New Tool

[ihelpyou]

Nathan has launched a new tool that has something to do with generating content.

I'm not a happy camper with it at all.

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/11/emw176580.htm

We have been discussing this tool in the private forum, but I wanted to start another thread in public about it.

[Bernard]

How long will it be before Google's AdSense team starts cracking down on AdSense accounts that are used on pages generated from keyword tools like this? I feel that it is more a question of when than if.

[rockynate]

I suppose they might, Bernard. Especially if people don't customize the pages that MetaWebs spits out. But if they think of MW as a site building tool, instead of a spampage machine, they should never have a problem.

It's up to the user as to how they use the software. You could churn out pages using the advanced tools in Dreamweaver. Doesn't mean that Dreamweaver is bad software.

[ihelpyou]

But Nathan, that's what all spam tool builders say about their tools. The Salsa guy....hmmm P bolger says the same darn thing. It does not make it right however.

All this tool will be used for is spam. It will leave the tracks necessary for Google to eventually detect the machine generation, and then those pages or sites will be dropped.

[rockynate]

Tracks are minimized by changing the engine on a regular basis. This is a web-based software, so it can be upgraded hourly, if needed. No need to send out software upgrades.

You may be right, Doug... about it being used primarily for junkpage generation. But from the examples I've seen the members give to me... that's not the case. I've seen some really brilliant implementations, mixed with other tools and content. Really great stuff. And yes, something people would bookmark and use as a resource.

I was certain I'd take heat over this. That's okay. I deserve it. I'm empowering the masses with something that circumvents the SEO.

I have some users that have never built anything on the web; but they VERY excitedly show me what they've made with my software, and new rankings they are achieving. It really makes me feel good about releasing it. These same newbies spend a LOT of time customizing their sites via my training, and create sites that are very useful.

[ihelpyou]

Nathan, You need to get the first paragraph of that press release deleted:

(PRWEB) November 10, 2004 -- The search engine optimization industry is often divided into two camps. “White Hat” SEO's attempt to work within the rules and goals of the search engines. “Black Hat” SEO's try to gain rankings using whatever methods work best, often deliberately working against the interests of the search engines and their users. Automated software tools for “Black Hat” SEO have been around almost as long as search engines themselves. This month, Nathan Anderson released the first major software tool to automate “White Hat” search engine optimization.
It's about as far from being "white hat" as there could possibly be. Nothing automated is white hat and will never be white hat.

[ihelpyou]

I was certain I'd take heat over this. That's okay. I deserve it. I'm empowering the masses with something that circumvents the SEO.
I don't think so Nathan.

You just keep believing that, and let me know when all the engines recognize the pages generated by the software. They will soon.

[rockynate]

Well Doug, I didn't write that press release. I didn't have any foreknowledge of it at all. Someone pointed it out to me yesterday, since it was coming up #1 in Yahoo and Google news for 'search engine optimization'... and many other terms.

So you're saying that no one should use Dreamweaver? Or a Content Management System (CMS)? What about a script? Just straight, hand-coded HTML from Notepad, eh? Hmm... not a world I'd like to live in...

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Don't blame the gun.

This "gun" was intended to help people create beautiful sites full of useful content. Otherwise, why would I have gone to the lengths of building it into multiple php templates? Users can make modifications site-wide, or to individual pages through these templates... and they took WAY longer to program than the engine.

I hope this doesn't completely taint the opinion of the community about me... but that's not under my control. You can take me or leave me.

[ihelpyou]

I gather your tool goes much further than a CMS system though.

My company built it's own customized CMS system as well, but it's not for sale. It's used by my clients on their sites. It cannot be used as a spam page generation machine. There is a big difference.

[scottiecl]

The author and contact information are on the press release.

You should contact him at once to let him know how upset you are with the way he has misrepresented your tool and misquoted you.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Jim Pryke
Visit Our Site
204 727-4577
Email us Here


Bad Jim! You must at least know who he is, Nathan...

[Quadrille]

I'm empowering the masses with something that circumvents the SEOEr, no - you are helping spammers. Small difference, I know - but when it comes to epitaphs, I know which I'd rather have.

You must do what you think is right; but please don't kid yourself you are doing something good, because it stinks.

And if you do kid yourself, believe me, you are one in a million. The rest of us have no illusions.

[rockynate]

Originally posted by scottiecl
The author and contact information are on the press release.

You should contact him at once to let him know how upset you are with the way he has misrepresented your tool and misquoted you.



Bad Jim! You must at least know who he is, Nathan...

And WHERE did I say that he misrepresented and misquoted me?!?

He wrote what he believed to be true. I know who he is, simply from the fact that he's a member of the site - a user of the software. How else could he have an opinion?

He is using it for creating beautiful, useful, unique websites and resource directories for his existing websites. Truly, a tool for his "white hat" efforts. I won't ask him to retract any of it. It's his right to have an opinion.

I merely stated that I had no foreknowledge of the PR story so that everyone would know that it is not an official press release from MetaWebs, nor did I author it, nor did I influence the writing of it. So please don't hold me accountable for someone else's writing.

[Quadrille]

He wrote what he believed to be true.I wonder why he believed the 'White Hat' bit. I wonder who misrepresented the facts so that he got the truth backwards. Perhaps the truth lies in what he was not told?

One of those unsolvable mysteries, I suppose. :rolleyes:

[ihelpyou]

He wrote what he believed to be true. I know who he is, simply from the fact that he's a member of the site - a user of the software. How else could he have an opinion?

He is using it for creating beautiful, useful, unique websites and resource directories for his existing websites. Truly, a tool for his "white hat" efforts.
Obviously then, he does not understand what white hat is. He should spend some time in here to figure things out.

He's using a term to describe something that is almost the very same software as "Salsa", which is a TopPile product, which is also the culprit of many spam generated pages in the indexes. I don't see one difference between them.

This is not white hat.

[mcanerin]

It's one thing to create a piece of software that helps spammers spam. At least the buyer is going in with eyes open.

It's a totally different thing altogether to market it as "risk-free" and "white hat" to people who don't know better. That's false advertising at best and fraud at worst.

It's obvious that since basically every SEO/SEM professional on every forum I've seen discussing it is saying it's NOT "white hat" and "risk free", AND that you knew your were going to take heat for it, that these are false statements and apparently premeditated.

The actions of your agent are your actions, legally. Particularly since you've made it clear you support them, your attempt to distance yourself notwithstanding.

The fact that if you work hard you can create something that "might" not be spam does not address the fact that the software creates spam by default.

The same is not true of Dreamweaver. When you buy a gun it does NOT automatically start shooting nearby humans unless you tell it not to.

I strongly suggest you print a correction or retraction at the same level of visibility as the original claims.

Ian

[ihelpyou]

Good post Ian. I'm in total agreement. I strongly urge Nathan to delete all occurances of 'white hat' in all marketing materials.

[rockynate]

"White Hat" is nowhere in my marketing materials. Never has been. Nowhere in the private support area either.

Besides, is there a legal definition of "White Hat SEO"?

The simple fact remains, and I know y'all hate to hear it, that the very definition of SEO itself is contrary to the wishes of the search engines.

All SEO is "Black Hat".

[Quadrille]

All SEO is "Black Hat".Give us a break; that's just troll bait.

It's the oldest, tiredest discussion in SEO; surely you can do better?

[rockynate]

Just as assuredly that my comment was "troll bait" (and, of course, it was) is the fact that there is no legal definition of "White Hat SEO".

