How does this site rank so well?

[lbunnell]

One of my competitors seems to dominate the Google ranking using all of the tricks that people in these forums say not to use, ie doorway pages, duplicate content, etc. Just try a search for FSBO, flat fee mls, mls listing, for sale by owner and you're bound to run into one or more of these URLs:

http://www.seattlefsbo.com/mlslistingservice.htm

http://www.fsboadvertisingservice.com/hybridmls.htm

http://www.nuwaymls.com/

http://www.2buyhomes.net/

http://www.atlantafsbo.com/

http://www.sanfranfsbo.com/mlslistingservice.htm

Am I missing something, or is it just better to break the rules and hope for the best?

[freehits]

Originally Posted by lbunnell

Am I missing something, or is it just better to break the rules and hope for the best?

http://www.seattlefsbo.com/mlslistingservice.htm
Creation Date: 02-jul-1999
Expiration Date: 02-jul-2010

http://www.fsboadvertisingservice.com/hybridmls.htm
Creation Date: 09-mar-1999

http://www.nuwaymls.com/
Creation Date: 25-oct-2002

http://www.2buyhomes.net/
Creation Date: 23-mar-2000

http://www.atlantafsbo.com/
Creation Date: 02-jul-1999

http://www.sanfranfsbo.com
Creation Date: 24-nov-1999

There is the #1 factor leading to them getting what may "feel like" preferential treatment.

I have found many an older "seemingly trusted" or "pre-all-filters" doman you can put just about anything and watch it soar.

While age of domain generally brings
aged links
many links
and alot of other positive factors with it hand in hand, it seems to be a very powerful factor in deciding who goes where.

[Duncan Pollock]

It's also a long established belief and practice by real estate people to throw up as many sites as they can, even though the difference in specifics can be very slight. The effect is to blur the duplicate content idea and to make it less than obvious to searchers (and, for that matter, the search engines) that it's all one and the same people at the back of it.
Your two consoling thoughts are:
a) DMOZ are going to catch up with this group, assuming that they haven't already long since done so. The "rule" is "one site, one listing" and there are ongoing editor attempts (at least at the senior editing level) to find the infractions.
(For example, when (five/six years ago) I was editing a real estate category, there were constant and repeated tries at getting listed in every single community that an agent served. However, this was neatly overcome (from "on high") by deciding that the bricks and mortar address would determine which one -- and only one -- site would be included in the Open Directory).
b) There's really nothing to stop you from reporting your findings (and view) to Google.
(For instance, I'm not afraid to confess that only a couple of years ago I did exactly this when one particular real estate website creation company had a habit of providing the agents who "bought into the idea" with as many as a dozen separate URLs, each with a slightly different title and content focus, the whole intention being to attract/capture a variety of people who used a recognizable range of search phrases. It didn't take Google too long to apply a filter that reduced the impact to a noticable degree.)
Nevertheless, you do need to realize that, with few exceptions, the FSBO market people aren't a part of organized real estate. Thus, you're up against an approach to website design and promotion that has little need to abide by a code of ethics that includes a distaste with "unfair advertising ideas."
Thus, all in all, you perhaps have to settle for -- and abide by -- the often expressed cynical belief that "competition is just fine by me provided it doesn't have any effect on my own business"(!)

Duncan

[lbunnell]

Thanks for the responses. I find it a bit unsettling that just because a site has been around for awhile the owner can moon the giant, so to speak, by refusing to play by the rules. It seems to me that the smart folks at Google would have an algorithm for such flouting of the rules. I guess it's a case of "If you can get away with it and it works..."

I'm going to continue to go with relevant information and hope that the consumer will choose based on superior content and design.

[ctabuk]

'Moon the Giant'- I love it. This is the one true frustration that we all feel, you have done all the right things yet some guy uses these tatics and pow they are number one and you are nowhere. But just remember one very important thing, if their site is 'crap' to the reader then they are unlikely to win in the long run, stick with good content and good service and it won't matter if you are top or on page 3 - word of mouth spreads.

[Duncan Pollock]

In addition, I'd be astonished if someone new could get away with what was done in the past. The "filters" are probably there. Hence the sandbox and penalty ideas that most of us agree are now in place.
So maybe it's just a matter of time before your least favourite competitor gets caught out.
Meanwhile, as ctabuk says, give it your best shot and see if you can't come up with a "special difference" that will get you to rise above the crowd. And, most of all, this means unique content.

Duncan

[lbunnell]

Thanks again. I agree with your sentiments. Over the past few years, we have established a pretty decent customer base by being innovative, providing good service and putting the customer first in an industry that's rife with poor customer experiences.

I've redesigned our site several times after gleaning what I can from these forums and articles on SEO. There seems to be some movement in the right direction, but I guess it just takes time and perhaps another shake up of Google's ranking methods.

Right now, we're paying a ton for PPC, but as long as sites like these remain a fixture at the top, I guess that's the price we have to pay to get the word out that we're here and we'll just have to hope the consumer can see them for what they are.