 | |
New record!
Search Engine Optimization Discussion about SEO/Search Engine Optimization (alt.internet.search-engines)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
 
| |||
| |||
|
New record! -
02-01-2008
, 08:00 PM
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
Was it all white hat ? Was it unique content ? Was the site completely inside googles guidelines ? |
Not really sure on any of these points. This truly is terrible affiliate
crap (that worked well for a while), but see for yourself:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~vanluyn...ier_Review.php
Apart from the obvious moral issues there may be other reasons for it's
failure that I don't understand.
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Still Not The Goblin That's Gobbling" <noone (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 9:09 AM Subject: Re: New record! Was it all white hat ? Was it unique content ? Was the site completely inside googles guidelines ? Not really sure on any of these points. This truly is terrible affiliate crap (that worked well for a while), but see for yourself: http://members.iinet.net.au/~vanluyn...ier_Review.php Apart from the obvious moral issues there may be other reasons for it's failure that I don't understand. |
with on topic links, obviously the moral question doesn't concern Google.
Google allegedly hates affiliate links, so I might suggest adding "nofollow"
to all your affiliate links.
--
Rich
http://www.richdavies.com/tomtom.htm
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Still Not The Goblin That's Gobbling" <noone (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 9:09 AM Subject: Re: New record! Was it all white hat ? Was it unique content ? Was the site completely inside googles guidelines ? Not really sure on any of these points. |
eg hidden text.
Quote:
|
This truly is terrible affiliate crap (that worked well for a while), but see for yourself: http://members.iinet.net.au/~vanluyn...ier_Review.php |
http://209.85.135.104/search?sourcei...ier_Review.php
But you won't be able to have adsense on there, so forget the other
persons comment.
Quote:
|
Apart from the obvious moral issues there may be other reasons for it's failure that I don't understand. |
hashish sites that have PR etc. [And so does amsterdammarijuanaseeds]
Give it a bit more time and try and get some inbound links to the
site. But what could be the problem is ............affiliate
Some here have reported such things with affiliate sites. May be one
of them can tell you of how they got out of that trap [or may be still
in it]
Please send a big bag of seeds to this address .... <G>
hth
plh
Paul
=====~~--
"Religion is based upon blind faith supported by no evidence. Science is based upon confidence that results from evidence -
and that confidence can be modified and/or reversed by further observations and experimentation.
Science approaches truth, closer and closer, by hard dedicated work. Religion already has it all decided, and it's "in the book.
It's dogma, unchangeable, and unaffected by reality and whatever facts we come upon in the real world." -- James Randi
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
4 days ago I hacked together 10 crappy new affiliate pages. 3 days ago Google indexed them all and I got a bucket of hits from the page 3, most popular keyword entries. Today Google have dumped the whole 10 pages. Fully indexed and then completely dumped by Google in 3 days! That's gotta be some sort of record. |
down to a steady state.
Spend that time adding content and Quality links.
Submitting sites to Google (did you?) is ALWAYS a waste of time and NEVER
lasts.
Quote:
|
I HATE Google. |
life. Learn about Google; respect Google, treat Google as a friend, and
you'll usually find they reciprocate. I'll bet in this case - as in most -
Google is simply doing its job. new sites take time. Live with it!
Hate Google and your site won't live to regret it ;o)
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Trespasser" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote in message news:47a3c639$0$9764$5a62ac22 (AT) per-qv1-newsreader-01 (DOT) iinet.net.au... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Still Not The Goblin That's Gobbling" <noone (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 9:09 AM Subject: Re: New record! Was it all white hat ? Was it unique content ? Was the site completely inside googles guidelines ? Not really sure on any of these points. This truly is terrible affiliate crap (that worked well for a while), but see for yourself: http://members.iinet.net.au/~vanluyn...ier_Review.php Apart from the obvious moral issues there may be other reasons for it's failure that I don't understand. It might be interesting to put Google Adsense on there. If it comes back with on topic links, obviously the moral question doesn't concern Google. Google allegedly hates affiliate links, so I might suggest adding "nofollow" to all your affiliate links. -- Rich http://www.richdavies.com/tomtom.htm -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#7
| |||
| |||
|
|
One thing's for sure. Google hates affiliate sites, and consequently I still hate Google. |
to everyone, including Google, but obviously excluding affiliate site
owners, that 10,000 identical sites is pure clutter, and in no-one's
interest.
Frgetting your own affiliate site for one second, would you REALLY want
Google to serve up 20,000 identical results when you search for "widgets"?
Of course not!