Show it to me and I'll demand that he modify his comments.

A LEGAL definition... not some grand pat-ourselves-on-the-back definition that you or Danny Sullivan threw up on a website someplace.

If you want to argue with me, tell me that my software is going to make the SERPs a less useful place, and I should be ashamed of that. That's the only pang I'm feeling right now.

The rest of these arguements are puffery, and y'all know it.

[Quadrille]

Ah, obfuscation, the last feeble thrash of the defeated spammer!

Of course there's no LEGAL definition; why would there be? whoever suggested there was or should be?

Point is, you, me, Doug and pretty well everyone else with an interest in SEO knows exactly what we're talking about, and we all also know that

Whatever White Hat Is; You Are Not Included

But why the sudden self-doubts; you started by actually boasting about your conversion to the Dark Side; now you are trying to suggest you are as clean as us, by suggesting we're as dirty as you!

I'm no SEO expert; I've never claimed to be. But I know where the line is.

Yes, as you are well aware, your choices will make the serps a little less useful, until the SEs catch up; but I don't think you've changed the world. It'll mostly be areas where spammers do battle with spammers, so most users will never spot the difference.

[rockynate]

I guess I should have more specifically responded to Ian's legalistic comments, Quadrille. That is what I'm replying to.

[RandyDotcom]

I use a custom App for content managment and SEO.
What should the Litmus Test be.

For Me it should be
Does the App create more than 1 page for any sum of content?
If so, then it is spam!

[ihelpyou]

That's good Randy! I use a custom app as well. It does "not" create anything. There is NO button to push to blast hundreds of bogus spam into the search engines.

Frankly Nathan; You are quite "nuts". I'm totally shocked and appalled at the same time. You sound exactly like the everyday spammers who hang out at certain places. Your words are taken right out of the "SpinMeisterSpammer" Handbook on what to say in "what is spam" debates.

"ALL SEO IS SPAM"

That's a weak, lame, silly, stupid, pathetic, idiotic, Unethical, and truly extremely tiring argument.

BTW, Please tell Jim.... the one who wrote the article... since he is praising this software, that I would like to see the actual software in action with a page on the site he is working on. Afterall, he claims it's real good and all, so I'm sure he would be happy to show me a page built by the software and that is online. You all claim it's "white hat", so there is ZERO chance the pages will be dropped by the se's, so no problem in pointing out these pages to me, right?


BTW Nathan, Not only did Ian post stuff in a legalistic way, but he's more than qualified to do so since he is a lawyer. You should listen to him.

[ihelpyou]

Just so you know Nathan. The very first time I hear from a new webmaster or site owner that they used this software, which then proceeded to get their website penalized, will be the time I start another thread on this software, warning everyone how dangerous it is.

And believe me, I "will" be hearing this.

And Yes; Your marketing copy and the press release "is" false advertising. No where do you give any warnings, or anything of the kind that there could be a "risk" involved with the use of the software. For that reason alone, the very first complaint about pages being dropped, etc, could see you in court.

This is no different than telemarketeers from TP or any of those scam companies that "prey" on innocent new people who don't know any better. This is exactly what your sales spin is doing.

[WebSavvy]

Nate, you and I are good friends, this you know. I'm a bit concerned about this new software because of the potential it has already shown to damage your reputation.

I don't think any software is worth that, no matter how much time, effort, and money went into it.

I speak from experience. I used to own a search engine submission company. I didn't spam and don't believe in spamming. However, it was "automated" software, and as such, cannot be "white hat" no matter how clean I tried to make it.

You can't control what other people do, but you can control what you, as Nate, can and will do.

People tried to tell me in a "nice way" that the submission company was "spammy" simply by the very nature of it -- auto submission.

I put several years of work into it, lots of money, and lots of time. That software was over 3000 scripts long and took 3 years to write.

Finally after listening to people like Doug, Jill, Scottie, MattB, and Farhan -- my eyes opened, and I allowed myself to see things the way they were seeing it.

I swallowed my pride, though it was not an easy task to do, and I informed all of my clients the service was discontinuing. I sold the company and haven't looked back since.

I chalk it up to a very expensive lesson and one that was well learned.

I hope this helps you in some way, Nate.

[Webmaster T]

Originally posted by rockynate
Tracks are minimized by changing the engine on a regular basis.If it's not a spam generating tool then why does the engine running it have to be changed so its footprint can't be tracked? That's sort of like the gun manufacturers that blame the gun user when they are aiding and abetting the crimes by making the handles so no finger prints are left on them. You're a bright guy you could build programming which would curb spam you just chose not to put "limitations" on it. Whether that was a good idea I'll leave that for you to debate in your inner dialogue.;)

This is a web-based software, so it can be upgraded hourly, if needed. No need to send out software upgrades.Good, then just add the curbs and you're good to go. We all make miscalculations, IMO, it's what you do when they come home to roost that says more about you then the doing. I'm sure you wouldn't set out to build a spam generator. You don't seem like a guy who would risk a good reputation for a few extra $. You've seemed smarter than that!

I wrote a CMS that spit out 3100 static pages with a single click the difference is the program also opened 3100 text files which are written manually and poured them into the template. That's just a tool for managing a website not generating a website. Sure the file paths, file names and titles are data driven and KW centric but the copy/text was written manually. It will only generate a template without the text files. Which is about the same thing as DW or FP will do.;)

[Crichey]

Sorry the site rhetoric reminds me of a snake oil salesman's pitch. It will cure anything and everything, etc....The problem is that to generate anything automatically, there will have to be some type of formula. It will be recognized one way or another, the pages generated will be dubbed as either spam or worst, duplicate content. Once that happens, its all over.

To those people just starting out, they will think its great....until it bites them in the butt. Reminds me of when web position gold first came out. Generating a doorway page to help your placement....it worked for a while and people thought it was great...until their site was barred from the search engine for black hatting. Sorry to be brutal but I don't see it as a good tool, just one of extreme laziness and convenience.

As for all SEO being black hat, that is rubbish. Quite a bit of seo also helps make the site more user friendly and accessible. Things commonly referred to as black hat, such as a doorway page, cloaked or disceptive redirects do just the opposite.

[Quadrille]

they will think its great ... until it bites them in the butt.Then they'll do what they always do. Blame Google. :rolleyes:

[ihelpyou]

www.internetmarketingcoachingclub.com/

Those are new friends of Nathan and where I think he is now learning from. Not good.

[rockynate]

Actually, I've been good friends with Kirt for a long time (in Internet years!) I started working for him over 2 years ago... about a month before I started posting in this forum. He's a very good guy. Terry is also a good guy, but I've never spent time in person with him, just on the phone a few times. Terry was making money on the Internet before there was such a thing as SEO.

Search "Terry Dean" in quotes and you'll see how widely quoted, and respected, he is. Search Doug Heil in quotes...

So if you're going to go "Ad Hominem" on me...

[ihelpyou]

Interenet "marketeers" prey off of the "not in the know" Nathan. You know that. Heck, we ALL were "taken" early on by the likes of these type "hype" sales letters we see. I know I was when I started.

Just because you can "fool" the newbies, does not make you a good guy. Those same newbies will despise those guys in one year. Trust me about that. I despise them now and have for many years.

If is wasn't for the newbies, those 'marketeers' would not have a job.

I "teach" anyone who ask about those looooooong hype sales letters. RUN as fast as you can because they are all crap and worthless garbage.

[Dan0]

The sales letter for the product claims that it's "non-foot-printable" (nice try there on inventing terms), and that search engines "absolutely love" the sites it produces. Both claims are false.

