On Site Spam/Off Site Spam

It's pretty much a no brainer that google does not ban sites that spam
to blogs and other non sites because if they did that then anybody could
spam a competitors site and get them banned at google. Any thinking
person with a brain in their head realizes that! This is 'off site' spam
when people spam blogs, guestbooks ect.

What google has been banning are sites that spam 'on site' at their own
sites to manipulate the serps. Sites that create thousands of filler
pages just to have anchor text that has the main keywords to their index
and other main pages of their site are the ones google has been banning
since 11/16 and there is so much proof og this it's not funny!

SEO Dave from this ng has already had two sites of his banned from
google for doing this and I have seen tons of other sites that have been
banned since 11/16 for the very same thing.

Dave still claims it's the blog posting ect that he did then how does he
explain how my sites have not been effected and I have been doing it
longer than him and a lot more than him? Explain that Dave if you can?
Also all my sites have been on the mt blacklist longer than his yet my
sites haven't been effected. Explain that Dave? You can't because your
logic is illogic and I won't let you or some other know it alls here
give bad advice that makes other innocent people lose their websites!

I posted under other threads concerning the spamming blogs issue. If
Sam is right, then he is challenging someone to show evidence that
spamming blogs will hurt your website. Personally, I don't think it
can. Not becuase I think Sam is a great guy (nor a bad guy), but
logically I don't see how spamming blogs can hurt you. My logic is
simple, if spamming blogs could hurt you, then people would spam blogs
to hurt their competition (not everyone is ethical on the web--for
that matter my experience has been most in the WWW world will cut your
knees off if it gets them a good ranking).

There has been some other long threads about what is ethical and what
is not. In those threads, people have shown who they like and dislike.
I could care less about the feud between dave and sam. What does
matter is the facts, at least for people who want to learn. Which does
bring up the question about the ML black list (sorry if I got it
wrong). What is this?

Here is my logic, even though it is pretty simple. If the ML black
list can get you banned/penalized and if Sam indeed put Dave's site on
this list, then Dave return the favor, put Sam on the list. If Sam
gets blaclisted, then that would prove your point, right. And Sam, if
you are certain that it won't get you blacklisted, then you have
nothing to fear.

Again, my logic says a webmaster has no control over who decides to
put their link on another site. If this was the case, I could get
google, microsoft, IBM, etc, banned by putting their link on another
banned sited, but surely google understands the chaos this would cause
and not allow it. However, the webmaster does have control on links he
puts on HIS site. Consequently, if Sam or Dave put a link on their
site for this ML blacklist, then I would see the logic of being
banned/penalized.

Now to the other point. What are filler pages and how can that get you
penalized. Again, I want to learn here. From one of the other posts, I
got the impression that Sam thought Dave was penalized for having too
many pages. I didn't follow that logic. However, if Sam is saying that
having too many pages with links to each other (links being the key,
not too many pages), then I have read this on other forums as the
case. For that matter, I have read on other forums that people who own
sites within the same IP block with lots of crosslinking will be
penalized by google. Google considers this spamming as they define
it....not as webmasters define it.

Again, it isn't a matter who has the best personality here, who I like
or dislike, or how crude their writing may be, I just want to learn
and if I'm attack for wanting to learn, then so be it. Sometimes I get
the feeling if you question a popular person's words, you will be
blasted for doing so, no matter if this person may be wrong. One thing
I don't question, is Dave's willingness to try to help others. He
should be commended for his efforts. But am I wrong for questioning a
statement when I can't find the proof. However, I'd gladly have
someone show me the errors of my ways...just show me the evidence, Mr
President, where are the weapons of mass destruction.

david

david wrote:

I posted under other threads concerning the spamming blogs issue. If
Sam is right, then he is challenging someone to show evidence that
spamming blogs will hurt your website. Personally, I don't think it
can. Not becuase I think Sam is a great guy (nor a bad guy), but
logically I don't see how spamming blogs can hurt you. My logic is
simple, if spamming blogs could hurt you, then people would spam blogs
to hurt their competition (not everyone is ethical on the web--for
that matter my experience has been most in the WWW world will cut your
knees off if it gets them a good ranking).

I'm a great guy, to my friends that is. I think you've earned friend

status so I'm going to email you my ful list of pr4-7 link sites to get
backlinks for your sites. I'll also share with you some cool seo
knowledge the rest of this group doesn't deserve to see.

There has been some other long threads about what is ethical and what
is not. In those threads, people have shown who they like and dislike.
I could care less about the feud between dave and sam. What does
matter is the facts, at least for people who want to learn. Which does
bring up the question about the ML black list (sorry if I got it
wrong). What is this?

