InfoSearchMedia & Content Logic - Nothing But Spammers?

[nuthin]

Take a look at http://www.contentlogic.com/content/managed-search-engine-marketing-services.html

In particular the left hand side and the associated doorway pages. How pathetic?

Isn't this firm a big "SEO firm" in the USA? My god. I for-see another Traffic Power banning here of there customers if they deploy such methods on there sites, that's of course if Google can identify them.

Disgraceful...

[ihelpyou]

Hi nuthin, I must not be seeing what you are? All I see is a bunch of menu links on the left side, and they link to a content page.

It doesn't look good, but they are simply content pages and not spam. Do you see hidden links in the code or something?

Please explain further. :)

[nuthin]

Ask yourself what are the purposes of those pages and the variations there-of?

They are trying to portray it in a way that the search engines may not see those particular pages as non-sense doorway pages, when effect they are.

What's the point of the pages below other than to hit the particular keywords that are targeted for each "page?"

Sample..

Top Search Engine Optimization
Top Search Engine Ranking
California Search Engine Marketing
California Search Engine Optimization
Guaranteed Search Engine Marketing
Guaranteed Search Engine Optimization
Guaranteed Search Engine Placement
Affordable Search Engine Ranking
Article Search Engine Marketing
Best Search Engine Optimization
Economical Search Engine Optimization
Effective Search Engine Optimization Company
Ethical Search Engine Optimization
Expert Search Engine Marketing Firm
Expert Search Engine Optimization
Yahoo Search Engine Optimization
High Search Engine Optimization Ranking
Improve Search Engine Rank
Improved Search Engine Ranking
Increase Search Engine Ranking
Inexpensive Search Engine Optimization Placement
International Search Engine Optimization
Managed Search Engine Marketing
Managed Search Engine Marketing Services
Most Effective Search Engine Marketing

It's crap.
The bottom line is that the content logic domain name is an authority web site, thus this crap is given the opportunity to rank.

Nothing but doorway pages, no matter the way you look at it.

[ihelpyou]

Well, I know they are all similar and are all catered to the particular page, but nuthin, it's not search engine spam. I define a "doorway" page as a page built for the se's and are not accessed from the main site at all. In other words, they have no link leading from the main page to the doorway page.

Those pages are navigation pages in the main menu. Sure, it looks silly and funny, but it's not search engine spam. You wouldn't do it like that, and neither would I, but it's still not search engine spam. The only thing that could get them into trouble is if Google saw the pages as "similar" in nature and counted them as duplicates. In that case they would simply drop them for being duplicate. Not a penalty. It's not spam. :)

[nuthin]

:rolleyes:

So I could go out tommorow and create www.domain.com/search-engine-placement.html, www.domain.com/search-engine-placement-services.html, www.domain.com/search-engine-placement-service.html, www.domain.com/search-engine-placement-canada.html, www.domain.com/search-engine-placement-australia.html etc, write bull **** copy, link the pages via a sitemap and put a link reference back to the home page on each of these and you would say that's fine?

You will find these pages aren't linked via there main navigation, gee I wonder why. :o:

Guess we have different opinions on this particular practice then. :cool:

[Irony]

Doug, these pages are most definitely spam :)

If a doorway page has no link leading to it, it will never be indexed, so the links usually exist, it's just that sometimes they are hidden behind a transparent image, but sometimes they are not. You are becoming too tolerant lately ;)

[ihelpyou]

Where in the Google guidelines says those pages are spam?

You are right; we will have to agree to disagree. I know se spam when I see it and those pages are not that. :) Those pages are not there "strictly" for the search engines as they also serve a purpose for a real visitor.

You can create as many of them as you like and link them in your navigation menu, and it's still not spam. If you linked them by some kind of "hidden links", then they would become search engine spam.

[nuthin]

Here's 3 parts of Google's guidelines that I feel this sort of spam would fall under.

Make pages for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."

Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content.

Avoid "doorway" pages created just for search engines, or other "cookie cutter" approaches such as affiliate programs with little or no original content.

