DamageX
Elite Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 2,692
- 1,691
F#ck Google! Lessons Learned
- Thread starter madoctopus
- Start date
wokaka
Senior Member
- Apr 1, 2010
- 995
- 269
I have seen way too many times shitty sites rank well above authority sites. I always know my own "shitty" sites might die in a matter of months but it's still better to rake in profit from those type of sites rather than trying to follow Google rules (which wouldn't bring me anywhere near the top 5 in competitive keywords).
If you guys want to make something like authority site, make it so people would keep coming back. Don't create it in purpose of getting longer lifespan from Google SERPs. It simply wont happen. Ever since the latest update (6 june i believe) i can see my money site is now back at #1 for all of its main keywords. Several of my other sites also gained very nice improvements. I can tell you none of them are white hat sites and none of them promote legit products even. I know one day I might go down again but my total profit from these blackhat sites would be always better rather than trying to provide information and monetize through shi*ty adsense and the likes.
If you guys want to make something like authority site, make it so people would keep coming back. Don't create it in purpose of getting longer lifespan from Google SERPs. It simply wont happen. Ever since the latest update (6 june i believe) i can see my money site is now back at #1 for all of its main keywords. Several of my other sites also gained very nice improvements. I can tell you none of them are white hat sites and none of them promote legit products even. I know one day I might go down again but my total profit from these blackhat sites would be always better rather than trying to provide information and monetize through shi*ty adsense and the likes.
Monrox
Power Member
- Apr 9, 2010
- 617
- 588
It's not classical propaganda. It's an attempt to influence stuff they can't yet control. What they can control, they simply do. Like the AS arbitrage. We don't see no vids, casts, posts about it anymore because they've managed to find a way to weed it out on the spot. I've come to treat official claims as a hint to what still works in skewing results to publishers' advantage without much effort.
- URLs with and without 'www' treated as dupe content? Nope, rather a great opportunity for cloaking.
- Hosting better located in the target audience country? Nope, rather a great opportunity to secretly have 10 webpages of yours dominating the top 10 spots.
- Don't sell links? Heh, they make a killing by selling links.
- No dupe content backed with backlinks? Please. Their main algo works by counting links.
- Authority sites? I don't know... EZA was an authority, Wikipedia is an authority. The former had no fans so it was easy to get rid of. The latter has 10s of 1000s pure zealots and it would be a major pain to just drop it from the SERPs.
Humans are easy to influence in the sense that we tend to remember negative things. I won't be suprised if purely statistical the ratio of good and bad sites that go down is 1:1 but people discuss to no end how some prominent autoblog disappeared and simply overlook the reports about good websites being hit just as hard.
As to the position of some people that search monopoly is bad: be careful what you are wishing for. When IE held 99% of the browser market creating webpages was easy. Now with 20% other browsers I see at least 5 pages daily that are broken when viewed with an alternative browser. Imagine the overhead trying to rank not on one but 5 search platforms each with a different idea of what constitutes good content.
DamageX
Elite Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 2,692
- 1,691
dragonrage01
Power Member
- May 19, 2011
- 674
- 159
You have a link scheme going on. That is instant lifetime ban from google. Your sites are not whitehat at all if you have a link scheme. If I was your competitor, I will report all your sites. Nothing personal, it is just business. Play by the rules, and you won't get a ban, simple as that.
Whatever your sites are, you can't say, "my competitors are doing it so what". You will have millions of competitors if you are trying to rank in google. One affiliate site that is promoting a product that doesn't work but has high commission will not be missed and will be forgotten. There will be hundreds of affiliate sites like yours that will be promoting the same product. One biased site that is gone will be considered a good thing in google's eyes. Don't worry, there will be 6+ more sites in page 1 promoting the same product anyway.
Last edited:
madoctopus
Supreme Member
- Apr 4, 2010
- 1,388
- 3,709
The sites are more like complementary. For example one is about compact cameras and one is about DSLR cameras + a few compact cameras. There's some overlap regarding the content (product reviews). I wouldn't really consider it a link scheme, but it is not 100% "clean" and yes, they might not like that. However, I removed those links and still the reconsideration request failed.
dragonrage01
Power Member
- May 19, 2011
- 674
- 159
It doesn't matter if they are related or not. You are not allowed to link your sites together. It provides way too much of an advantage and it promotes SEO based on money rather than quality content. Linking sites together is a link scheme. Google hates that more than selling page rank juice.
Bing and Yahoo do not care. Unfortunately google does which is why they control a big portion of the searches.
Jonny Quick
BANNED
- Aug 26, 2010
- 232
- 345
Lession learnt!Thanx for teh info
Yes, but you didn't actually "Thank" anyone.
Monrox
Power Member
- Apr 9, 2010
- 617
- 588
dragonrage01, you should really investigate this stuff a bit. First, Bing and Yahoo do care. Problem is, counting backlinks is patented so they can't use it. Which IS why G controls a big portion of the searches.