Bottom line here, is that the worthless doorway pages (that's exactly what they are) that this thing produces can be easily identified and dealt with by the search engines.

No footprint? False.
Search engines love 'em? False, that's why one of the selling points is 'no footprint.'

[articlebot]

I found this forum through an email I get each week from an SEO newsletter. In it was a description of a piece of software called, "MetaWebs". I was interested in "MetaWebs" because it seems to purport to "create" "content" that will help you get high rankings at major search engines.

(However, there is only one software that can do that: ArticleBot.Com)

Now, for the "purists" (and by "purist", I mean, "google-loving slaves") out there, the rest of this post will cause a degree of anger. That's sad. What you ought to do is APPLAUD folks like MetaWebs and ArticleBot.Com for their attempts to break the potentially CRIMINAL hold that Google and Yahoo (et al) hold on YOUR POCKETBOOK. Think of all the time, effort, and money you've spent on trying to figure out what Google "wants" from your page. THINK ABOUT THAT NUMBER TIMES A MILLION.

All those hours and dollars wasted. All this talk about "what google" wants is just that: Talk. They've got us all spending time "optimizing" our pages, meanwhile, just when one of us "figures out" what "works", google (et al) "change the rules".

So, all the work you did to meet whatever bogus "standard" google (et al) sets, is all for nought. Your house crumbles, and you must now do it ALL OVER AGAIN.

In the "real world", what Google (et al) do would probably be CRIMINAL. Are there laws on the books now to stop the shenanigans that Google (et al) are allowed to pull? No.

And, there won't EVER be. (that's a whole other discussion)

Don't even get me started on the SHELL GAME that is, "Ad Sense" or "Ad Words". Talk about an amazing "business model"! Let's see, could a "real world" media outlet tell folks, A) We will not tell you when, or where your ads appear, B) We will not tell you what you pay per ad, just the "average", C) We will sometimes bill you more than what you told us you wanted to pay, D) We will arbitrarily pull your ads and not give you any reasons why, E) We will allow your competitors to steal from the traffic you generate - and CHARGE YOU ANYWAY, and F) force you to sign a "contract" which says you can't even DISCUSS THIS WITH ANYONE BUT US????

WHAT????

It's funny, sad, and sickening to read ANYONE defend Google. ANYONE that defends or "sides" with Google is like a SLAVE who tells his master about the other slaves who want to escape. The result is short-term extra helpings of gruel for the ONE slave while the others are beat into submission.

I for one am SICK of eating GRUEL. More of you should feel the same way. More of you should want to BEAT GOOGLE. Not just "please google", but BEAT GOOGLE.

I'm amazed at the number of folks who seem to be so enamored with Google. Don't you people want a way to STOP THE DISEASE of Google CONTROLLING and MANIPULATING your traffic - and by association, YOUR LIFE?

Look, Google, Yahoo, and MSN dictate who will make money on the web, how much they'll make, and, how long they'll make it. They have "hundreds" of "Phds" on staff whose job it is to figure out how to TAKE YOUR MONEY, and force you to JUMP THROUGH HOOPS for the meager crumbs they toss out.

In the "real world", the business practices of Google and Yahoo would be called, most likely, COLLUSION, EXTORTION, BRIBERY, and MONOPOLISTIC.

We are proud of the what our software (which is, by the way, UNBEATABLE and UNDETECTABLE by Google and Yahoo), Article Bot does.

ArticleBot.com was built because we ARE SICK of waiting around for the scraps that Google drops from their table into our bowl.

Whether you use ArticleBot.com or something else, I hope that more of you "purists" will wake up. It's time you THREW OFF THE SHACKLES and FREE YOURSELF from the stranglehold Google holds on your traffic. If you can find a way to beat them, DO IT.

They pay millions of dollars a year to folks who could be curing cancer, sending men to mars, or solving world hunger issues, but it's more profitable to STEAL FROM YOU.

Our software, ArticleBot.com is UNBEATABLE and UNDETECTABLE by ANY SEARCH ENGINE. PERIOD.

NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. There is NO WAY Google could detect what our software does, when used properly.

NONE.

Now, the really sad thing about my post is that it will probably be yanked for being a "promotion" or "advertising", or something. That's SAD. Frankly, I don't give a rats b*tt whether you ever visit our site our not. We haven't made jack squat selling Article Bot.

I'm almost convinced that we never will, too. The idea of FREE THOUGHT or FREEDOM at all is nowhere to be found. MetaWebs may be a good piece of software, or it may not. However, we APPLAUD THEIR EFFORT.

So, "purists", I yield the floor. Let your flames begin. Every character you type in defense of Google, though, is just a nail they've handed you to place in your online business's virtual coffin.

[Connie]

articlebot welcome :hi:

I doubt that your comments will be well received at IHY. If you want to take chances with your site and income using programs that create nothing but spam. Go ahead.

Most of the people in this forum are interested in long term results. Yes long term results take a lot of work. It's never ending.

Let me rephrase an old phase in the US.

You can fool some of the SEs part of the time but you can't fool all the SEs all the time

In the end you stand to loose because your looking for shortcuts that will hurt you in the long run.

[articlebot]

Connie,

Article Bot is NOT for creating spam. There are more ways to use Article Bot "legitimately" than not. For example:

1) You can pre-load content and have Article Bot add it to static pages automatically. Recipes, music reviews, and news can be added to the web this way.

2) Writers who are "stuck" can use Article Bot to help them get past an instance of "writers block".

3) Any site that uses the same phrasing "over and over" (stock market, sports, astrology) can pre-load some frequently used words and phrases into Article Bot for random insertion into human-written content.

These are just SOME of the ways to use Article Bot. Can some folks use it for "spam", yes. But, that can be said of plain old "notepad", too. It's not the tool, but, who uses it.

Also, I am curious when someone brings up the idea that Article Bot (or other similar software) is "bad" because it is usable by "spammers". I mean, is Google "bad" because some folks use it to find porn? Is Yahoo "bad" because some folks use them to advertise "escort services"?

No. Obviously, not.

We have NUMBER 1 rankings to show for our use of Article Bot. The pages we used Article Bot to create are all UNIQUE and SPECIFIC and CONTENT-RICH. Could some folks use Article Bot to a more "nefarious" end? Sure.

But, we are not afraid of Google. We are sickened by their monopoly. We are envigorated to find ways to help others with content-generation. We are hopeful that others will join us.

That, honestly, is the only way that "long term" solutions can be found to the PROBLEM (and it IS a BIG problem) of Yahoo, Google, and MSN controlling our traffic and our finances.

If someone looks at Article Bot and delcares it to be "black hat" (or whatever the term du jour may be), and yet, they don't even take the time to learn about it or use, they are just plain ignorant.

But, that's what Google hopes for: More ignorant, scared people that are willing to turn over their pocket books to a monopoly the likes of which man has never seen.

Originally posted by Connie
articlebot welcome :hi:

I doubt that your comments will be well received at IHY. If you want to take chances with your site and income using programs that create nothing but spam. Go ahead.

Most of the people in this forum are interested in long term results. Yes long term results take a lot of work. It's never ending.

Let me rephrase an old phase in the US.

You can fool some of the SEs part of the time but you can't fool all the SEs all the time

In the end you stand to loose because your looking for shortcuts that will hurt you in the long run.

