer to? How and when does it take place? And what do you mean by "our redirection is very 'poor' -not nearly enough IP inside"
It should never take place, except when client specifically asks for it. Then, visitors see client's site and robots mine.

There is rather long lists of IP redirecting addresses on the net. I've already mentioned one well known forum in my previous message. And even their 'official' list is incomplete. Members write new ones through specific thread there.

Our list is very short - probably about 20% of known ones. Which means all the other spiders will go to client's site instead on mine.

3) What do you mean by "hidden input"?

The most obvious one, I'm afraid! :)

<INPUT TYPE="HIDDEN" VALUE="key phrase1, key phrase2, ...">
<INPUT TYPE="HIDDEN" VALUE="key phrase4, key phrase5, ...">
<INPUT TYPE="HIDDEN" VALUE="key phrase7, key phrase8, ...">

4) What do you mean by "parallel site"?
Just another site (keyword-keyword.com kind) about the same thematic, with completely different text. With about 17 -20 well optimized pages (title, description, Hx,body text, alt,comment, links ...)

[Advisor]

As to the original question in this thread, I would be more concerned that the reason sites aren't ranking high or aren't showing up at all in engines' databases is due to the fact that they're all using the same IP. I think would be much more of a problem than simply using WPG, in my opinion. I believe it's very important for all sites to have their own IP address whenever possible in order to be sure you can get high rankings.

Jill

[ihelpyou]

Yes dina, your firm wants to build the sites and keep them on their own server. The client already has a site but does not wish to optimize it. The firm builds SE friendly sites and then uses redirects to the main client site. This way the firm can track clickthus, etc. This is also the reason why all built sites are on the same IP. I agree with Jill in that the same IP's are a big problem. All else is quite a problem as well with the redirects and hidden form fields with keywords. Is this right?

What happens if the client cancels his account? Does he/she lose the site that was built along with the Url?

[Alan Perkins]

Hi Dina

I have a client with hidden input on his main site, now. Should I use java script again?

This time it makes no difference. The JavaScript solution was just to avoid you being an unwilling participant in a link farm. It does little to hide spam.

In any case, techniques for hiding spam aren't really what we're here to talk about! The idea of this forum is to highlight spam, discuss what it is and what it isn't, and attempt to raise standards.

Please continue your efforts to encourage your firm to stop spamming. Who knows, it might just be the path to better and longer term across-the-board rankings.

[MazY]

Originally posted by Alan Perkins
In any case, techniques for hiding spam aren't really what we're here to talk about! The idea of this forum is to highlight spam, discuss what it is and what it isn't, and attempt to raise standards.

Sorry Alan....

When was this decided and by whom?While I appreciate your desire to proclaim the ethics, etc, I for one appreciate the freedom of exchange that this forum was built upon.

I refer to a part of the forum description, "test your new ideas...."

I am not a fan of spamming at all, as you know, but to try and brush it under the carpet, pretend it doesn't exist and shut yourself away from the realities of it seems a tad futile and dictatorial.

A poor example may be member x discussing how he or she spams a search engine. Great, another thing I have learned not to do and therefore another thing I can pass on to others.

[dina]

Well, Alan I also think 'techniques for hiding spam aren't really what we're here to talk about!'

But I was not aware we were discussing those techniques. I did not ask how to put hidden input in my site and not be caught or how to use IP redirect. Anyway, I already know more than I want about that for it could be read all around the net.

I somehow thought we were discussing how to avoid being connected to spam, if you have a site which has no kind of spam in it. :) I really can't see the difference between my second and my first exemple. My site would certainly not contain any kind of spam. And I've already sent information about this hidden input to my boss. So I did everything I could to avoid and report spam. I don't think I deserve to be punished for others mistakes. But, it's not really important.