2. The money you would need to spend on quality content is far less than the money you'll need to buy backlinks. But you are forced to buy BLs because quality content does not count for shit. Go research something really, really good, put it on a webpage and wait for it rise... it will never happen. Try to put up some nonsensical text, back it up with 20 PR 7 links and enjoy the 1000 visits a day.
3. Linking or not linking to your sites has 0 correlation with the quality of the content. They claim to be commited to offering the best experience possible, what do links (or lack thereof) have to do with this claim?
4. (This is generously rephrased from madoctopus from another thread) Why when you type 'best digital camera' you get crap like "best camera deals", "buy best cameras", "best mesothelioma photos"? How is this quality content, or content at all? Let me quess, all other webmasters were interlinking their sites and this is what was left untouched.
5. This whole link craze-spam is their own ugly child. Links were useless in the days of keyword / metatags stuffing craze. But back then the stuffing went on without bothering other webmasters. Today, an owner has to wade through thousands of spam comments to find at least 1 worthy text snippet. It's like some government giving out cash to murderers but saying murder is wrong.
Conclusion: unless they manage to actually identify what's useful and what's not, nobody who has the needed brains is going to take them seriously and will simply use any advantage possible to make a buck, just like they are doing.
dowser
Power Member
- Jun 5, 2011
- 685
- 124
I don't necessarily agree with you! If your site has a theme and you link to other sites related to that theme - how is this "scheme"? If you mix a few other sites - I don't see anything wrong with that and I do it all the time and it's not a reason for ban.
I'd create some web 2 sites pointing to your money site and blast the $h%t out of them with whatever tools you have available. If that doesn't help - you can reuse it with a different domain.
" Go research something really, really good, put it on a webpage and wait for it rise... it will never happen. Try to put up some nonsensical text, back it up with 20 PR 7 links and enjoy the 1000 visits a day "
Well said. To those that think quality content IS seo...
Quality content is something you need to keep people coming BACK..
not for them to find you in the 1st place.
Links and solid seo do that.
Well said. To those that think quality content IS seo...
Quality content is something you need to keep people coming BACK..
not for them to find you in the 1st place.
Links and solid seo do that.
googlemonster
Supreme Member
- Nov 15, 2008
- 1,422
- 527
They routinely list fucking ehow, and about.com in niches like health, but non of these sites are any good, well maybe about.com is marginally ok, but eshite is written by fucking plebs with fleeting knowledge of both English and the bloody subject matter. Yet if you search for this we can see how eshit.com pollutes google with 3000 odd articles on protein shakes, and matt cunts does nothing but sucks demand media peni
dragonrage01
Power Member
- May 19, 2011
- 674
- 159
Geeze. Here straight from google. I guess the more people in IM, the more the quality and IQ drops.
According to Matt Cutts to get your site back:
If you want me to prove it to you, you can pm me your domains and I'll get them banned or penalized. Tell me how you are cross linking them so it will be easier to get them banned.
Blackhat is good for serps as long as you don't get caught. Just because you aren't getting banned doesn't mean it is allowed.
On second thought, maybe you are confusing link schemes. What he did was that he bought multiple domains related to his niche. He then linked his domains together using site wide links. He basically put a link in the footer of all of his webpages in one of his sites and point it towards another one of his domains.
If you missed the important text- "build partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking"
According to Matt Cutts to get your site back:
I've never seen a person that was doing a link scheme get his site back.
If you want me to prove it to you, you can pm me your domains and I'll get them banned or penalized. Tell me how you are cross linking them so it will be easier to get them banned.
Blackhat is good for serps as long as you don't get caught. Just because you aren't getting banned doesn't mean it is allowed.
On second thought, maybe you are confusing link schemes. What he did was that he bought multiple domains related to his niche. He then linked his domains together using site wide links. He basically put a link in the footer of all of his webpages in one of his sites and point it towards another one of his domains.
Last edited:
madoctopus
Supreme Member
- Apr 4, 2010
- 1,388
- 3,709
@dragonrage01: all good and dandy mate, but:
1. Other "thin" sites I own on same IP and link to these didn't got hit
2. After removing the links on those 3 penalized sites and filing another reconsideration request, they replied with a negative answer still.
3. One of my main competitors has sitewide links from footer advertising his 8-site network. Only difference is that he doesn't have content overlap on the sites. For example I have "X review" on site1 but also on site2, he doesn't.
Anny suggestions? I'm all ears.
Next thing i'm thinking to do is 301 all posts on same topic on the other sites to what was my main site. Remove any links from any other site I own to this site. Maybe that will work... I'm willing to sacrifice all other sites for the main one.
1. Other "thin" sites I own on same IP and link to these didn't got hit
2. After removing the links on those 3 penalized sites and filing another reconsideration request, they replied with a negative answer still.
3. One of my main competitors has sitewide links from footer advertising his 8-site network. Only difference is that he doesn't have content overlap on the sites. For example I have "X review" on site1 but also on site2, he doesn't.
Anny suggestions? I'm all ears.
Next thing i'm thinking to do is 301 all posts on same topic on the other sites to what was my main site. Remove any links from any other site I own to this site. Maybe that will work... I'm willing to sacrifice all other sites for the main one.