It is perfectly possible, and sometimes very easy to have an affiliate site
do very well indeed, simply by doing what every good webmaster does - build
a unique, interesting and guidelines-compliant site. You'd do that for other
sites, if you wanted them to do well, why would affiliate sites be
different?
I have an affiliation where the 'main' site has got himself a Google ban.
99% of the affiliates have not only linked to his banned site, they have
duplicated his errors, and most disappear within months of being built.
My site is unique; I've used some, but not all of his copy, I have added new
stuff, I've gone through the 'official' code line by line to ensure I have
no spam, and my site went very quickly to the first page of the serps on
three key phrases, where it has remained ever since. And as several of the
sites above me are deeply flawed (and I'm not doing nothing), I hope to
drift up a little higher over the months.
Google has no feelings about affiliates - it's *duplicate content* that was,
is and always will be their issue.
With Google, success requires a 'good site' - not a perfect site - and one
of 10,000 clones cannot conceivably qualify.
--
Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.
The video that makes YouTube worthwhile:
Charlie The Unicorn - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus
#8
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hi Rich, Thanks for the input regarding the Adsense moral issue test, and about the rel="nofollow" tag. The nofollow tag is an interesting one. I've always used the nofollow tag on affiliate links as I can't see the point of either bleeding out PR, or of promoting what effectively becomes an affiliate competitor site. One site I had was working great like this, and then wham! Nothing but image search engine traffic. Google seemed to have tagged it as affiliate rubbish (guilty), and put it way down in the search returns queue. |
quantity or anything?
Quote:
|
I wonder if their isn't some sneaky means of preventing Google from ever knowing they are dealing with an affiliate site, with or without nofollow attributes? Maybe if outbound links were made to point to local files whose sole purpose is to redirect to the affiliate site. We then block these local redirection pages from Google's evil gaze with a robots.txt entry. Heavens, that sounds like a lot of work. I guess if Google are onto the nofollow trick (and I really don't know if they are or not) then they're probably onto every other conceivable measure. |
Quote:
|
One thing's for sure. Google hates affiliate sites, and consequently I still hate Google. |
Google hates thin affiliate sites, those that, say, just repeat Amazon
pages over and over. If Google already has Amazon indexed, why index
copies of it?
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/
http://www.fat-odin.com/
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/
#9
| |||
| |||
|
|
Did it have anything original on it, your own text content in any quantity or anything? |
page and the rest comes from a cookie cutter. It's not a lot, but I've had
good success with this approach previously. Before it went all bad, that is.
Quote:
|
You'll just have to try these things (hiding affiliate links) and see. |
before school starts again. It seems like a lot of work, but there's nothing
more dissapointing than having a 1000 targetted hit per day site drop back
to 100 untargetted image search hits per day overnight.
Quote:
|
Are you familiar with the fat affiliate, thin affiliate concept? Google hates thin affiliate sites, those that, say, just repeat Amazon pages over and over. If Google already has Amazon indexed, why index copies of it? |
Sites that offer affiliate programs sometimes also offer the sales pitch
text to go along with their aff links. I've so far avoided that approach,
and from all accounts it's just as well it seems. Same page, same
content...join the queue!
Tressie.
#10
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
Hi Big Bill, Nice to hear from you. |
Quote:
|
"Big Bill" <bill (AT) kruse (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:0nfcq394990tjj64rf61k9mamu87pqe347 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... Did it have anything original on it, your own text content in any quantity or anything? Very little, yet all original content. Maybe 2 or 3 unique sentences on each page and the rest comes from a cookie cutter. It's not a lot, but I've had good success with this approach previously. Before it went all bad, that is. |
Quote:
|
You'll just have to try these things (hiding affiliate links) and see. Hmm...might have a play around with it for the new site if I get some time before school starts again. It seems like a lot of work, but there's nothing more dissapointing than having a 1000 targetted hit per day site drop back to 100 untargetted image search hits per day overnight. Are you familiar with the fat affiliate, thin affiliate concept? Google hates thin affiliate sites, those that, say, just repeat Amazon pages over and over. If Google already has Amazon indexed, why index copies of it? No. That's a new set of terms for me, |
most affiliates in general. Google published, or deliberately leaked,
a paper on it maybe two, three years ago. It did the rounds. That's
where we get the terms from, thin and fat affiliate.
Quote:
|
but I think I understand the concept. Sites that offer affiliate programs sometimes also offer the sales pitch text to go along with their aff links. I've so far avoided that approach, and from all accounts it's just as well it seems. Same page, same content...join the queue! |
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/
http://www.fat-odin.com/
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.