As I do agree that 'The idea of this forum is to highlight spam, discuss what it is and what it isn't, and attempt to raise standards', I would be glad if you, or anybody else with more experience than me, explain to me how come a site with something clearly defined as spam like hidden input can be at:
Lycos 1, Iwon 1, Fast 2, HotBot 2, AltaVista 3, MSN 3, Netscape 3, ODP 7, Yahoo 3, AOL 6, Excite 5, Google 13, LookSmart 13, and many more positions in top10 on all these SE.

And they are there rather long and there was no effect on them during last month's Google update, although I've read that many sites with less obvious spam went down. Also the key phrases they rank high for are rather good for traffic, too. Any explanation?

[dina]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
your firm wants to build the sites and keep them on their own server.
Well, my firm host sites too, whoever made them. They also build optimized sites if a client wants that. But, if he wants the second site (with hyphen, which is very modern now among clients by the way) we do it too.
The client already has a site but does not wish to optimize it. The firm builds SE friendly sites and then uses redirects to the main client site. This way the firm can track clickthus, etc. This is also the reason why all built sites are on the same IP.
My firm never uses redirects, except when the client specifically ask for them. And we are not very good at it. :)
We have just one IP because somebody thought it didn't matter and was cheaper. Rather shortsighted but not done intentionally.
hidden form fields with keywords
We never use hidden input, but obviously some of our clients do, as well as other kinds of defined spam, and they might even ask that we host them.
What happens if the client cancels his account? Does he/she lose the site that was built along with the Url?
It depends what did he pay for. If the client order well optimized site, he can't lose it ever. If he order more sites like that, it's the same. But, if he just order boosting his traffic with whatever techniques we implement, than it might happen that we build a site or more, although he didn't order it, and than he doesn't own it - we do.

Just want to add thanks to Jill and tell he I'm one of her fans. Always enjoy reading Rank Write mail. :)

[Alan Perkins]

MazY

I am all for freedom of exchange. I agree that's what these forums are about. All I'm saying is, to maintain the quality of these boards, we don't want this forum to be the place where you discuss how to hide spam so it won't be noticed. That is not a quality discussion.

Dina isn't testing new ideas, she knows what she is talking about, and knows it is spam!

Dina

I somehow thought we were discussing how to avoid being connected to spam, if you have a site which has no kind of spam in itOK, I'm sorry, I totally misunderstood you. Here's why I did ... I thought you were doing SEO for your client because they had a main site that wasn't optimised and isn't ranking well. In fact, your client's main site is optimised (spammily, and not by you) and is ranking well! This is totally the opposite way round to what I understand to be the "normal" situation.

In order to do the best for your client, you should link to them using a proper HREF, to give their site the link popularity it deserves. I wouldn't worry too much about being labelled a spammer by association. If it was everyone's responsibility to check the spamminess of every site they linked to (and keep checking it forever) we would never get anywhere. IMO search engines recognise that. Just be careful with link farms...

I would be glad if you, or anybody else with more experience than me, explain to me how come a site with something clearly defined as spam like hidden input can be at [good positions on lots of SEs] Any explanation?
Yes, the search engines are bad at detecting spam, and they sometimes "overlook" things when it's a big-brand client. That doesn't mean they will never detect it or will always overlook it. And the brands don't realise the damage to their reputation when knowledgeable searchers realise they have been duped onto a site.

[dina]

Alan,
I'm glad we understood each other at the end. :)

I agree with you that:
we don't want this forum to be the place where you discuss how to hide spam so it won't be noticed. That is not a quality discussion.

But I don't think discussing avoiding the possibility to be connected with somebody else's spam is the same as discussing how to hide spam.

I would also rather read about really spammy techniques here, followed by expert comments of course, than somewhere else where there would only be 'enormous advantages' of that method listed. :)

I even think this kind of discussion can also be quality discussion. I don't think the quality of these boards would be endangered by that. I somehow think it would be rather helpful, especially to new members.

If it was everyone's responsibility to check the spamminess of every site they linked to (and keep checking it forever) we would never get anywhere.