[Irony]

Guess keyword stuffing has become a best practice then :)

[ihelpyou]

Make pages for users, not for search engines.
They are for search engines, but they are also for users as they are the main navigation of the website.
Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content.
That's right. And that is what Google might see those pages as... being duplicate. If that is the case, all pages will not be indexed is all. It's still not spam as they would not be a penalty. Duplicate pages are not spam.... they are simply duplicate.
Avoid "doorway" pages created just for search engines,
That's right. Those pages are not created "just" for search engines as they are the main navigation of the site and not hidden in any way, shape, or form from real users.

[ihelpyou]

Keyword stuffing in and of itself does not make it spam. It simply makes the pages look stupid, silly, and unreadable.

Would you hire that firm for content? I would not. That is all the pages are showing,... is how they write content. BAD content writing is not search engine spam. It's purely..... bad content writing.




Also; I didn't say it was "best practices" at all. I said what it wasn't. It's not se spam. Would I put the firm in my secret website as a "best practices" member? Nope.

Is the firm practicing "search engine spam"? Nope.

[Irony]

They are not in the main navigation of the site - see http://www.contentlogic.com/. They are in the main navigation of the doorway section of the site, which is not the same thing.

The human user will only vomit after seeing this crap, not use it.

[ihelpyou]

Okay, now we are getting somewhere.

If you are "outing" someone, you better make sure you explain in detail why you think it's spam.

Now; is that page linked to anywhere on the main website of contentlogic.com?? If not, then that entire folder IS search engine spam.

[Irony]

They must be linked from somewhere, otherwise they will never be indexed by any engine, and if so, why bother?

But I guess that link won't be easy to find. All this "content", if found by someone human, won't improve their credibility, so they will sure take care of it not being too visible.

[ihelpyou]

But that's the whole key to this. You have to find that page is linked from the main site OR NOT. Until you do, you cannot say that it's search engine spam.

http://www.contentlogic.com/whatwedo.html

That page tells me they make sure the pages "are" linked for both users to find and spiders to find.

I know "my" CMS system has the ability to create new content pages, and then it places the link to these new pages in the "site map" page of the client's website. I encourage clients to always be creating new content pages. What contentlogic says to do and what my firm says to do is the very same thing.

As long as those pages ARE linked on a site map page, or are linked from the main site in any way that IS VISIBLE, then it's not se spam. You need to know for sure whether they are linked or not. Until you do, you cannot proclaim se spam. :)

You have to have the proof of where and HOW the pages are linked. Show me the hidden link somewhere off the main website, and then I can also proclaim se spam.

[Blue]

Ethically, they are there only for the search engines, IMO.

Spam? By my definition, they most definately are. But to the SE's? Unfortunately no.

This type of what I call "bullshiit content" runs rampant on the net by those in the know.

Those pages were most definately not created for humans. They were strictly created (that is, created and SEO'd) to rank well on the keywords used in the anchor link text in the left navbar.

Unfortunately, the content will not trip any algo filters as it is well written, on topic, and themed to the rest of the site.

But any human reading those pages will be just wasting their time.

There is none of it that couldn't have been placed in other, more useful (to humans) sections of the site.

[nuthin]

These pages fall into my definition of doorway pages.
I guess over the years that definition has changed so much that people's thoughts have adapted with it.

But with me the basic definition of a doorway page is a page designed solely for the search engines which offers little to no unique or useful content which is substantially the same, typically targeting the same set or variaton of the same keywords that the topic is about, generally not linked to via the main navigation within ones website.

I don't particularly like the definition on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doorway_page which says "If you click through to a typical doorway page from a search engine result page, in most cases you will be redirected" as I would call the above a cloaked page or cloaked doorway page, luckily they put "in most cases."

The form of doorway page we are speaking of here is the very basic definition of a doorway page in my book.

[ihelpyou]

Blue is right on.

The fact that a page is written for search engines does not make it "search engine spam". Other things have to be found that come into play.

If you can find a "hidden link" off the main site that leads to those pages, then it's search engine spam. Otherwise, it's simply shi tty content writing.

Bad content writing in and of itself is NOT se spam. It's just bad content writing.

[nuthin]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
If you can find a "hidden link" off the main site that leads to those pages, then it's search engine spam. Otherwise, it's simply shi tty content writing.


From another angle.

