WeIndexed.com - Rotten Spammers

[nuthin]

best be on the lookout for these folk.
just take a look at what there doing.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=site:weindexed.com+&hl=en&lr=&start=220&sa=N

check the cached versions.

trying to pull another ansearch (http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/Ansearch_faces_cache_critics/0,2000061791,39217488,00.htm)

[ihelpyou]

Found this one as well:

http://weindexed.2u.co.uk/

They are redirecting to many different sites.

Pure spam.

[g1smd]

This stuff really belongs in the worst practices forum.

[WebSavvy]

I agree, maybe we could have a "worst practices" forum where crap like this can be housed (eh, Doug)?

That way "best practices" can be spotlighted in the Best Practices forum (e.g., sites that are doing things the RIGHT way!)

[nuthin]

When I found this just today, I looked over to msn.com & yahoo.com to see how they are handling this type of site.. and to there credit, they seem to be currently on top of there game with sites like this (well at least MSN maybe..)

The only problem I would be concerned with is this type of site stealing the rankings and placement of the legititmate site.

This can be witnessed at Yahoo! - http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Thirteen+Tales+From+Urban+Bohemia+Music+CD&ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&n=20&fl=0&x=wrt

see the scum rank?

but I am still concerned with the way Google has indexed the site!

Nobody would know if a possible duplication penalty would occur, when the internal PR is higher on the WeIndexed.com version than that of the legit version or truthful source.

Worrying times though if Google can index all those pages without even a 'hiccup'.

[JohnC]

They seem to be cloaking it ... The Google Cache is showing a page on their domain with additional navigation at he top, view source and there is no redirect of any type.

Most of the content in the "directory" seems to be affilaite porn anyway, I am not suprised they are doing this, just that Google has not caught it yet.

Lets just hope that the only reason they are there is due to the current fluctuations.

[nuthin]

Granted I only found it today when doing a very specific search on our site on Google.

The page they cached and copied on our site is still ranking top 10 for it's keywords targeted, based on that... Google seems to know who the authority is.. not to say things cant change though. :D

[nuthin]

just thrown into boot, was wondering how this site obtained PR / backlinks which would help with Googlebot crawling so deeply into the site.

well and behold, there log spammers too.

http://au.search.yahoo.com/search?p=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.weindexed.com&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt&meta=atw

doesn't really suprise me, just wish some people would wake up and secure there stats so PR and backlinks can't be passed, especially from those dang .edu & .org sites.

[Connie]

No doubt these folks are Spammers. I'm trying to understand exactly what they are doing so I have a couple of questions.

1: Are they Scraping pages?
2: Are they cloaking to show the SES the scrapped page, but a browser a different page?

I don't know if anyone did a header check but I did at least on the first link in the results from Google on the site search.

www.weindexed.com/go/195/8529/90345/
HTTP/1.1 302 Moved
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:19:37 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
location: http://www.weindexed.com/php/site.php?id=90345&k=8529&c=195
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/plain

Notice www.weindexed.com/go/195/8529/90345/ does a 302 redirect to
http://www.weindexed.com/php/site.php?id=90345&k=8529&c=195

which then redirects to the site www.thetechzone.com/?m=show&id=350

HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:21:11 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Location: http://www.thetechzone.com/?m=show&id=350
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html

Obviously the end user ends up at the correct site. Why 2 redirects? How are they making money from this if the user ends up at the correct site? What is the benefit for doing this?

[nuthin]

I think there main aim is to cause disruption to Google

Now that I have had a bit more time to look, I don't think we have seen the full effects and fall out from this web site just yet.

Take a look at these couple of positions the site has managed to obtain under ok sort of keywords.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Playstation+Kids+Games
http://www.google.com/search?q=Xbox+Kids+Games&hl=en&lr=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=GameCube+Kids+Games

Now these pages that are ranking appear to be the category pages before they list all of the cached copied sites.

What this could be telling me is that Google is yet to pass the power onto those cached pages, but when/if it does pass the power onto those pages so they can actually have the 'chance to rank' all hell could in theory break loose.

As in the past it has been reported Google's duplication penalties and the way they try and find the correct/original source isn't always spot in.

You will have to be pretty unlucky to fall victim to this, but I don't think it can be clearly disregarded completely.

So in conclusion, I feel there trying to steal peoples rankings and traffic.

With the log spamming they are doing, I would say this is all pre-meditated by them & now what Google needs to do is give them a manual boot or innocent sites could be facing major problems if Google does nothing NOW and power is passed onto the cached pages of the WeIndexed.com site.

One of our customers sites actually fell victim to such a problem about 6 months ago when Ansearch was cachein like this. Basically because our customer had the lower PR of the 2 and was seen as a 'lesser authority' on the subject, the cached version at Ansearch stole all our customers rankings, well there site completely vanished.

At the time there were alot of angry Australian companies who went to the press, re: that article and forced Ansearch to change there policy.

It took a few months to correct in Google though.

Also the name WeIndexed sounds a bit cheeky to me. I have a feeling the owner could be having a subtle dig at gaming the search engines.

Just my 2 cents.

Does this theory have merit?

[JohnC]

I posted this on your blog too Connie ... That was a very good write up of WeIndexed.com (http://www.spam-whackers.com/blog/2006/05/02/weindexedcom/) the situation and it made me think about the issue a bit more.

It could be rather simple. I am thinking that the first redirect is a .htaccess Mod re-write to make “friendly” URLs of a cloaked page that redirects for surfers and not spiders.

[Comeran]

John,

It seems that they no longer hold some of the rankings that you had linked.

Did they get taken down?

Comeran-