[qwerty]

I don't personally believe that randomly inserting keywords into content is a good idea, but if you'd like to post the URLs of some sites that use your software the way they're supposed to, I'll be happy to take a look before I assign a hat color to it :D

[Dan0]

Originally posted by articlebot
We have NUMBER 1 rankings to show for our use of Article Bot.
Feel free to post those search terms and URLs, so that we can all enjoy your success.;)

[Quadrille]

That, honestly, is the only way that "long term" solutions can be found to the PROBLEM (and it IS a BIG problem) of Yahoo, Google, and MSN controlling our traffic and our finances.I'm confused - I thought search engines exist to help Internet users to find what they seek

I also thought that the somewhat annoying algos they've developed were to stop naughty people from cheating the system.

I now realise that it's all a plot to spite a few siteowners who are mysticly entitled to favored treatment.

Hence the green text

[articlebot]

Originally posted by qwerty
I don't personally believe that randomly inserting keywords into content is a good idea, but if you'd like to post the URLs of some sites that use your software the way they're supposed to, I'll be happy to take a look before I assign a hat color to it :D

Bob,

Article Bot CAN add "random" content. But, it also can add NON-RANDOM content. For example, if you want a web page for every attorney in your office, coupled with every type of law they practice, coupled with every state in the US they can practice in, Article Bot can create those pages.

The problem is that the uses for Article Bot are so varied that they could INCLUDE "spam" tactics, but that is not to the exclusion of "white" or "valid" or "legitimate" content.

Your request for pages is fair, yet, not possible in this public forum. We have used Article Bot to create, simple directories of products, and those pages have #1 - #5 ranks at Google, Yahoo, and MSN. But, although these pages are legitimate content, their association with Article Bot would be viewed as "negative" by the search engines and they would be (UNFAIRLY), punished. Not to mention the fact that some of the folks here would probably "report" them to Google.

Sad.

Anyhow, "the bottomline" is that Article Bot - created content is UNDETECTABLE as anything other than "human created". There are no "gateway pages" or "doorway pages". It's CONTENT. And, that CONTENT can be used in ANY WAY someone wants to use it.

Again, Article Bot creates CONTENT, NOT webpages. Can you use it to create webpages? YES. But, you can also use it to create text files, php files, css files, word documents, or whatever.

I will gladly demonstrate Article Bot's uses to anyone who wants a tutorial. If someone is interested, just email me at thebot@articlebot.com.

However, my point is not to sell Article Bot in this thread. I'd rather continue on the discussion of why we should be so UNFAIRLY enslaved to Google in the first place? I mean, there'd be no place for discussions of "black" versus "white" without the arbitrary "rules" sent down from Mount Google.

[Quadrille]

But does it create interesting and useful content - that would make sense and be useful to your human visitors - or does it just reshuffle and republish endless pages of search engine fodder.

If I were to find one of these sites, would I be tempted to report it to Google as spam, or would I find in useful?

Hand On Heart, Please!

[articlebot]

Originally posted by Dan0
Feel free to post those search terms and URLs, so that we can all enjoy your success.;)

Your sarcasm is a sad commentary on the power Google (et al) has over so many bright individuals. The point of Article Bot is not to get high rankings - although that can be achieved. The point is to get create relevant, legitimate, readable, CONTENT. How that content is used, is up to the individual.

It continues to amaze me how gleefully people mock what they don't understand. The moment I post terms and sites, is the moment folks email their master, Google, to "report" the sites created as spam - regardless of whether the sites in question are "really" spam or not.

If you want a demo of Article Bot, I'll gladly provide it to you. You'll just have to judge for yourself what it does.

[Connie]

articlebot I don't have the expertise to determine if the software you are now promoting is spam or not. You posted in a thread that was discussing a specific piece of software as spam. What I understood based on your original post that you were promoting the virtues of the the software under discussion and adding a similar alternative.

Looks there were several post while I was trying to make this so will leave my comments to what I have already said.

[Dan0]

Originally posted by articlebot
Your sarcasm is a sad commentary on the power Google (et al) has over so many bright individuals. The point of Article Bot is not to get high rankings - although that can be achieved. The point is to get create relevant, legitimate, readable, CONTENT. How that content is used, is up to the individual.
Sarcasm? You're the one claiming that you're getting #1 rankings. I'd just like to see you back up that claim. Advertisers are generally expected to do that, you know.

[articlebot]

Originally posted by Quadrille
But does it create interesting and useful content - that would make sense and be useful to your human visitors - or does it just reshuffle and republish endless pages of search engine fodder.

If I were to find one of these sites, would I be tempted to report it to Google as spam, or would I find in useful?

Hand On Heart, Please!

Very interesting question. Here's the answer:

A) Look at the test at the bottom of this page:

http://www.articlebot.com/you_need_articlebot.php

Which one was written by a human?

B) Some of the pages we create you'd call spam.

C) Some of them you'd call "interesting and unique"

Again, the point about Article Bot is that it is for CONTENT creation. NOT website creation. If the content you wish to create is a website, then, yes, Article Bot can help you. If you want unique content, Article Bot can do it. If you want to spam, well, I guess Article Bot could do that to.

It's up to the user.

Here's a way to use Article Bot that is NOT spam but could help someone's ranking:

1) Create a page.

2) Allow Article Bot to make a new version of that page weekly. This will take all of about 1 minute.

3) Upload the new page.

What you get is regularly updated content. Only ONE PAGE. But, still regularly updated.

Is that spam? I mean, if you did it by hand, would that be "okay"?

I don't know. Guess you'd have to make that call. But, the search engines would NOT BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

So, do I think ONE page of content "regulary rotated" is "bad", or "black"? No.

If I thought that, I'd throw out all my thesauruses and dictionaries. On that note:

Remember, the founders of Google made BILLIONS of dollars on YOUR content, and MY content, and their UNREQUESTED bot taking snippets of YOUR content and allowing others to READ that content before deciding to visit you or not.

Now, is THAT fair??? Is that "white"?

I mean, Google should actually be held liable (in my opinion) for choosing what to show folks about your site. This is a de-facto form of censorship - another thread, I'm sure.

Sorry for the long reply. Hope my answers help.

[articlebot]

Originally posted by Dan0
Sarcasm? You're the one claiming that you're getting #1 rankings. I'd just like to see you back up that claim. Advertisers are generally expected to do that, you know.

A) Your use of the word, "claim", supposes that I care whether you believe me or not. I DON'T. I have nothing to "back up". We don't make ANY claims that Article Bot will or will not get anyone ANY rank of ANY sort. Have we received high rankings for some terms, yes. Would you? I don't know. If you use Article Bot the way I would teach you, probably. But, that's not the point. The point is that Article Bot is for CONTENT GENERATION.

B) I did not post in this forum to advertise Article Bot. I cannot, however, enter a discussion about SEO software without announcing my biases and beliefs. One of those biases is that our software does what other SEO software cannot - create unique, readable, and undetectable-by-search-engines content. Look at our site. look at the examples. Do you deny that fact? If so, give me any content you like. Let Article Bot go to work on it. The result will be CONTENT that is what we say it is.

Whether or not we get "#1 rankings" is not the question.

[Dan0]

Wow, you've discovered the thesaurus. :rolleyes: Let me get my wallet...
Whether or not we get "#1 rankings" is not the question.
So are you no longer making this claim?

[articlebot]

Originally posted by Dan0
Wow, you've discovered the thesaurus. :rolleyes: Let me get my wallet...