If they didn't link to those pages at all via there internal linking and only linked to those pages via another site, thus completely hidden except for the crawlers, do you think that would be spam?

Now they would not be hiding anything here. They would just have external links instead of internal.

[nuthin]

P.S. I love how they portray these pages as "Articles". heh.

[ihelpyou]

If they didn't link to those pages at all via there internal linking and only linked to those pages via another site, thus completely hidden except for the crawlers, do you think that would be spam?
Of course that makes it se spam then. :) There MUST be a visible link from the main site that leads to that particular folder of sh itty content pages.

AND THERE IS. Found it:

http://www.contentlogic.com/

Scroll down to the links towards the bottom. One says this:

"search engine optimization agency"

Click that link. It leads to that folder of sh itty pages.

Not search engine spam.

Is it "best practices"??? NOPE.

Is it search engine spam? NOPE.

[nuthin]

I have seen competitors get pegged for exactly this.

It's obvious they have gone through an Overture / Wordtracker type of list and picked out what's being typed, developed bullshit content and put up the pages as-to corner the market on variations of search engine marketing related keyword phrases.

What gets me; is the stupid way they have portrayed it all!

It's a shame that there an authority that Google's algorithm wouldn't automatically discredit these pages. Maybe a manual report might do the trick. ;)

[Blue]

I refuse to lower my standard of ethics to this level. That has worked to my disadvantage from the perspective of "ranking", but I certainly sleep well at night. :)

It is my hope that sooooooo many people learn of this technique and use it that it will force the SE's to tweak their algo so as to eradicate it. :cheers:

Yeah ... my glass is half full! :)

[ihelpyou]

Do those bad writing pages rank for anything? If not, then how do we know Google is not already seeing those pages and discrediting them?

Again:

Bad content writing does NOT make search engine spam.

Bad content writing DOES make "not best practices".

It also makes for lower ROI and makes the site look silly and stupid.

[Blue]

Yuppers. They rank well for the phrases I checked.

To me it's akin to having spammers speak at conferences.

In this case, this spammy company is being given more "weight" by having high visibility in the SE's.

Disgustingly low ethics......

[ihelpyou]

Okay, well it's a matter of maybe Matt Cutts taking a real look then.

In order for a firm to be "named" a search engine spammer, the spam has to be "against" the search engine guidelines. This firm is certainly against "my own" guidelines as it's NOT best practices, but it's also NOT search engine spam.

All the firm is doing is showing the world how bad their writing is. Would people hire this firm just because they happen to get bad writing ranked? Hell no. Not only does a page have to get ranked, but it also has to "convert". Getting a rank for ranks sake is not enough. If that content or site does not convert, then it's all pointless and useless anyway.

[Quadrille]

Ethically it is spam, as their intention is the game the SEs. But technically it's not spam; as they are not deceiving the SEs, simply giving them the same cr** that visitors get.


The only good thing is that it is visibly such cr**, that they will get little benefit from their sh** behaviour.

[Blue]

You may remember Doug (or more likely, Irina will ;) if she was here then), that I brought up some time ago this same tactic being used as a form of geo-targeting.

The sites I talked about were physically located in a single city/town/whatever but were geo-targeting hundereds or thousands of other cities/counties/states, only the content was pure duplicates.

It is the same type of "bullshiit content" that we're discussing here IMO, except that this company is smarter in how they implement it.

[nuthin]

Rank, sure.

They rank OK. Nothing special.
Hahaha, I love the fact that when they pulled the keyword list that they created crap like "Google Placement Top".
Not very good english or wording there.

Rankings that lead me to this site include :

managed search engine marketing - top 20
managed search engine marketing services - top 10

I'm sure if you check some of the others they would do the same.

Worrying signs in-particulary if this site ever harnessed any more power and TrustRank, they and there non-sense pages could continue to rise.

The other search engines like MSN and Yahoo I haven't checked. But I would assume they probably would rank even better over there.

[ihelpyou]

That's right Blue, and I remember.

What "should" happen is the se's see all those pages as "duplicate" and NOT index them. It's really not se spam as such, just duplicate content. The same thing applies to this firm's crappy content pages. It should be duplicate content and NOT get indexed. It's still not "search engine spam".