Mt blacklist is a list made up by some guy who has a number blogs that

didn't like people spamming his blogs. It's a list of urls that did a
post at one of his blogs and his friends blogs that he considered spam.
His idea of spam by the way is as little as someone doing one single
post at his blog who listed a url that was off topic with his blog. So
even if you joined in the conversation and made an intelligent on topic
remark at the comments if you had a url selling books you made his
blacklist. Incidently this guy himself was a big time spammer before he
got high and mighty. If you type 'mt blacklit' into google search you'll
find some sites where you can get a copy of his list. ("He's got a
little list, he's got a little list").

Here is my logic, even though it is pretty simple. If the ML black
list can get you banned/penalized and if Sam indeed put Dave's site on
this list, then Dave return the favor, put Sam on the list. If Sam
gets blaclisted, then that would prove your point, right. And Sam, if
you are certain that it won't get you blacklisted, then you have
nothing to fear.

Oh I'm certain it won't get me banned and I'm fearless as far as that is

concerned.

Now to the other point. What are filler pages and how can that get you
penalized. Again, I want to learn here. From one of the other posts, I
got the impression that Sam thought Dave was penalized for having too
many pages. I didn't follow that logic. However, if Sam is saying that
having too many pages with links to each other (links being the key,
not too many pages), then I have read this on other forums as the
case. For that matter, I have read on other forums that people who own
sites within the same IP block with lots of crosslinking will be
penalized by google. Google considers this spamming as they define
it....not as webmasters define it.

Filler pages as I personally call them are sites that create thousands
of internal pages for the sole purpose of having a anchor keyword text
baclink on them all to their index page and other key pages of their
site. So for example if your site is about SEO then you create 8,000
internal pages that all have this link back to the home page: <a
href=index.html>SEO</a>. What that does is give it a super boost in its
search which happens to be SEO. Up until 11/16 update at google sites
that did this went unharmed by google. But since 11/16 google must have
created and installed new software than penalizes and eventually bans
sites that do this as it totally manipulates the search results which is
the number no no at the google guidelines. This is onsite spammimg and
there's nothing to proove to find out who is doing the spamming. Unlike
blog and guestbook spamming to manipulate the search results at google
which a competitor can do which is oofsite spamming and can't be proven
who is doing it which as both you and I have said is the reason why
google will never ban sites that spam blogs and guestbooks. But when
you're doing it at your own site that's a whole different story. But
bear in mind it's not the spamming that google has any problem with it's
the manipulation of google results that angers them.

Again, it isn't a matter who has the best personality here, who I like
or dislike, or how crude their writing may be, I just want to learn
and if I'm attack for wanting to learn, then so be it. Sometimes I get
the feeling if you question a popular person's words, you will be
blasted for doing so, no matter if this person may be wrong. One thing
I don't question, is Dave's willingness to try to help others. He
should be commended for his efforts. But am I wrong for questioning a
statement when I can't find the proof. However, I'd gladly have
someone show me the errors of my ways...just show me the evidence, Mr
President, where are the weapons of mass destruction.

david

I'm liking more and more already for that last line above!

To close David here is something no one has brought up. What if someone
spams intelligently at a blog is it still spam? For example if you post
comments at a blog about the election and make a really good on topic
comment but only your url is off topic is that spamming? And yes the
only reason you made the intelligent comment at the blog that was
totally on topic and everyone who read it loved it was because you
wanted to get your url there for pr and maybe anchor text.

david wrote:

I posted under other threads concerning the spamming blogs issue. If
Sam is right, then he is challenging someone to show evidence that
spamming blogs will hurt your website. Personally, I don't think it
can. Not becuase I think Sam is a great guy (nor a bad guy), but
logically I don't see how spamming blogs can hurt you. My logic is
simple, if spamming blogs could hurt you, then people would spam blogs
to hurt their competition (not everyone is ethical on the web--for
that matter my experience has been most in the WWW world will cut your
knees off if it gets them a good ranking).

Not only that, but what about the people that just like posting to blogs?

--
Rustic Stone House Signs
www.rusticstone.net

Extract the "URINE" to e-mail

On 12 Feb 2004 08:28:34 -0800, davidking337 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com (david) wrote:

Sometimes I get
the feeling if you question a popular person's words, you will be
blasted for doing so, no matter if this person may be wrong.

Hi,

From my point of view if someone wants to disagree with me in a
constructive way, showing why they think I'm wrong then I'm very happy
to receive this. As I've said many times I'm here to learn as well and
if I have a misunderstanding I'd much rather someone point it out as
then I've gained some new knowledge.