Nice. Your troll-bait will not be taken. Your ignorance and sarcasm are sad. The longer people like you cow-tow to google (et al), the shorter the time between now, and the total control of your traffic and finances by them (the search engines).

I'm just a guy who is sick and tired of bowing to the "almighty" google. You, on the other hand, find me to be an enemy, or at least "laughable".

See, the master hopes the slaves fight amongst themselves. While I try to remove my chains, you scoff. You want me to show you where we use Article Bot? You're kidding, right? So you can cry to Google?

You make the master proud.

[Quadrille]

Thanks; very helpful

For me, the question is not so much about frequently changing or even (just) search engine results.

I'd personally be interested only if it created a more useful, more interesting web site.

You see, I know all the stuff about getting 'bums on seats' but I believe that visitors will only stay, spend, return, if they find the site interesting, useful and it meets their needs.

When I meet a robot that can provide interesting, relevant, non-repetitive text, then I'll have Asimov's Dilemma, and probably make that robot an Honorary Human Being.

While I'm impressed with your 'test', I see no point; why would I want three versions of one article. Plus the fact that you have altered the words coming out of people's mouths. which is stupid, bad journalism, and possibly illegal. But that's a side issue!

I'm also worried about your attitude to search engines.

Consider for one moment if they ceased to exist? If they were prevented from getting preview snippets?

We'd all go broke!

As it happens, I don't begrudge G, Y even M$ a penny - I just wish they'd control the spammers a bit better.

[articlebot]

Originally posted by Dan0
Wow, you've discovered the thesaurus. :rolleyes: Let me get my wallet...

So are you no longer making this claim?

Can you read? Did you not see that I DON'T CARE whether you believe our rankings or not? Article Bot is about CONTENT creation. "Rankings" are a by-product of that.

Dude, I don't care what you believe. You can download a copy of Article Bot. I'll show you what it does. You seem pretty smart. I bet you could figure out how to use Article Bot in all sorts of ways.

You could easily get top rankings for terms, of that I'm convinced. But, your decision to decry something you don't understand also convinces me you are not interested in learning more, your're interested in "tearing down".

[qwerty]

Article #1 mixed tenses incorrectly:
"President George Bush says" " prime minister steadfastly remarks" "Donald Rumsfeld indicated"

Same problem in #2.

In #3, you open with "President Bush commented that he may entertain additional fighting men and women in Iraq if needed." I think that should be "entertain the possibility of sending additional men and woem to Iraq" unless you're talking about putting on a little show for them.

The next sentence begins "But," and it ought to be "However," (never start a sentence with "but"), and it too contains an odd mix of tenses.

So I did in fact have a hard time figuring out which of the three was created by the bot. I figured that all of them were either written by a bot or a writer in dire need of an editor.

[articlebot]

Originally posted by Quadrille
Thanks; very helpful

For me, the question is not so much about frequently changing or even (just) search engine results.

I'd personally be interested only if it created a more useful, more interesting web site.

You see, I know all the stuff about getting 'bums on seats' but I believe that visitors will only stay, spend, return, if they find the site interesting, useful and it meets their needs.

When I meet a robot that can provide interesting, relevant, non-repetitive text, then I'll have Asimov's Dilemma, and probably make that robot an Honorary Human Being.

While I'm impressed with your 'test', I see no point; why would I want three versions of one article. Plus the fact that you have altered the words coming out of people's mouths. which is stupid, bad journalism, and possibly illegal. But that's a side issue!

I'm also worried about your attitude to search engines.

Consider for one moment if they ceased to exist? If they were prevented from getting preview snippets?

We'd all go broke!

As it happens, I don't begrudge G, Y even M$ a penny - I just wish they'd control the spammers a bit better.


Great points. Here are my replies:

1) My attitude toward the search engines is not unique. There are millions of people who want more relevant searches. There are thousands who are worried about the stranglehold the "Big 3" have on who gets traffic, who pays for it, and who gets paid. If the system was not crooked, I'd not complain.

2) You say, "While I'm impressed with your 'test', I see no point; why would I want three versions of one article. Plus the fact that you have altered the words coming out of people's mouths. which is stupid, bad journalism, and possibly illegal. But that's a side issue!" I REPLY: (A) You may or may not want three versions of an article. The point is not whether YOU want them, but that the software can create them. I'll gladly discuss why someone might want them, later, if you like. However, for now, suffice it to say that the software can DO IT, (B) If the words are written by ME, there is no issue of plagiarism.

3) You say, "When I meet a robot that can provide interesting, relevant, non-repetitive text, then I'll have Asimov's Dilemma, and probably make that robot an Honorary Human Being." To which, I reply, "Article Bot creates relevant, non-repetitive text." You may have your dilemma.

4) Your point about keeping visitors and getting return visits is absolutely valid. But, again, the point to Article Bot is NOT that it keeps or retains or whatever. Just that it creates content. To that end, there is NOTHING like Article Bot. For those who understand how and why they want to use it, Article Bot is an amazing tool. For those who do not understand it, or understand it but don't need it, well, it's something else, I guess. But, let me be clear: If you want unique, readable, understandable CONTENT, Article Bot does that EASILY.

[articlebot]

Bob,

Your points are VERY important. The ORIGINAL article that Article Bot used to create the three versions was FLAWED. It was written by A HUMAN. Article Bot was asked to re-write it based on BAD original GRAMMAR.

Lastly, since bad grammar is a part of HUMAN writing, we allow Article Bot to keep grammar "as is". People do not write "perfectly", and Article Bot can be used to reflect that imperfection.

However, the fact remains that the three examples do not look "computer generated". Bad grammar aside, they look like a PERSON wrote them.

I should, probably, use examples written better from the start. Thanks for pointing that out. But, again, let me be clear: the grammar issues were based on BAD ORIGINAL grammar. Not Article Bot.

Thanks for reading the examples.


Originally posted by qwerty
Article #1 mixed tenses incorrectly:
"President George Bush says" " prime minister steadfastly remarks" "Donald Rumsfeld indicated"

Same problem in #2.

In #3, you open with "President Bush commented that he may entertain additional fighting men and women in Iraq if needed." I think that should be "entertain the possibility of sending additional men and woem to Iraq" unless you're talking about putting on a little show for them.

The next sentence begins "But," and it ought to be "However," (never start a sentence with "but"), and it too contains an odd mix of tenses.

So I did in fact have a hard time figuring out which of the three was created by the bot. I figured that all of them were either written by a bot or a writer in dire need of an editor.

[Dan0]

I bet you could figure out how to use Article Bot in all sorts of ways.
So far, based on your website and demo, the only two applications that occur to me are plagiarism and spam. But I'm sure there are other uses.

[articlebot]

Originally posted by Dan0
So far, based on your website and demo, the only two applications that occur to me are plagiarism and spam. But I'm sure there are other uses.

Your continued use of sarcasm is silly. You don't think Article Bot is ANYTHING. You've never used it and you don't intend to. You think you know something, but you have no idea what you're talking about because while you spend time poking fun, you could be spending time pondering what we can all do to break the monopoly Google (et al) has on our traffic, etc.

I love to see folks innovate to find ways to move forward.

Guess you can't please everyone. Right, "Dan0"?

[chrishirst]

all I going to say is take a look at the "support forum" member(s) to guess what it's more likely to be used for.

http://articlebot2.proboards22.com/index.cgi?board=general

of course it may be just a coincidence :D

[articlebot]

Originally posted by chrishirst
all I going to say is take a look at the "support forum" member(s) to guess what it's more likely to be used for.

http://articlebot2.proboards22.com/index.cgi?board=general

of course it may be just a coincidence :D

"chrishirst",

What are you talking about? There's nothing on that board that indicates what Article Bot "will" be used for.

