They repeat keyword hundred times,Why them aren't punished?

[onthink]

they all keep on repeating keyword in homepage,
the keyword is :Chinese Clothing.

Why Google did not punish they? I wonder. they are not are No.1-4 in SEPRs.

http://www.desktopchina.com/
http://www.goodorient.com/
http://www.bravochina.com/
http://home.arcor.de/qipao/


thanks

P.S.: Do you think it is necessary to repeat keyword?? Well, i had been punished simply because i repeat keyword 3 times in different parts of homepage.

[Kenai Alaska]

Our top competitors are doing the same thing and have been for years. Besides this, three of them all have multiple sites all interlinking back and forth to each other. This kind of thin is very common and although not advised, works well for those not getting caught. It make it hard not to chase them but the risks are very high.
I stick to this and the seem to be closing in on them.

• Put keywords in onsite anchor text.
  No more than 10% in keyword density. 6% to 8% seems to be doing very well.
  Keywords in anchors on inbound links. Very Important.
  Keywords in title and description tags.
  Request links from similar sites.

Try this and see. It takes time and patients but is working for us.
Yahoo really likes this system and the pages read very well for the users.
If all else fails, Get some more inbound links - and then some more and more and more and more.
I set a goal to get 2 good links per day. If you give good links out, people will be more apt to link to you.
I get a lot of link request from sites that confine there links in a dungeon deep inside there site and hide the related link from there visitors.
Get Good link partners and always give back what you are seeking.

[Duncan Pollock]

The sites are well done enough "above the fold" and I'm sure they owe their favourable appearance to this fact. What's wrong -- and to most reckonings a prime example of Black Hat SEO -- is all the keywords at the end of the screen.
Eventually, the search engines will probably notice the fault, but the sheer volume of listings (how many millions/billions is it now?) limits their ability to catch the bad guys. Meantime, there's no reason why you shouldn't report things to Google et al, is there?

Duncan

[onthink]

What you said is very useful, Thank you

Originally Posted by Kenai Alaska

Our top competitors are doing the same thing and have been for years. Besides this, three of them all have multiple sites all interlinking back and forth to each other. This kind of thin is very common and although not advised, works well for those not getting caught. It make it hard not to chase them but the risks are very high.
I stick to this and the seem to be closing in on them.

• Put keywords in onsite anchor text.
  No more than 10% in keyword density. 6% to 8% seems to be doing very well.
  Keywords in anchors on inbound links. Very Important.
  Keywords in title and description tags.
  Request links from similar sites.

Try this and see. It takes time and patients but is working for us.
Yahoo really likes this system and the pages read very well for the users.
If all else fails, Get some more inbound links - and then some more and more and more and more.
I set a goal to get 2 good links per day. If you give good links out, people will be more apt to link to you.
I get a lot of link request from sites that confine there links in a dungeon deep inside there site and hide the related link from there visitors.
Get Good link partners and always give back what you are seeking.

[onthink]

thanks you

Originally Posted by Duncan Pollock

The sites are well done enough "above the fold" and I'm sure they owe their favourable appearance to this fact. What's wrong -- and to most reckonings a prime example of Black Hat SEO -- is all the keywords at the end of the screen.
Eventually, the search engines will probably notice the fault, but the sheer volume of listings (how many millions/billions is it now?) limits their ability to catch the bad guys. Meantime, there's no reason why you shouldn't report things to Google et al, is there?

Duncan