SEO Inc Gone?

[nuthin]

Type in search engine optimization

No SEO Inc?

maybe related to the thread you made here Doug, thats suddenly dissapeared.

:D

I take back what I said that Google wouldn't do anything until I'm dead and buried.

I tip my hat to you's Google.

Wonder if it's gonna stick.

[Connie]

Google is taking action against Spam.

[nuthin]

nice way to get the ball rolling .. :)

[Irony]

Click here (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.seoinc.com&num=100&filter=0).

Interesting....

[nuthin]

guaranteed that alot of SEO's around the world are re-thinking their link strategies :p

i really do wonder what tipped google over the edge and to do this now, why now? what wouldve been the last straw?

they couldve done this years ago, if infact it is a manual ban.

[Irony]

Hopefully.

I'm afraid many are thinking about more sophisticated ways of fooling the engines though :(

Nobody knows why Google does this or that. But the point is: spammy SEOs do get banned.

[nuthin]

yeah.
true.
just doing a few searches on some popular firms and noticed etrafficjams is gone too.
i notice alot of these companies buy high pr links though.
google's catching up on them all, by the looks.
suppose we all have to be more careful than ever now days!

[Irony]

Yep... time for you to change your custom title to "Google Friend" IMHO

;)

[nuthin]

i like these informal takes on the word 'fiend'

Informal. One who is addicted to something: a dope fiend.

Informal. One who is completely absorbed in or obsessed with a given job or pastime.

maybe one day G can be a friend of mine :)

[Connie]

I take back what I said that Google wouldn't do anything until I'm dead and buried.

Its been obvious to me for the last few months that Google is dealing with link spam. Will they catch it all? Probably not but they are working on it.

I do not think Google likes any spam techniques any more than the rest of us.

I know of one company that dominated a phrase in my industry for about 2 years that is completely out of the index.

Google is on the move in regard to spam.

[ihelpyou]

Yep.

If ya spam, you will eventually get caught. Being caught one time only can lead to serious public relations problems and a real loss of income. Is it worth it? I don't think so.

I'd say that Google has simply had enough of the link crap out there, and is seriously doing something about it.....buying, leasing, and other forms of link schemes.

To the rest of you "link mongers" out there who might just be lurking and reading this thread,.... you're next. One by one by one by one.

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by nuthin
i really do wonder what tipped google over the edge and to do this now, why now?Could it have been the recent Wired article,Search Rank Easy to Manipulate (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66893,00.html), which featured SEO Inc?

[Quadrille]

Just think, if Google employed just one 'fixer', to target the Public Enemy #1 Spammer, they'd concentrate a few minds.

They could drawup a shortlist of the cheekiest (like SEOInc), the ones that affect most people, the ones with the most effective software and so on.

After picking the current #1, a bit of research and a few memos to the Algo-Tweakers, a manual removal of all their visible clients plus their own site ...

If they achieved that just once a month ... :)

[ihelpyou]

That's good stuff.

It highlights Mr. Boser as well. I hope that clown is next.

Interesting that he said this:
He gets most of his clients through speaking engagements at conferences, and says there are two types."
Good for you Mr. Boser.

That second page is very revealing in the article. I'd say that Submit Express is next on the hit list. "Guarantee and 75,000" will be their downfall along with other stuff they do.

Boser is right about one thing; Being on the first page for that seo term is a big bullseye on the forehead. Having thousands of incoming links is a bullseye in and of itself. NO ONE seo site could possibly get thousands of incoming links (actually millions) from such a variety of different sites doing things ethically. That email I received from the link scheme firm that specifically asked to link to seoinc is exactly how they also get their clients thousands of incoming links. They had to know the "end" was coming soon.

[ihelpyou]

LOL Q. That's a damn good idea!

[Connie]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
LOL Q. That's a damn good idea!

Not only a good idea, I think were seeing something at least similar in progress.

Alan thanks for the link to the article. I hadn't seen that one.

[WebSavvy]

Great article, Alan. Thanks for the link.

I'd like to see someone write an article on "PageRank Easy to Manipulate!"

There are plenty of sites I've seen in the past 6 months that started out brand new, PR0, and bought links at every high PR site that would sell them one, and then in the next index they've gone from a one month old PR0 site to being a two month old PR 7/8 site.