Sigh.

Besides, what difference does it make what ANYONE uses Article Bot for? You know, last year a lot of folks died in car wrecks. I suppose it's just a "coincidence" that car makers keep making cars?

[Dan0]

It's right on your home page, you're talking about fooling the search engines. I don't see much point in discussing it further, since you aren't saying anything new.

As I said, the only two uses I can see for it are plagiarism and spam. Can you suggest another?

[chrishirst]

you obviously have not been in the SE world very long otherwise you would have spotted why immediately. :D

Personally I can't see a point to it other than as a novelty when seen, two, maybe 3 times at a push.
If the article was dull, boring crap the first time would it be any different having a few words shuffled around by a bot? On the other hand, if it was a fascinating, well written, incisive piece first off would it still be after the same treatment.
As Dan points out it can be a great boon to plagiarists because most of the search tools for stolen copy rely on finding a large pecentage of words or sentence structures in the same order so therefore the people most likely to use it are the very many content thieves out there.
By simply using your software it will make it just that bit more difficult to track down the content and prove that the content was copied.

You seem to have taken it personally that the comments are directed at you. Nothing of the sort, it is simply that we can see the use it will be put to. Also as you saw fit to post in an existing thread to promote your tool, where another "seemed like a good idea at the time" was the discussion topic and the creator was/is getting slated for it being a "spam" tool did you expect anything less?

[Connie]

I'm not an SEO. I can tell you that you have received a lot of good advice. If you want to ignore the advice that is up to you.

In the end ignoring advice on this forum will bite you in the but.

[articlebot]

Originally posted by Dan0
It's right on your home page, you're talking about fooling the search engines. I don't see much point in discussing it further, since you aren't saying anything new.

As I said, the only two uses I can see for it are plagiarism and spam. Can you suggest another?

I've already stated 4 independent uses for Article Bot IN THIS THREAD. Your fixation on plagiarism and spam says more about you than Article Bot.

[articlebot]

Well, you don't see any use for Article Bot. You must not be looking very hard. I've stated four uses in this thread. As for being a "boon" to "plagiarists", that's like saying hypodermic needles are a "boon" to crack addicts. However, thankfully, my son's allergist has plenty of needles on hand when my son has an severe allergy attack.

I mean, it's obvious you "purists" are not interested in exploring methods to generate content "outside the box". So, I suggest that you get rid of your A) Dictionaries, B) Thesauruses, C) And, frankly, your computer, too.

Maybe even get rid of paper and pens: You can use all of them to "plagiarize", too. In fact, ALL plagiarism was done via paper and pen (etc) until the advent of the computer.

Your points about "plagiarism" and "spam" are too easy to refute. If you don't want to ("want" is the key word) find out what GOOD Article Bot could do, that's fine, but to say it's a "boon" to plagiarism is, well, based on the history of plagiarism, kinda funny.

And, no, I don't take any of this personally. You folks are clearly in the "purist" (read: slave to google) camp. That's fine. Nothing personal taken. And, I did NOT post in here to promote anything. My original post was LONG-WINDED in my dissent on the Google/Yahoo/MSN collusive-monopoly to which you seem perfectly happy to serve under.



Originally posted by chrishirst
you obviously have not been in the SE world very long otherwise you would have spotted why immediately. :D

Personally I can't see a point to it other than as a novelty when seen, two, maybe 3 times at a push.
If the article was dull, boring crap the first time would it be any different having a few words shuffled around by a bot? On the other hand, if it was a fascinating, well written, incisive piece first off would it still be after the same treatment.
As Dan points out it can be a great boon to plagiarists because most of the search tools for stolen copy rely on finding a large pecentage of words or sentence structures in the same order so therefore the people most likely to use it are the very many content thieves out there.
By simply using your software it will make it just that bit more difficult to track down the content and prove that the content was copied.

You seem to have taken it personally that the comments are directed at you. Nothing of the sort, it is simply that we can see the use it will be put to. Also as you saw fit to post in an existing thread to promote your tool, where another "seemed like a good idea at the time" was the discussion topic and the creator was/is getting slated for it being a "spam" tool did you expect anything less?

[qwerty]

This "slave to Google" nonsense is just silly. I improve web sites, and they do better in the search engines because of it. I don't chase algos, and I don't need to change all my work every six months because of some algo change.

I don't consider myself a "purist" or a "slave". I'm more or less an editor and a marketer. The fact that I take pride in doing my work honestly does not make me a victim of the search engines.

As others have stated in this thread, the people who spend time on this forum believe that useful content is what makes a site successful. Rewording things here and there in order to expand that content -- change a few words and you've got two pages instead of one -- is not the answer, whether that content is "original" or not.

[articlebot]

No, it is not nonsense to equate our traffic-gaining ability from Google (et al) to slavery. It's a wonderful anology. The only traffic you receive is at the "pleasure" of Google.

There is NO debate on that point.

And, you don't understand what Article Bot can do. That's fine. You are one of many. No big deal. But the irony about your position is found in your closing comments. You say, "As others have stated in this thread, the people who spend time on this forum believe that useful content is what makes a site successful."

Ah yes, "useful content"...

...as defined by...

GOOGLE.

Great point.



Originally posted by qwerty
This "slave to Google" nonsense is just silly. I improve web sites, and they do better in the search engines because of it. I don't chase algos, and I don't need to change all my work every six months because of some algo change.

I don't consider myself a "purist" or a "slave". I'm more or less an editor and a marketer. The fact that I take pride in doing my work honestly does not make me a victim of the search engines.

As others have stated in this thread, the people who spend time on this forum believe that useful content is what makes a site successful. Rewording things here and there in order to expand that content -- change a few words and you've got two pages instead of one -- is not the answer, whether that content is "original" or not.

[qwerty]

Ah yes, "useful content"...

...as defined by...

GOOGLE.
No, as recognized by Google, and as accepted by people -- the ones who may potentially spend money on the site. Google doesn't make that happen; all it can do is find words and links and use them to point people to content. It's the content, as read and accepted by people, that makes a web site successful.

[articlebot]

Originally posted by qwerty
No, as recognized by Google, and as accepted by people -- the ones who may potentially spend money on the site. Google doesn't make that happen; all it can do is find words and links and use them to point people to content. It's the content, as read and accepted by people, that makes a web site successful.

Dude, come on. You're kidding, right?

Google and GOOGLE ALONE decides what appears through their portal. You may be too young to remember the days when actual "homepages" appeared in search results. You know, pages where folks wrote about stuff and talked about stuff and posted pictures of stuff?

Well, that was great, but there ain't no money in that for the search engines. So, Google (in particular) cooked up a bogus "page rank" scheme to give MORE traffic to the sites with MORE traffic already.

Alas, REAL content (the unprofitable kind for Google) went by the wayside.

Oh, and Google Adsense/Adwords? There's no more greater ripoff available in the world of marketing. Well, maybe Kanoodle and Find What might be worse, but...

Look, I took you seriously until this comment. You either A) Need to "wake up and smell the coffee", B) stop joking around, or C) admit you work for Google.

There's not much you can count on, but you can count on this: If Google wants your traffic to go up, it will go up. If Google wants you traffic to go down, it will go down.

THE SICK PART is that there are threads at every "SEO" forum I've looked at where webmasters lament the fact that they are too "scared" to do "this" or "that" to "optimize" their pages out of FEAR that Google will "punish" them.

