G slap for cloaked site

[cooooookies]

I set a niche blog test site up using the fantomaster bot list and did some basic promotion resulting in some 100 visitors daily.

Every IP noted in fantomaster's botlist was shown the actual site, every human visitor was redirected.

After 7 weeks suddenly BANG, no more G traffic, just traffic from the low number of links I set.

So the question is: Did i have bad luck and experienced a human inspection of my site or is the botlist not working for mid-term activities? Anybody else experience with fantomaster's botlist?

cooooookies

 

[brad1001]

Is the site still indexed?

(More chars)

 

[cooooookies]

nope, out.

But I have other sites where I have no problems which certainly means nothing: G does not reindex your sites every day.

I am on the way to setup many sites and they should grow slowly. I do not fear human inspection, I cannot imagine this takes place too often. But if the botlist is not really up-to-date or missing out some G IPs this would be really bad.

 

[arctic]

they come and go... just keep building..

the bot list is the best available, bans are just one of those things with gened/cloaked sites... Some stick, most dont... Make what you can from them while they are around.. Just keep building and dont look back..

 

[brad1001]

Are you redirecting ALL visitors on your other (new) sites too?

 

[cooooookies]

they come and go... just keep building..

the bot list is the best available, bans are just one of those things with gened/cloaked sites... Some stick, most dont... Make what you can from them while they are around.. Just keep building and dont look back..

Uhhh what??? Most do not, really? Sounds very bad if you want to do different things than short-term doorways, damn.

 

[brad1001]

Here's my opinion: I've seen a number of guys from SSEC complaining about getting sites banned, and it seems they are mainly doing redirection straight from the SERPs too.

I stopped doing redirection last year, after noticing sites dropping in the SERPS and seemingly automated bannings as well. I'm now certain Google can pick-up cloaked redirection via its toolbar (by measuring the elapsed time between PR requests), also, as you are aware, they have a growing army of human reviewers.

Instead of redirection, I do content cloaking. I simply deliver different content to spiders and humans. In fact, I deliver incentive pages to humans, while spiders see WP blogs. The incentive pages offer free ebooks/reports/downloads, etc. Then visitors are redirected with CPA Redirector to an offer page. This system works well.

So trying content cloaking instead of redirection.

 

[cooooookies]

Thanks, brad, very good advice. I hope G is not going that far one day that the content of a page delivered to a human is compared to the index data with Chrome or the toolbar. I made a quick research and found that snippet:

One of the biggest criticisms of Google's new browser was its ridiculously broad license agreement, which upon first glimpse appeared to give the search giant unlimited rights to do whatever they'd like with any data entered into the browser. According to the Google TOS, using the browser gives Google "a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services." After some backlash to this concept, it appears that Google has reworded that portion of the TOS to read: "You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."

 

[brad1001]

Yeah, it would not surprize me that they are heading in the direction of trying to automatically catch content cloakers.

Thanks, brad, very good advice. I hope G is not going that far one day that the content of a page delivered to a human is compared to the index data with Chrome or the toolbar. I made a quick research and found that snippet:

One of the biggest criticisms of Google's new browser was its ridiculously broad license agreement, which upon first glimpse appeared to give the search giant unlimited rights to do whatever they'd like with any data entered into the browser. According to the Google TOS, using the browser gives Google "a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services." After some backlash to this concept, it appears that Google has reworded that portion of the TOS to read: "You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."

 

[Jagged55]

Instead of redirection, I do content cloaking. I simply deliver different content to spiders and humans.

Which program are you using to do this? I use to do a lot of redirection but as stated, it is a bit of a waste because Google picks it up much better now.

 

[brad1001]

We use our own system based on a content engine (that generates the content) for WP blogs, and a BH plugin that automates everything including updating the blogs with X amount of posts per day.

This, combined with CPA Redirector and our simple but very effective strategy of using incentive pages (for CPA offers) is what our new membership site is all about.

Which program are you using to do this? I use to do a lot of redirection but as stated, it is a bit of a waste because Google picks it up much better now.

 

[java]

So the question is: Did i have bad luck and experienced a human inspection of my site or is the botlist not working for mid-term activities?

Only Google can answer that. Not sure why people keep asking if Google did this or did that. Google doesn't disclose details on what they do and how they work. You just have to plow forward.

 

[WorldCitizen]

Thanks for the heads up. Try some controls and variables to see if you can pinpoint what exactly is triggering an inspection.