It's against MY OWN guidelines but not against the search engine guidelines. There is a difference. :)

[nuthin]

It's quite eye-catching to see how people have different interpretations of what actually is search engine spam.

Probably why the spammers flourish without any satisfactory policing of standards. At least the search engine's try, no matter how "vague" they are.

Would love to see them get down to the nitty gritty and a bit more in-depth.

[ihelpyou]

There are two things in play here:

1. What is "search engine spam"?

2. What is IHY spam and best practices.

Both are entirely different.

What you and I "know" is not best practices, does not also make it "search engine spam" by default.

Search engine spam is what Google and the other se's "state" is se spam on their own websites.

IHY spam is what I think is not best practices. MY GUIDELINES are stricter than any se guidelines. Just because a site is not implementing best practices does not also mean it's search engine spam. SE spam is whatever the se's say is spam.

BAD CONTENT is not search engine spam.

BAD CONTENT IS IHY spam.

There is a difference. In order to OUT and name a firm, it has to be "search engine spam" as stated in the se guidelines.

Bad content is not se spam.

Bad content is well...... bad content.

It can also be duplicate content. In which case the se's would not index it. It's still not search engine spam. But it IS IHY spam.

[ihelpyou]

Another example:

Using comment tags to stuff in a list of keyword phrases is NOT search engine spam as it's not against any search engine guidelines.

It's just silly and stupid to do.

Is comment tag keyword stuffing IHY spam? Yes it is.

Just because something is against best practices as defined by IHY does not make it search engine spam as defined by the se's by default.

{wiping my brow} LOL

Gosh; I hope I'm being clear about this. :)

[nuthin]

Guess we will have to wait and see on this.
In my book; it's spam and very basic search engine spam at that.
Forget everything for a minute and ask yourself why those pages exist. There is only one conclusion that I can come to.:D

[ihelpyou]

I know that. It's against best practice guidelines.

It's NOT against the stated search engine guidelines.

We need to wrap our heads around the differences between what IHY thinks is unethical and against best practices, and what the search engines state is "search engine spam".

There is a difference.

This contentlogic firm is implementing crap content pages that go against best practices. NO WHERE on the se's guidelines pages does it say this is search engine spam. Could it be duplicate content? Yes is could be in which case the se's will drop the pages. It's still not search engine spam.

Is it IHY spam and against IHY guidelines and best practices? Hell yes it is as our guidelines are stricter.

[nuthin]

I have outlined under 3 different places in Google's guidelines where this would slot nicely into. Not much more I can do to change your thinking on this. :)

I just hope that people are not seeing this as Doug giving the green light to create pages on all the leading keywords that you pull from a keyword list for your industry. ;)

[ihelpyou]

I just hope that people are not seeing this as Doug giving the green light to create pages on all the leading keywords that you pull from a keyword list for your industry.
You are not understanding me at all.

Would you or I write bad content like this? Nope. It's just plain silly and stupid and would make the site look bad and have low conversions.

Does this mean it's true search engine spam? Hell no. There is nothing in the se guidelines that spells out that this is se spam.

Does this mean it's against the IHY best practices guidelines? Hell yes it is.

[Irony]

Doug, you asked to show you where Google guidelines speak against such tactics, and nuthin showed you by quoting Google guidelines. Mind you, Google doesn't use the "spam" word, they say "don't do this" and "don't do that", and they are very clear about such pages - they say "don't".

There are different types of duplicate content. One type (legitimate) is when you are selling similar products from an e-shop, and simply can't write entirely different content about each battery or each type of nesting dolls. In this case, the engines will be quite right to simply exclude all the duplicates and leave only one of those pages in the SERPs. What our friends from Content Logic are doing is completely different - they pick a list of different keyword phrases, create a bunch of pages with only the main keyword changed each time, link them all together using heavily keyword-stuffed "navigation" links and feed them to the engines. Does it make sense for the humans? No! Is it done for the search engines? Yes! Would they do this if the engines didn't exist? No! Would they show these pages to Matt Cutts or to their main competitor and feel comfortable about it? No!

Spam!

As nuthin said, other sites do suffer for such tactics - and when they do, they get what they deserve. I agree that it is very hard to catch them automatically, but if a human being who works for Google comes across these pages and reviews them, I can see a nice fat penalty applied to the site.

