Asking Google to Permanently Banish 4-5 Websites

greeneagle · #1 (**permalink**) 10-05-2004, 03:35 AM

Asking GOOGLE to Permanently Banish 4-5 Websites

By now most of us know that a residual ploy by a banished “Black HAT” SEO company is targeting several top SEO firms on the Internet.:
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=29443
http://www.webworkshop.net/traffic-power.html

We ask that GOOGLE review the evidence presented and banish the following sites.
web-advertising-info.com/discuss
seo-talk.net/seotalk/index.php
seo-forum.net
seo-professional-forum.com
1p.com

It is evident that these “pseudo SEO Forums” and affiliated Sites not only contain duplicate content but may be infringing on US Libel Laws and are probably retaliating against upstanding “White Hat” SEO companies that perform according to specified and accepted Internet Guideline criteria expressed in several top Search Engine Guidelines, including:

Google: http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html
Yahoo: http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/ysearch/slurp
MSNSearch: http://search.msn.com/webmasters/guidelines.aspx

We believe that this retaliatory behavior exemplifies a demeanor that is non-conducive to good business practices and is detrimental to the Internet Community.

We furthermore ask that the following Sites be given at least temporary “Trusted Site Status” as they are being directly targeted by a skilled “Black Hat” SEO enterprise, until this issue is resolved in it’s entirety:

http://www.affiliategurus.com/
http://www.geeksonsteroids.com
http://www.hanapinmarketing.com/
http://www.highrankings.com
http://www.keywordranking.com
http://www.markcarey.com
http://www.marketfundamentals.net
http://www.pageoneresults.com
http://www.rankforsales.com
http://www.search-marketing.info
http://www.seo-guy.com
http://www.submitexpress.com
http://www.seobook.com
http://www.webpronews.com
http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com
http://www.ihelpyouservices.com
http://www.jimworld.com
http://www.seoconsultants.com
http://www.mountaineagleweb.com
http://www.beyondroi.com/
http://www.experts-exchange.com
http://www.freemoneyservices.com
http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com
http://www.ozzu.com
http://www.seobook.com
http://www.seoconsultants.com
http://www.seoresource.com
http://www.submitexpress.com
http://www.trafficlogic.com
http://www.webpromotionguru.com
http://www.webproworld.com

The evidence is on the table! If you want to take a stance and help make the Internet Community a better place for everyone, then let’s self govern!

Copy this thread in it’s entirety and send it to your favorite “abuse” location. Please post “abuse” URLs including the best Google option.

This kind of abuse demeans all Users, Site Owners, Webmasters, Surfers and everyone involved in the Internet, the entire Community.

Please post every “abuse" listing that may be relevant and post this entire thread where applicable and relevant!

Thanks,
Ken
www.mountaineagleweb.com

seo guy · #2 (**permalink**) 10-05-2004, 05:21 AM

Thanks for the heads up Green Eagle, It's funny just today someone from a LAs Vegas based newspaper did an interview with me RE traffic power and their spam. I am speaking with their techical advisors tomorrow about the actual practice specifics and why they got their clients banned.

Its funny because Traffic power is claiming that the sites you mentioned below are part of some sort of cash grab consortium, and to be honest I dont think I have spoken to even 25% of them heh. Ah well let them try, bullshit always comes out as bullshit in the end, but the reporter will certainly be sent here tomorrow

awall19 · #3 (**permalink**) 10-05-2004, 06:43 AM

I made a post about their crap services and the fake forums here:
http://www.seobook.com/archives/000537.shtml

I too am on the list (twice) and have not spoke to most of the other people on the list.

I would not recommend placing live links into the bogus traffic power / 1P related sites though.

Mark Carey · #4 (**permalink**) 10-05-2004, 09:37 AM

I am one of the targets of the libel mentioned above, so I support any actions and efforts to put a stop to this.

That said, it seems that these people may be getting the last laugh. They are getting tons free "advertising" from SEO Blogs and forums. This seems to be the only way that anyone is finding out about these sites. At this rate, they won't even need listings in Google and other search engines, since there will be so much buzz about them that they will get traffic from other sources. In some cases, these forums and blogs even go as far as to give these site backlinks. I can't help but wonder: if we stopped pointing others to these sites, wouldn't that be the best way reduce the traffic to the fake sites?

janeth · #5 (**permalink**) 10-05-2004, 10:09 AM

Thanks Ken, My site is also on the list and I´m all for doing anything to bring a stop to it.

I also agree with Mark and would remove the links to there sites from here.

**mike** · #6 (**permalink**) 10-05-2004, 10:49 AM

<McNote> I actually went in and de-linked those in his post. I'm sure Ken won't have a problem with that.

greeneagle · #7 (**permalink**) 10-05-2004, 11:43 AM

Thanks Mike,

I was aware of the potential for this post to be picked up quickly, but at the same time I am not sure it would hurt for potential customers of the new scam to readily find the truth when researching any of those URLs. I debated leaving the links live with myself up till the minute I posted, but live won out because being new URLs (presuming) the truth would be easily found by unsuspecting potential customers doing an Internet search within a couple weeks max.

I'll gladly follow the consensus though, especially being that they are Top Rated SEO companies.

Ken

greeneagle · #8 (**permalink**) 10-05-2004, 01:14 PM

Let's face it, It is costly to build several pseudo forums and coordinate several pseudo posts by pseudo members. It is also costly to sacrifice several very nice URls.