PR doesn't mean squat but you try and tell that to a link monger and it's like talking to a.wall :D

[nuthin]

PR does mean a bit hey.
I am seeing more and more sites utilizing there PR to do dodgy things.
If there sites didn't have that PR, they wouldn't be able to obtain noticable rankings in the serp's.
so how does PR mean squat if this is the case??

[WebSavvy]

PR is Google's gimmick/shtick/etc., -- a GREAT marketing ploy. Create something, assign it value, make people believe it's important, and you have the supply/demand theory at its' best. Basic business 101.

Why does PageRank mean squat? Because it's true. There are tons of sites that have an assigned PR of = 5 < and are BEATING sites with PR = 6 > in the SERPs on the SAME terms, so that's where I've come to the conclusion that PR means squat because Google shows me that themselves on query returns, all the time.

If PR was everything then all there would be at the top is sites with HIGH PR and sites at the bottom with LOW PR, when in fact, just the opposite is true.

It's a mixed bag. There are high PR sites in the middle, low ones on top, medium ones at the bottom, etc.

The thing that does influence where a site ranks at (position) in the SERPs is on page content, and back links. More and more too, site longevity seems to now be playing some diminutive role in this as well -- as goes to the speculation about the hilltop theory.

[nuthin]

yeah it's truly a mixed bag as you say.

PR factoring in with age of site and age of incoming links is a killer.

i'm finding established sites such as web dev companies suddenly turning part of there sites into dodgy affiliate 'flower shops' and 'so called empty directories'. PM for examples.

over the years they have built up the site to where it is, but are moving towards all this dodgy crap to make a quick buck.

i probably should have said something more to do with 'authority' domain name in my original post.

PR can = authority domain name.. if the sites been on the internet for along time and has aged accordingly.. this is what everyone has to contend with out there when these companies start utilizing there 'authority' status to do evil.

[WebSavvy]

OK, I'll bite. => PM'd.

[Dave Hawley]

Toolbar PR = Worthless
Real PR = Value

[nuthin]

the thing is, the examples i listed with savvy1, one of them is only a PR4 on the toolbar.

but if one was to look further into the site, they will notice the site has been on the net since 1998.

thus it has became an 'authority domain' and can easily manipulate the serp's if they wanted to.

definately PR is value to a site, combine that with age of site, you have a lethal combination and mixture for someone to play with, if they wanted to use deceptive techniques.

to Google's credit, they do seem to be ironing out this stuff _eventually_.

one goes down, another pops up.

never-ending cycle of fun!

[ihelpyou]

Yeah, and we have 'other' places right now posting that Google is dying and other engines are much better, etc. They are saying that Google needs to forget about spammers and concentrate on relevancy.

I say that Google is "starting" to do a damn good job, and IS getting better and better with things. I see other engines getting better... MSN comes to mind as they "Just" started, but I certainly don't see Google dying. That's silly stuff.

Spammers are just worried now and are constantly keeping an eye on their "backside". They wake up daily to check their sites to make sure they are not the next victim. This is all a great thing. I love every minute of it. Seeing the spammers squirm now is some truly great stuff. :)

[g1smd]

I am very surprised at this.


I don't see much difference in the pattern of this:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.seoinc.com&num=100&filter=0

and this:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aihelpyouservices.com&num=100&filter=0


I noticed it yesterday. What gives?



Doug. You're showing duplicate content: There is no redirect from ihelpyouservices.com to www.ihelpyouservices.com in place.

[ihelpyou]

Yeah, the server was reconfigured and my guy forgot to put in that redirect. Oh well.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=search+engine+forums&btnG=Search

The difference is that this place still ranks on it's main terms just like it has for years. That other site ain't ranking for anything now. :)

[g1smd]

Get the redirect back in.

It can make a heck of a difference if people start linking to the "wrong" version.

[ihelpyou]

BTW: seoinc is gone for every search term you can think of. A very good thing. NO spammer should be ranked on anything at all.

A word of warning; This was pointed out to me:

http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2005/03/29/prnewswire200503291200PR_NEWS_B_MWT_CG_CGTU018.html

I suggest no one take them up on it.

[ihelpyou]

BTW: They claim in that "announcement" that they are the "First" SEO firm to have an affiliate program?

What rock have they been hiding under for years now? :uplaugh:

I know that many firms right in this place have offered "referral commissions" to those who refer others to us, and have done so for years.