I haven't gained much from here lately because most of the good
posters have either left or are keeping quiet. The only thing I've
gained from recently is the SERPs competition, I recently realised I
could do something in a different way that was better than my current
method.

One thing
I don't question, is Dave's willingness to try to help others. He
should be commended for his efforts. But am I wrong for questioning a
statement when I can't find the proof.

You aren't wrong to question me, but I have provided evidence for what
I've said. I've posted it at least 3 times now (in great detail) and
I'm not going to do it again. All my posts are freely available at
Google Groups, so if you want the evidence all you have to do is look
(MT Blacklist is a good start for a search).

If you haven't seen the evidence or don't understand it then there
isn't much I can do about that.

David replace SP@AM with @ to email me direct.
_
http://www.seo-serps.com - Free SEO Tips (23/01/2004)
http://www.seo-serps.com/serps.html - SERPs Competition Entry
http://www.seo-serps.com/seo-consultant.html - hire SEO Dave
http://www.bdsm-lingerie.com - BDSM Lingerie Shop

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:19:21 +0000, Sam wrote:

I'm a great guy, to my friends that is. I think you've earned friend
status so I'm going to email you my ful list of pr4-7 link sites to get
backlinks for your sites.

Or, since Sam's URL was posted the other day, you could just do a Google
links: search to find his favorite sites yourself.

Voyager
Webmaster: http://www.hackfaq.org

"Sam" <. (AT) mail (DOT) com> wrote

For example if you post
comments at a blog about the election and make a really
good on topic comment but only your url is off topic is
that spamming? And yes the only reason you made the
intelligent comment at the blog that was totally on topic
and everyone who read it loved it was because you
wanted to get your url there for pr and maybe anchor text.

That's a very good point. If a post was on topic and intelligently made,
then ulterior motives would not be considered by readers. Therefore, that
couldn't be considered spam. The alternate also applies though.

I've been reading this group for a couple of weeks to learn, and have picked
up on what seems to be a substantial underlying disagreement between two
regular and both knowledgeable people at the cutting edge of SEO .

Is there, (anywhere) a definitive and factual pointer that goes beyond the
sort of <h1>,<title>, anchor text, keyword blahdeblah kind of stuff?

For instance, how can someone (SEO Dave for instance) get a site indexed at
Google within days of registering the domain, without resorting to spam?

--
Peter F

For instance, how can someone (SEO Dave for instance) get a
site indexed at Google within days of registering the domain,
without resorting to spam?

Put a link to the new site on one of your old sites that is already being
spidered regularly by Google. I'm sure most of the people here have sites
that Google spiders daily (at least the index page). If my rather
insignificant Ace Icons site has Google checking it that often...

--
Susan Pichotta
Ace Icons www.aceicons.com
San Antonio, Texas

"Peter F" <peterf (AT) spamfree (DOT) net> wrote

"Sam" <. (AT) mail (DOT) com> wrote

For example if you post
comments at a blog about the election and make a really
good on topic comment but only your url is off topic is
that spamming? And yes the only reason you made the
intelligent comment at the blog that was totally on topic
and everyone who read it loved it was because you
wanted to get your url there for pr and maybe anchor text.


That's a very good point. If a post was on topic and intelligently made,
then ulterior motives would not be considered by readers. Therefore, that
couldn't be considered spam. The alternate also applies though.

I've been reading this group for a couple of weeks to learn, and have
picked
up on what seems to be a substantial underlying disagreement between two
regular and both knowledgeable people at the cutting edge of SEO .

Is there, (anywhere) a definitive and factual pointer that goes beyond the
sort of <h1>,<title>, anchor text, keyword blahdeblah kind of stuff?

For instance, how can someone (SEO Dave for instance) get a site indexed
at
Google within days of registering the domain, without resorting to spam?

--
Peter F

Sam <. (AT) mail (DOT) com> wrote

david wrote:

I posted under other threads concerning the spamming blogs issue. If
Sam is right, then he is challenging someone to show evidence that
spamming blogs will hurt your website. Personally, I don't think it

I'm a great guy, to my friends that is. I think you've earned friend
status so I'm going to email you my ful list of pr4-7 link sites to get
backlinks for your sites. I'll also share with you some cool seo
knowledge the rest of this group doesn't deserve to see.

Hey Sam, I look forward to getting the email. I'm trying to soak up
all the SEO stuff I can.

thanks in advance

david

SEO Dave wrote:

From my point of view if someone wants to disagree with me in a
constructive way, showing why they think I'm wrong then I'm very happy
to receive this. As I've said many times I'm here to learn as well and
if I have a misunderstanding I'd much rather someone point it out as
then I've gained some new knowledge.

David

Just don't talk about filler pages (Shhhh!)