Here is the value of the Domain Names alone (without content) according to Network Solutions
at: https://www.certifiedofferservice.com

web-advertising-info.com $210-420USD
seo-talk.net $250-500USD
seo-forum.net $250-500USD
seo-professional-forum.com $210-420USD
1p.com –OOPS, Looks like Network Solutions won’t even try to appraise a 2 place .com valuation!- "Priceless"

Let’s nip it in the bud, now!

Everyone write GOOGLE today!

Ken

cryptblade · #9 (**permalink**) 10-05-2004, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Carey

That said, it seems that these people may be getting the last laugh. They are getting tons free "advertising" from SEO Blogs and forums. This seems to be the only way that anyone is finding out about these sites. At this rate, they won't even need listings in Google and other search engines, since there will be so much buzz about them that they will get traffic from other sources. In some cases, these forums and blogs even go as far as to give these site backlinks. I can't help but wonder: if we stopped pointing others to these sites, wouldn't that be the best way reduce the traffic to the fake sites?

What possible good would it do them if they get traffic? They are being villified so how much of that traffic that they get will end up as money in their pockets? let the forums talk and let them talk all the smack they want about traffic power and their sites. They can get all the free traffic they want but if it doesnt put money in their pockets it doesnt help them.

greeneagle · #10 (**permalink**) 10-05-2004, 02:16 PM

I want to maintain a very serious focus in this thread. Would anyone like to post abuse reporting links for everyone?
Ken

beanstalk · #11 (**permalink**) 10-05-2004, 07:54 PM

I posted a pretty elementary page about reporting abuse on my site a couple weeks ago to help my visitors being beaten out by spammers.

You can find the list at http://www.beanstalk-inc.com/positio...rting-spam.htm.

If any of you have more direct links to reporting spam and the such I'd be happy to know them.

Great post BTW. Good luck to those of you on the list. I have a hunch you'll do just fine. ;)

Pedro Rodriguez · #12 (**permalink**) 10-05-2004, 08:02 PM

Kent,
I believe you are too nervous unnecessarily.
Think about it at great length.

greeneagle · #13 (**permalink**) 10-05-2004, 08:59 PM

Pedro,
Who's Kent, and who's nervous?
If you directed this post to me, I wouldn't have posted this post if I was nervous, now would I?.
I am on solid ground from all perspectives!
Ken

eitemiller · #14 (**permalink**) 10-05-2004, 09:55 PM

I left a post in seo-forum.net - asking how they can be such a good company when thier clients get bad. Apparently, sometime during the whole moderator-approval of the post (who ever heard of that?), my post was changed. My post now reads something like "Great company, I used them for my website...blah....balh...blah". Can you believe that? Changing a post?

You have my full support - it's companies like these that give SEO a bad name.

ByteEnable · #15 (**permalink**) 10-05-2004, 10:49 PM

Isn't

www.webproworld.com

and

www.webpronews.com

the exact same websites!!!!

LMAO

DrTandem1 · #16 (**permalink**) 10-06-2004, 12:29 AM

While I've never even heard of these "evil" sites, I don't particularly advocate banning any site. Where do you draw the line? Who decides who is Judge/Jury/Executioner?

Garbage in-garbage out. I am for a free market. If they are actually in violation of civil (libel) and/or criminal law, then let them face justice. I do not advocate vigilantism or mob-mentality.

Most who have read my posts know I don't look kindly on SEO, "black hat" or "white hat." I really don't think either are qualified to hold judgment over the other. Again, who draws the line and where is the line drawn?

Google is simply a search engine. Neither good nor bad. I really don't think we want a search engine deciding what is "good" for us. Grow up! Stand on your own convictions and move forward. If you can't handle adversity, you don't belong in the marketplace.

cbp · #17 (**permalink**) 10-06-2004, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Isn't

www.webproworld.com

and

www.webpronews.com

the exact same websites!!!!

If you click on them, you will see they are different sites ... both are part of iEntry.

CBP

AjiNIMC · #18 (**permalink**) 10-06-2004, 02:25 AM

I read webpronews regularly without fail and it is a quality site offering very useful info.

I believe in never doing anything Black Hat , always follow the simple rule , I am developing my website as a Brand and its a long term project.

But then what SEO companies do except few tricks and link popularity?

**incrediblehelp** · #19 (**permalink**) 10-06-2004, 03:12 AM

Can someone explain (in further detail) how creating these forums can directly effect the targeted websites rankings negatively in the Google SERP's? Other than bad publicity I am not sure how creating these forums can hurt your Google SERP's. I want to see TP or whatever they are calling themselves removed from the Google index and hopefully shut down permanently just like everyone else.

Maybe they simply trying to create popular forums and direct potential clientele to them to show them that people are speaking bad about there competitors on these forums?

Mel · #20 (**permalink**) 10-06-2004, 03:34 AM

Someone in the advertising industry once said that there is no such thing as bad advertising, but these sites are apparently dedicated to the (somewhat screwy) idea that people will read these fake forums and believe what they say no matter how ridiculous.

Personally I see them as a sort of joke, but then again who am I to say when compared to spam and scam kings like Traffic Power and 1p.com, who are past masters of parting the ill-informed with their money.

The idea that one or many web sites should be removed from any search engines index because they are unpopular is just too far out, and as far as removing them for unlawful actions there are legal mechanisms to enforce laws and search engines are not one of them.

By all means use all the skill and contacts you have to let the world know what scumballs these people are. Surely this elite group of specialists, if they join forces, can produce as much or more smoke as the spammers?