Come on, man.

[Blue]

Articlebot, I've been reading this thread (since you came into it) and I'm sorry, but to me it sounds like you are the "slave to Google".

First and foremost, nobody has a hold on my pocketbook including Google and Yahoo, but it sounds like you think they do on yours. Oh, and I'd be interested to hear what potential laws you think they have broken.

What folks here have tried to tell you is that we don't "optimize our pages for Google". Period. Get that through your head if you can.

Rather, we optimize our pages for our sites' visitors, and, hey! if Google happens to like it and reward those sites by giving them higher rankings, then all the better.

We don't care what "rules" Google changes, because those types of rules we have always ignored. Instead, what we do is "what makes sense for our visitors". Hey! Imagine that .... That what we do is what Google has stated as being the right thing to do .... ALL ALONG!

I think you need to stop thinking about Google and get yourself into the real world. It'd do you good.

And, welcome to the forums! :hi:

[Irony]

THE SICK PART is that there are threads at every "SEO" forum I've looked at where webmasters lament the fact that they are too "scared" to do "this" or "that" to "optimize" their pages out of FEAR that Google will "punish" them.

Yes, that happens very often. But the only reason is because people do not know which source of information to trust and often mistake legal techniques for spam.

I'm not feared. Not because I "work for Google" or read their guidelines every day like a prayer. Simply because I know that if I do nothing wrong, I won't be banned. Just that simple.

The only guidelines one really needs is common sense. Whatever the search engines will change in their guidelines, common sense will never fail them, because they are doomed otherwise - and smart people who run the SEs know that. They aren't interested in banning good, useful sites.

If Google wants your traffic to go up, it will go up. If Google wants you traffic to go down, it will go down.


No! Google cannot "want" it for all the 8 billion pages it currently has in the index. It only applies the algo to them. And if everything is done properly, the traffic grows. Without "this" or "that" ;)

[rockynate]

Yep. I'm still reading this thread.

Isn't it sad, that this new guy comes here... and you have to "educate" him from the ground up right off the bat?

My favorite 'Doug' quote is "Would you do this if the search engines didn't exist?"

The difference in ideal, here, is that this man is asking, "Would you do this, if the search engine RULES didn't exist?"

He calls y'all lap dogs to Google, basically. Correct me if I'm wrong, Don. But this situation has really made me see the seedier side of this 'community'.

I don't have a relationship with some person named "Google". I thought I had a good relationship with a number of people here. But the moment when what I was doing even SMELLED like something that wasn't 100% within the webmaster guidelines of Google, these supposed 'friends' of mine here at IHY turned into a pack of rabid dogs, wanting desperately to rip every ounce of flesh from my bones.

Is that normal human behavior?

No.

It's the behavior of people gripped with FEAR.

I'm really sorry if I don't live in mortal fear of Google. I know that's what you want in this community. But I just can't live that way.

I live my life as if the search engines didn't exist. I don't dictate the content of my sites by what Google says I should do. I'm really sorry if that offends you.

I build sites that are useful to the VISITOR. My sites are bookmarked and revisited regularly. I'm sorry if something I've done flies in the face of the Google cult here. But I live my life without that fear.

Obviously, Don does too.

Fresh meat for The Pack.

[WebSavvy]

Articlebot, rest assured, Bob (Qwerty) does NOT work for Google. He's an SEO (like many here), he's also a Moderator here, and at a few other forums, and he's an editor in my directory (as are chrishirst, Quadrille, Blue, and Rockynate -- other participants in this thread).

Perhaps your misguided belief that Google determines how much traffic a site gets is based upon your lack of technical understanding of the inner workings and complexities involved in writing an algorithm?

Algorithms are applied to a database systemically which is deployed by the code in the search script. The search results are based on how relevant the query is to that particular data node and can be separated and given a weight. If the weight is within a certain range, it counts as more relevant than another result of a lesser range would.

Other factors determine what constitutes relevancy within the Google search algorithm, such as number of pages in the index, on page content, inbound links, outbound links, and a myriad of other things Google has not made the general public privy to.

PageRank is merely a graphical representation of the page's overall placement within the hierarchal scheme of the database in relation to it's topic, subject, or theme.

Nate, no one here is out for your meat, as it were. ;)
Folks here are still your friends, however they may be in disagreement with your latest venture. True friends will tell you the truth, no matter how much it hurts to hear. Just remember that. :)

[Quadrille]

It's the behavior of people gripped with FEAR.Get a life, do. :rolleyes:

If you want to discuss rationally, we're here (OK we're huddled in our cave looking fearfully out at the Big Googly Mammoth).

But enough of the teenage troll stuff.

Just Drop It!

Thanks!

[rockynate]

You are a voice of reason in the wilderness, Deb. You are a genius and a scholar. When you speak, I listen.

Thank you for your kind words of caution and concern. Be assured, that as a FRIEND, your words have carried great weight in my heart. You have been alone in behaving as one here, and I commend you for that.

[articlebot]

Deb,

My belief that Google determines the amount a traffic receives is neither misguided, nor incorrect. I am factually correct on that issue. Google's pomposity and self-serving policies sicken me. There should be class-action suits brought against Google.

It's late where I'm at, and I see that the users of this forum are of the "Google is good" variety. So, I'd rather not (right now) write too much more about the Google traffic game. Nothing I say will be viewed with anything resembling respect, and no one will change their opinion - that much is clear from the cajoling sent my way thus far.

However, I will say that if you really believe that Google simply applies some sort of "algorithm" to websites to decide how to index a site, you must agree that the algorithm in question carries with it the bias of the writers (ie Google). They determine what is "relevant". They (Google) frame their "alogrithms" to exclude who they wish. This is not baseless conjecture. I've marketed on the web since 1996. I've supported my family (and many others) from an exclusively web-based business since April, 1999. I know the web the way most people can't even imagine.

Now, before you (or anyone else) get your pride in a bind, I know. I KNOW. You are an SEO expert. Right, I get it.

I'm "just" a guy that's made "8 figures" on the web, and I've watched Google and Yahoo carve the net up. Gutted like a fish.

I don't know it all, but I've seen enough to know that we're all on "borrowed time" with Google. The age of organic search results is about to come to a crashing, and anti-climactic end. I don't like it, but it's around the corner.

In the meantime, I want to find any way I can to get an edge on the syndicate of Yahoo, Google, and MSN.


Originally posted by savvy1
Articlebot, rest assured, Bob (Qwerty) does NOT work for Google. He's an SEO (like many here), he's also a Moderator here, and at a few other forums, and he's an editor in my directory (as are chrishirst, Quadrille, Blue, and Rockynate -- other participants in this thread).

Perhaps your misguided belief that Google determines how much traffic a site gets is based upon your lack of technical understanding of the inner workings and complexities involved in writing an algorithm?

Algorithms are applied to a database systemically which is deployed by the code in the search script. The search results are based on how relevant the query is to that particular data node and can be separated and given a weight. If the weight is within a certain range, it counts as more relevant than another result of a lesser range would.

Other factors determine what constitutes relevancy within the Google search algorithm, such as number of pages in the index, on page content, inbound links, outbound links, and a myriad of other things Google has not made the general public privy to.

PageRank is merely a graphical representation of the page's overall placement within the hierarchal scheme of the database in relation to it's topic, subject, or theme.