?? I thought that could also help. If I check it every time I can, I could at least try to inform them they shouldn't do it. Isn't that part of educating your clients we were talking about before?

[ihelpyou]

You are right dina.

Your firm though does take the wrong approach when they first talk to or have contact with a potential client. An SEO should never let the client dictate things to them. Never. When I first talk to someone, If the client currently uses any "tricks" whatsoever, I tell them either "lose" the tricks or find another SEO. Period. I educate them upfront about the risks involved with "tricks". They either take my advice or move on down the road. SEO's should never let a client run over them. They are hiring you to help them, not the other way around. You have to do your job, which is to help clients get good rankings. Letting a site dictate how they will do this is very much backwards.

A site can take my advice and do things my way for good ranks, OR, they can take the highway. :)

[Alan Perkins]

Dina

I'm in total agreement with your last post. :thumb:

Just to clear up your final question ...

I thought that could also help. If I check it every time I can, I could at least try to inform them they shouldn't do it. Isn't that part of educating your clients we were talking about before?Absolutely.

I just meant that, if you didn't have the time or resources to check regularly (or the sites you were checking didn't like their bandwidth used in this way...), that doesn't make you a spammer when the site you link to one day turns spammy!

Suppose you knew nothing about search engines. Would that stop you linking to other sites? It shouldn't. One of my "rules of thumb" is that if you can reasonably do something in total innocence of the existence of search engines, how can you then be labelled as a spammer? You wouldn't link to a link farm innocently, but you could easily link to a "big-brand" site. How does that make you a spammer? It doesn't per se, IMO.

[Advisor]

You go, Doug! I totally agree. It is the SEO company's job to educate the client. If they went to a "bad" company before they came to you that gave them bad advice, then they need to be set straight. If your company wants to be one that only uses ethical and honest SEO techniques, then that's what they should do. They need to disassociate themselves with any techniques which they don't agree with, and let the client know why. Clients on the average, have no clue about SEO and only know what they've read years ago. Many of them believe that SEO is all about invisible text and doorway pages. But the times they are a changing, and thankfully, many SEO firms are seeing the light and doing things the "right" way. Your company can do this too, or they can live in the past and allow questionable techniques to be used. In my mind, it's all about reputation and trustworthiness. I sure wouldn't want to work for a firm that used techniques that I didn't agree with.

Jill

[dina]

And I'm in total agreement with all your posts. :)
Even this:
I sure wouldn't want to work for a firm that used techniques that I didn't agree with. Jill
But, maybe it is good that location is needed in this forum. :)
So Jill just look at my location. :)
And I'll try to 'educate' the firm.

[ihelpyou]

Yes, I certainly agree that you are in a tough spot. Your area of the world I am sure does not have lots of options. Being here, anyone who is not self-employed can pick and choose their employer. It is definitely a employee's market here.

[dina]

Oh no, there are plenty of opportunities for work here too. You could work all right, the problem is to have a salary. :)

[Alan Perkins]

LOL! Kudos, Dina.

[Kal]

Originally posted by webwhiz
You go, Doug! I totally agree. It is the SEO company's job to educate the client.
Jill Oh yes indeedy! Jill I remember the first time I read your article "Let Your Trusted Experts Do Their Job" (http://www.rankwrite.com/dontgetit.htm) and I pinned it to my noticeboard because I had experienced the same prob just the day before and was amazed that my web designer employer at the time had encouraged my client to ignore my advice! I think that was about the time I resigned and set up my own SEO. And by the way, my ex employer went bankrupt within a month :D

Dina - are you happy in Belgrade? With your skills, you might want to consider immigrating to a country that would reward your experience more generously? Good money can be had in Asia for SEO and there is a definite lack of your skills in Australia and also New Zealand so immigrating would be made easier?

[Advisor]

Wow, cool story, Kal! Glad my article had such a good effect for you!

Jill