That's my last one on the subject.

[nuthin]

There doorway pages and very basic doorway pages at that.

Now we will have to get the books out on whats a doorway page and see all the different definitions that we can come up with!

Overtime, Google will be the one deciding on the merit of these pages and being a leading US based company.. I think it will be good to see what they will decide (if anything)!

Now let's discuss how authority sites can get away with murder.

:p

[ihelpyou]

As nuthin said, other sites do suffer for such tactics - and when they do, they get what they deserve. I agree that it is very hard to catch them automatically, but if a human being who works for Google comes across these pages and reviews them, I can see a nice fat penalty applied to the site.
Nope. Not at all. If Matt Cutts viewed those pages from contentlogic all he would do is drop them from the index as duplicates. Would he put on a penalty? NOPE.

It's obvious you all don't understand where I'm coming from.

Those pages are NOT search engine spam. Those pages are in the navigation of the main website and are there for "both" users and spiders. Not se spam.

Do those pages go against "IHY" best practices? Hell yes they do. Would Google "penalize" that website just because "IHY" does not like them? No they won't. They will simply drop them.

It's obvious I cannot explain this more clearly so I'm maybe we should close this thread? If someone else wants to try to explain the difference, feel very free to do so. :)

[ihelpyou]

Hey Matt Cutts; "PLEASE" step in here to explain this more clearly.

Thank you.

[nuthin]

Around and around in circles we go.
Hopefully we all will see the light of day at the end of the tunnel.:)

[Blue]

I'm in the unique position of being right inbetween Doug and Irina and David (now there's an interesting visual), in that I agree with all three of you.

I hate the tactics that this company uses. To me they are 100% unethical. They were written ONLY for the SE's. They are spam. Period. You know it. I know it. And that company knows it.

But, Doug is right in that there is nothing in G's algo that these pages will trip, hence they are not (yet) definable as "search engine spam", the definition of which originates from the SE's algos themselves. Unfortunately.

IMO, this tactic will eventually come to the saturation point when every Tom, Dick and Harry find it and then employ it on their own sites. Then and only then will G take notice and act accordingly, which is in their best interests. Unfortunately.

I can only hope it'll come sooner than later.

We're all really on the same page here.

[ihelpyou]

I agree with that except for "one" thing only.

They are not just written for the se's. They are also written for real users as they are linked right off the main website for everyone to read. It's bad writing and bad content, but it's written for both users and se's.

It's spam in My book, but it's not search engine spam.

[nuthin]

It's been going on for years.
You tend to see the pages eventually going by the way side.
Google's algorithm just needs a bit more policing on authority web sites, as they can get away with murder...!
How they do this automatically my friend is anyones guess!

[ihelpyou]

You tend to see the pages eventually going by the way side.
That's exactly right. They will be dropped sooner or later. NO penalty though.... just dropped.

[nuthin]

Supplemental.. ;)
Penalty or natural occurance? Only G! knows.

[Dave Hawley]

Keyword stuffing in and of itself does not make it spamCome on Doug, why would any page use keyword stuffing? Only 1 reason, to fool the SE's.

IMO, the pages are SE spam and clearly so.

You guys often talk about bluring the lines between black hat & white hat. Normally it's the black hats that do this, not we have white hats doing it.

It is really quite simple. Either site pages are within the SE guidelines (not spam) or they are outside them (spam). These pages are clearly outside them.

[Dave Hawley]

But, Doug is right in that there is nothing in G's algo that these pages will trip, hence they are not (yet) definable as "search engine spam", the definition of which originates from the SE's algos themselves. Unfortunately. Nobody knows what is "G's algo" so that doesn't wash. So any page still in Google that have not tripped something in "G's algo" are not spam until they do?

[Blue]

Originally posted by Dave Hawley
Nobody knows what is "G's algo" so that doesn't wash. I know what you are saying Dave and I agree that to your and my way of interpreting what we see on those pages in conjunction with our interpretations of Gs guidelines that these pages are pure spam, written only for the search engines. G however does know what its own algo is and since it has not yet filtered these pages my statement does wash from the POV of an outsider making an educated guess. I suppose they will eventually be filtered out or shoved down to the dregs where they belong (if they should be indexed at all).