Their claim is bogus stuff indeed.

[Peter (IMC)]

This is an example of Topical Sensitive PageRank at work. It is interesting that this happens right after a PR update. Perhaps the reason that this PR update was taking so long was that they implemented some improvements to the topical side of PR.

I have had the impression that relevance of a link was still based on its anchor text and not so much on the topic of the page the link is in. This may have been changed and now relevance is more based on the content of the page the link is in. I welcome this as it improves search results a lot.

Some posts in this thread claim PR doesn't matter, but as much as I wish this would be true (It would make SEO a lot easier) just look at the PR scores for: search engine optimization (http://www.seochat.com/?tool=7&option=com_seotools&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=search+engine+optimization&result_mode=relevance&num=10). They´re all 6 or higher. My PR4 website will have little chance ranking in the top10. (in fact the first PR4 result I could find was in position 48.

The fact is that there are plenty of honest websites out there with a high PR and they will rank higher than an honest website with a lower PR.

And in order to get that high ranking you also need to work on PR. But in an ethical way of course, that doesn't change and applies to everything.

Besides, if you ask me, Getting a high PR the ethical way is just as much work as getting it the unethical way. It just requires a bit more creativity and knowledge to do it the ethical way.

[Irony]

And can this (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=www.seoinc.com&btnG=Google+Search) be explained in terms of Topic Sensitive PR, Peter?

;)

[ihelpyou]

Well yeah, you can look at many "phrases" and find a phrase where a PR6 site is all that's in the top ten. That shows us nothing. You can also find "many" phrases where lower PR pages are in the top ten as well.

And yes, I've always thought the whole page the link is on was important.

But no; I don't think you can look at that toolbar, but please, I don't wish to discuss that with you in this thread. It's my opinion and you have your opinion. :)

[ihelpyou]

I'm wondering if that site has permission from Google to "frame" their copyrighted design/layout like they are doing?

[qwerty]

What page are you referring to, Doug?

[Peter (IMC)]

And can this be explained in terms of Topic Sensitive PR, Peter? Yes it can. A topical sensitive PR algorithm can detect link spamming, for example by comparing topical PR with overal PR. Once detected Google can investigate. The fact is that they can only investigate if their algorithms detect problems. It is not possible to detect in manually for 8 billion pages.

By the way, TSPR is just part of the whole algorithm, the historical data algorithms also help. And seems that seoinc just over did it big time. The result is obvious. Probably out of their 33.000+ backlinks, there are just a couple of valuable backlinks. Not enough to justify high rankings.

Well yeah, you can look at many "phrases" and find a phrase where a PR6 site is all that's in the top ten. That shows us nothing. You can also find "many" phrases where lower PR pages are in the top ten as well. Yes but that really is irrelevant if you want a high ranking for a phrase that requires high PR.. :)

And yes, I've always thought the whole page the link is on was important. Let's hope Google now figured out a way to use the whole page to determine link relevancy, because that isn't as simple as it seems.

[g1smd]

I like your TSPR explanation.

It explains why a one-page site, about a particular topic, is #3 in 130 million results for a two word search term.

It has only about 50 incoming links, but they are mostly very on-topic. Three or four of the authority sites for the topic link to the site, one link from each authority site, and from a deep-internal page of their site.

The page is a PR 6 page, and has been online for 2 years.

[ihelpyou]

Hey Carry Grant; Don't you think you need to "lie low" for a bit instead of touting your shite everywhere these days?

http://www.thewhir.com/features/lee-seospam.cfm

You must be joking? You should read this thread. Oh sorry; You already have. :D

Quite funny stuff I must say considering your large SEO firm was caught for spamming Google....... "Finally".

[g1smd]

That site tries to set 3 cookies.

Where is their feedback form to tell them what a crock their article is?

[ihelpyou]

LOL I did as well.

editor@thewhir.com

I found that off the 'about us' page.

[Dave Hawley]

LOL! That is funny! Seems like they are still targeting the un-informed Webmaster.

[ihelpyou]

Good point. thewhir would be the spot to target those types as well.

I think this type of behavior we are seeing from Mr. Carry is often called:

"Damage Control"

:D

They need much more than that however. The more he talks and interviews with sites and people who don't have a clue, the more I will bash and bash and bash some more in here about it.

He would be much better off to let "this thread" go unreplied to, and die... go away quietly.