Nate, no one here is out for your meat, as it were. ;)
Folks here are still your friends, however they may be in disagreement with your latest venture. True friends will tell you the truth, no matter how much it hurts to hear. Just remember that. :)

[WebSavvy]

No, I am not an 'SEO expert.' I am not an SEO. I am a programmer. :)

I'm not getting anything into a bind, as I rarely do, these days. ;)
I am very much intrigued by search engines and algorithms and how they can affect the results simply by expanding the variables within the process.

Yes, I do agree that Google's search algorithm carries with it an amount of bias, as do they (MSN, Yahoo, Teoma) all. This is what makes one search engine better than another.

I am not of the "Google is good" camp, nor am I of the "Google is evil" camp. I look at it from the vantage point of how good the programming behind it is.

From the looks of the new MSN, it will be getting my vote as top dog. They still have some backend tweaking to do, but it's shaping up rather nicely.

The problem with Google is their dominance in the search engine field. Back a few years ago, there were quite a few small to medium sized directories around that had some decent following. I watched as they one by one, ditched their own database in order to serve Google data.

There were about 400 really good ones that I personally knew of, and over a period of about 18 months, more than 2/3 of them were serving Google data. At around that time Google's dominance of the market became apparent.

There has to be a balance of power for all things to be on a level ground. I am glad to see MSN now vying for their rightful share as are Yahoo and a few others. There has to be more diversity and variety.

Another engine that seems to be quietly making some bold strides is Gigablast. I would really like to see it do something great simply because Matt (owner) is a nice kid and he's written all of it himself (something I have complete respect for having done so myself as well).

Please don't misunderstand my reply as attacking, as it's not meant in that light.

:)

[Quadrille]

I will say that if you really believe that Google simply applies some sort of "algorithm" to websites to decide how to index a site, you must agree that the algorithm in question carries with it the bias of the writers (ie Google). They determine what is "relevant". They (Google) frame their "alogrithms" to exclude who they wish.I don't think anyone is arguing that point; unless you believe in pixies, gawping at each individual web site, then you have to believe in an algorithm.

And, yes, of course it carries the bias of the writers. But just think about that bias; why do you think Google 'won out' so comprehensively over the competition? Because Google found things better than its rivals. If you choose to see that as 'bias', I want more of it.

Much of the problem on relevancy is Google's need to constantly upgrade in the face of those who would subvert Google's findings for their own ends. We all know this - and you, and that spammer have upped the stakes yet again. You know this.

And it is inevitable that Google's response - tweaking the algo - will be a broad approach to a narrow problem (unless the pixies ...). There will be accidental winners and losers.

Google ain't perfect, no-one here believes that. But it happens to be the best around at this moment; and if it weren't for spammers (and I'm not addressing you), then it would be better. Much better.

Put the blame where it belongs, and be grateful search engines get to work at all in such a hostile environment!

[no need to quote the whole post!]

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forums articlebot! :hi:

Actually, you should have started your own thread for 'this' discussion.

But anyway, why would you think I would delete your posts? If you have ever read in here at all, you clearly see I do NOT delete anything unless it's pure and blatant spam/advertising.

We debate and "out" the spammers in here all the time. I LOVE things like this. LOL

That said: I'm afraid "you" are the one who worries and chases and fears the likes of Google. Many of us do not, and have zero reason to fear Google. I almost "never" check in Google for a website, or almost never check a rank in Google. It's not that I don't care about Google, but it's simply a matter of not chasing an algo, or not trying to think of more ways to "trick" the search engines.

The moment I post terms and sites, is the moment folks email their master, Google, to "report" the sites created as spam - regardless of whether the sites in question are "really" spam or not.
hmmm. If in fact the pages are not spam, then me or anyone else reporting those pages would "not" do any good, right? Further: why report the page at all if it's not spam? Further: The se's will eventually filter out your pages anyway, so I'm not really concerned by your software. My only concern is the innocent "new" website owners who might buy into the "gig" for short-term success only to have their pages dropped in due time.

BTW, I would not be so defensive if I were you. It only makes your software more "undefensivable". I also would not snap back like you have to members such as Dan and others. Many members in here are very well respected in this industry, so the spouting off to them does not look good to the "many" guests and members who read in here daily.

Also: The se's "do" read in here "all the time". I'm sure you have given them morning shites and giggles the last few days. :)

[ihelpyou]

And Nate said this:

I'm really sorry if I don't live in mortal fear of Google. I know that's what you want in this community. But I just can't live that way.

I live my life as if the search engines didn't exist. I don't dictate the content of my sites by what Google says I should do. I'm really sorry if that offends you.
hmm, that's a strange thing to say Nate. Your software is the one claiming improvement in the se's. You are the one who is "fearing" Google and all other se's. If you were not, no need to create something to try and trick them, right?

[Quadrille]

I live my life as if the search engines didn't exist.That's the key to rockynate's confusion.

He's dedicated his life to creating, marketing and selling a device intended to subvert SEs, and yet he truly believes (at this moment) that he would have done exactly the same thing if SEs didn't exist.

He's spun a few yarns lately, but that one should be saved for his epitaph.

I profoundly disagree with articlebot, but have zero problem having a discussion with him; but rockynate, he seems to just write the first thing he thinks of, and never sees the twists, turns and contradictions that get included.

That's what makes it personal; he just disrespects his readers. Utterly.

[Dan0]

Articlebot,

Thanks for adding something new. Not that I agree with it, but it's new.

You refer to 3 competing companies as a syndicate, that's interesting enough. Never mind that there is more competition than there was a year ago, and that Ask might want in on your cartel.

If Google, MSN, and Yahoo all stopped their organic search tomorrow, people would go to Ask, Snap, etc. to find better search results. Information wants to be free, and organic search will not go away.

You and Nate are selling shortcuts to create the illusion of information. Different approaches to accomplishing it, but that's basically what you're selling.

Your tool "could" be used for good things - to generate content summaries for example, but that's not what you're selling it as.

[ihelpyou]

I just noticed this statement from articlebot:

However, I will say that if you really believe that Google simply applies some sort of "algorithm" to websites to decide how to index a site, you must agree that the algorithm in question carries with it the bias of the writers (ie Google). They determine what is "relevant". They (Google) frame their "alogrithms" to exclude who they wish. This is not baseless conjecture. I've marketed on the web since 1996. I've supported my family (and many others) from an exclusively web-based business since April, 1999. I know the web the way most people can't even imagine.
LOL Of course the algo of Google carries the bias of Google in it! Doesn't "your" site carry the bias of "you" in it? Don't these forums carry the bias of Doug Heil in it? Oh my. Where the heck are you coming from, and what planet do you inhabit?

I can ban, delete, edit, or do as I darn well please with "any" part of my website. I can throw it away, rip it to pieces, submit it to one million spammers, submit it to one million non-existant search engines, take it offline, put it online, sell what I want to sell, Give away free stuff whenever I wish, do what the hell I want to do...... and you know why?..... because it's MY website.

:green:

Of course Google's algo is biased. Afterall; it's their website, right? They can do as they please, right? You have your choice on whether or not you wish to cater to Google or any engine for that matter. You can even "disallow" Googlebot from crawling your website if you wish. You can do whatever you want with "your" website.

But please please please, don't try and tell me that I cannot say one thing about your spam machine that "you" are selling to unsuspecting webmasters and site owners. I can say anything I wish about your spam machine. I can do so freely.

And please please please; your argument about the major se's is Old Old Old, and frankly, I'm truly tired about hearing the same argument from many search engine spammers in the world. Can't you all come up with a better argument?