So any page still in Google that have not tripped something in "G's algo" are not spam until they do? For the purposes of us "outing" someone using shady practices as defined by G, yes. We would be foolish, or in the least hasty, to out them while they aren't being penalized, (or haven't yet tripped a filter). Until G proves us out by filtering them, I don't see G as having definitively defined a given tactic as spam.

I think there is a VERY fine line here which this company has not yet crossed. Nor has G moved the line so that anyone could definitively say that this company is spamming, according to Gs guidelines, other than through interpretation. We can only interpret what we are seeing. And apparently, our interpretations haven't yet been proven out.

They are indexed. They are ranking well.

So, until they get busted, we'll just have to state that we believe them to be spam, without backup by G herself, IMO.

[ihelpyou]

Yes. In order for me to definitely say that a website which has been outed as a spammer, is actually a spammer, ..... I have to see concrete proof of "search engine spam" as is stated on the se guidelines. I don't see it in this case.

Do I see "spam" according to myself and IHY???? HELL YES I DO.

But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing "se spam", and not "IHY spam".

There is a difference.

Now; If Google does in fact read this thread, and then if they do in fact do anything at all, you can bet they will simply drop all those pages out of the index as duplicates. No spam penalty, but they will drop them.

Trust me; You all know me well enough to know I call a spade a spade when they clearly are going against the guidelines. In this particular case, they are not there yet. They could be, but not yet. It's real simple stuff to me.

Putting it this way:

Would I allow this website to be in "our group" when it's launched? NOPE. But again; that's different than a website that is implementing search engine spam. I'm much stricter about what "best practices" are than what any se guidelines state. :)

[Dave Hawley]

For the purposes of us "outing" someone using shady practices as defined by G, yesReally? You should practice that then.

I suppose they will eventually be filtered out or shoved down to the dregs where they belong (if they should be indexed at all).You were saying :rolleyes:

proof of "search engine spam" as is stated on the se guidelines. I don't see it in this case.Just one example. Then why do Google have a checkbox for keyword stuffing on their spam report page? Nuthin quoted a few that fit the bill too.

Sorry, but there is something VERY fishy with both yourself and Blue now defending and watering down what is obvious SE spam.

[Blue]

Originally posted by Dave Hawley
Really? You should practice that then. Try to make sense Dave.

Sorry, but there is something VERY fishy with both yourself and Blue now defending and watering down what is obvious SE spam. LOL. I gotta hear your explanation of this statement. :)

[Dave Hawley]

There is no use with me trying to debate you Blue. At least 2 of your posts above highlights that. First an outright contradiction, then a hollow silly retort. Besides, soon as you run out of puff, you have the last say, lock the post.

:cheers:

[theGypsy]

Man… what a drag I had to read most of this… as usual in the SEO world, Can’t we all play nice? No huh?

Anyways, a ‘doorway’ page needs a cloak to be considered Web Spam. Oterwise it is a 'Landing Page' or Page Targeting yada yada...The site/structure in question is NOT spam. Sure, it may be a little over-the-top but it may render the site less effective and lower conversion rates, but that is their problem.

It seems SEO folks just love to re-define SPAM at their pleasure. I see nothing that would be deemed worthy of penalization. Sorry.

There has been a few comments on the way things work. The indexing and retrieval algo aspects are different from the SPAM hunting (Search Quality). To be honest here folks much of what is considered Web Spam, is the Auto generated MFA sites and cloaking and other techniques aimed at ‘gaming’ the system.
Many of these finer points don’t really fit including Duplicate content issues.

more policing on authority web sites, as they can get away with murder

Once again, get away with what? Instances like BMW earlier this year are generally picked up by people reporting them, NOT the indexing and retrieval process.

Also authority sites can ‘get away with it’ because they ARE authority sites. If a site like..let’s say ePinions.com get’s nailed playing dirty, will they get an 18 month ban?
Of course not or people would say;

“ Google search quality *****!! I query ‘Consumer reviews’ and ePinions doesn’t who up anywhere? I told you Google results Suck!”

See the problem here? You simply can’t torpedo an authority site as you would a mom and pop. Fact of SE life folks.



