Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true, there's some very cool stuff you can do that is entirely within Google's guidelines AND gives your site a large advantage over other sites that aren't using them. See http://www.quicksprout.com/2013/01/24/the-advanced-guide-to-...
I'm pretty sure there's no way I can convince you, or any SEO, that you're merely proving GhotiFish's point here. The ethical disconnect is painful.
A painful tale of SEO, spam and Google's role in all
81–90 of 108 posts
Re: A painful tale of SEO, spam and Google's role in all
#82Maybe it could be scripted? Site owners would have to place some proof of ownership on their site (to be generated on the site of the forum owner - see Google web admins site verification), then a script could detect the faulty links on the forum and remove them automatically.
Re: A painful tale of SEO, spam and Google's role in all
#83Place a meta noindex, nofollow on the whole forum or at least the infected areas such as memberlist and user profiles. That could be done within 15 minutes and then you can answer with a standard reply that you did that to all emails you receive about removing links.
Re: A painful tale of SEO, spam and Google's role in all
#84Why are people getting bent out of shape over some bad links? Can't you just disavow them in Google Webmaster Tools?
Re: A painful tale of SEO, spam and Google's role in all
#85So this "SEO" who helping his clients to "clean up their profiles" doesn't even know how to disavow links [1]. Well, it's not surprising that somebody who hired spammers once would hire another idiot later. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=393nmCYFRtA and https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/disavow-links-main (login required)
Well Google requires you to contact the website owners and do everything you can to get the links removed BEFORE you submit a list of disavow links. Google are supposed to check that you really did remove a large part of the links before disavowing.
Re: A painful tale of SEO, spam and Google's role in all
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (rewriting them to point inwards towards redirects for tracking purposes) I like this idea a lot. It has more than one use. Tracking is one but eliminating the "PR bleed" is another and it should deter spammers who are looking for link weight. I understand the sentiment you're conveying but a link isn't sacred. If you allow users to post content to your site then you should be taking measures to ensure that new use…
> I understand the sentiment you're conveying but a link isn't sacred. It damn well should be. The link is the basis of the www. > If you allow users to post content to your site then you should be taking measures to ensure that new users aren't spamming. Of course, but breaking legitimate links as a form of spam control is just lazy. We're going OT here, but... > eliminating the "PR bleed" There is no such thing. PR…
> It damn well should be. The link is the basis of the www.
Surely it is the right of whoever is hosting the website to decide how they want to present content. I don't think you should have some god-given right to expect a url you posted on someone else's site to display however you want.
Re: A painful tale of SEO, spam and Google's role in all
#87There exist very popular forums that receive no such spam.
Hacker News comments also seem free from it.
Any idea why it is that some forums get targeted with 10000's of spam accounts, while others don't? What is the trick to protecting if even capchas don't work?
Re: A painful tale of SEO, spam and Google's role in all
#88My god, the quote from that "white hat" SEO guy just defies belief: > There will certainly be webmasters out there who will strip you down to the bone asking for money in exchange of link removals. These are the most soulless snake oil salesmen on earth To say that about webmasters, already victims of years of abusive SEO spamming, when they then refuse to help an abusive site clean up its own mess for free .. I have…
I can understand someone getting frustrated. This forum may have great information, but it is also causing a lot of harm, possibly leading people to dangerous sites. Is it the owners responsibility to do something about that? I think so. Just as you have lots of machines that have been compromised and are part of a botnet.
> Is it the owners responsibility to do something about that?
Reasonably, yes. But, when the volume of spam becomes too much to handle, what can a poor webmaster do?
I quite like that Google have altered their algorithm to penalise this SEO behaviour. Because it now puts the headache firmly on the website that paid SEO people to originally spam those links.
And I applaud and support the webmaster who requested payment for removing the link. The link was placed by a link spammer on behalf of their client, it's only right that that client, after benefitting from that tactic - risk free - now should pay for it to be removed.
Granted, there are negative SEO connotations to this, but factors like link-age can be used to spot who was link spamming before Penguin/Panda, and who is link spamming after.
I would be thoroughly impressed with an SEO agency who was practicing this now negative SEO tactic before links from spammy neighbourhoods were risk free. And thus benefitting by giving their competition a headache post Penguin and Panda.
I have no sympathy for companies that hired SEO agencies who link-spammed their website. They shouldn't have done it (ethic-deprived), and if they didn't know about it they should have known about it (abrogation of responsibility). If there was deceit involved, then the company can take it up with the SEO agency that created that deceit.
Yes, clean SEOers are doing a roaring trade trying to clean up these websites, but they must realise their client caused the initial damage by hiring bad SEOers, and they are not entitled to free link removals.
Re: A painful tale of SEO, spam and Google's role in all
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't hate on all SEOs just because of the overall clown-ness of the space :( there are some good guys!
Sounds like their job descriptions requires they not be "good guys" Googles heuristic would work be much more effective if people didn't screw with it.
You seem to be under the impression that Google is against SEO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS75vhGO-kk
Consider reevaluating your views.
Re: A painful tale of SEO, spam and Google's role in all
#90My god, the quote from that "white hat" SEO guy just defies belief: > There will certainly be webmasters out there who will strip you down to the bone asking for money in exchange of link removals. These are the most soulless snake oil salesmen on earth To say that about webmasters, already victims of years of abusive SEO spamming, when they then refuse to help an abusive site clean up its own mess for free .. I have…
"To say that about webmasters, already victims of years of abusive SEO spamming"