Come on Doug, why would any page use keyword stuffing? Only 1 reason, to fool the SE's.

No it isn’t spam really in the SEs eyes because a total NOOB could make such a mistake believing it was the way to do things (same reason code compliancy doesn’t effect rankings). Cloaking on the other hand, well it would be tough to do as an innocent mistake.


In the end;

Are they Cloaking?
Is there IP delivery?
Are they link spamming?
Are they using Keyword generators?

Secondary;

Are they KW stuffing?
Are they Scraping content?


In the end I defer to the fact that the site is near unusable and folks will be quickly going back to the search results to see who else is around… cause this site would drive away many people in my estimation.

[ihelpyou]

LOL And from talking to you, you know damn well that I would call this firm a search engine spammer if that was the case. :D

Is it "IHY spam" Yup.

Is it "search engine spam"? Nope. Not at this point.

Will all those pages be dropped by se's? Yup.

Not because it's se spam, but because it's silly and stupid duplicate content crap that cannot possibly "convert" or produce a good ROI. Hence; very silly and stupid and makes the site look "unprofessional".

[Blue]

Originally posted by theGypsy
Man… what a drag I had to read most of this… as usual in the SEO world, Can’t we all play nice? No huh? You betcha! We aren't playing. We would like to see all spam eradicated and all spammers punished for spamming ... preferably by evisceration. :cheers:

[theGypsy]

Originally posted by Blue
You betcha! We aren't playing. We would like to see all spam eradicated and all spammers punished for spamming ... preferably by evisceration. :cheers:

Well that's great and all... but who among us is defining what SPAM is? Seems to be a little bit of a hole there....

The real spammers are the ones using the techniques I mentioned.

The site in question is simply a BAD site... not a Spammer... where do WE draw the line and who are WE to draw it?

[Connie]

So many definitions of doorway pages. I got mine from someone who use to be an expert with doorways pages.

A doorway page is a page targeted strictly to a SE. A human will never see it, because there will never be a visible link to it, that a human could click on.

I don't think it makes any difference if the page is hidden by cloaking, or a link that is hidden from the visitor. The end result is the same. Only a spider will see the doorway page.

This site is clearly not trying to hide anything from the human visitor.

I only read two articles, but I did not see anything wrong with them.

I agree they have over used some words in the anchor text (and titles) of those articles, but I don't see how that can be spam.

If that's the case a lot of sites that sell products (like I do) are in trouble. As Irony (I think) pointed out there is only so many ways to describe a battery.

[Blue]

Originally posted by theGypsy
Well that's great and all... but who among us is defining what SPAM is? Seems to be a little bit of a hole there....

The real spammers are the ones using the techniques I mentioned.

The site in question is simply a BAD site... not a Spammer... where do WE draw the line and who are WE to draw it? We draw our conclusions of what search engine spam is directly from the search engines guidelines. No holes. Cut and dried.

If "we" don't draw lines we can only expect our industry to stay the way it is right now, and that is not our agenda here.

Re-read my posts. I agree with what you are saying about the site in question. Unfortunately, it is not spam as defined currently by the search engines, but I believe it will become that some day.

[Blue]

Originally posted by Connie
I only read two articles, but I did not see anything wrong with them. But, the real question is Connie, do you think that they are of value to that sites human visitors?

I don't. And that is why I see them as spam by my definition. I think they are there ONLY for the SE's.

[Dave Hawley]

Well that's great and all... but who among us is defining what SPAM is? Seems to be a little bit of a hole there....There is only one true definition of SE spam. They are written in the SE guidelines and by Googles (likely Yahoo, MSN etc) they are outside them in at least one area.

Seems like most agree that they will be dropped/penalized etc at some point for SE spam. But for some strange reason some wont say it's spam until this happens. Go figure!

IMO, they are keyword stuffing and as such are trying to spam the SE's for a better SERP position. Well they be "dropped/penalized etc at some point for SE spam"? I doubt it. As I have always believed, Google's algo is likely smart enough to detect KWD and see that theirs is probably far too high and so they likely ignore all words/phrases above a certain thresh-hold. Or, credit them only for a pre-defined KWD.

In effect, their SE spam is likely holding them back and they have penalized themselves.