SEO Site Ranked1.net WPW Member uses others content

[sem-seo-pro]

Hi everyone

After meeting a group of individuals on this forum whom are less than up front about things I decided to see what was what.

The company is ranked1.net and here is what I found

Site: - Ranked1.net


Registrant:
Janeth Duque
Urb. Villa Luz No.2
Quindio 00000
Colombia

Registered through: GoDaddy.com
Domain Name: RANKED1.NET
Created on: 10-Sep-04
Expires on: 10-Sep-06
Last Updated on: 20-Jan-06

Administrative Contact:
Duque, Janeth Whois Privacy and Spam Prevention by Whois Source
Urb. Villa Luz No.2
Quindio 00000
Colombia
67454491 Fax --

Technical Contact:
Duque, Janeth Whois Privacy and Spam Prevention by Whois Source
Urb. Villa Luz No.2
Quindio 00000
Colombia
67454491 Fax --

Domain servers in listed order:
NS2.GEEKSONSTEROIDS.COM
NS3.GEEKSONSTEROIDS.COM


Urb. Villa #2 | Montenegro Quindio | Colombia
Janeth@geeksonsteroids.com | 57-310-473-9774
(c) Copyright 2005 All rights reserved


Her site ranked1.net is hosted on geeksonsteroids.com also owned by janeth

Janet also known as janeth at several forums..she owns the design firm http://www.janethd.co.uk http://www.ranked1.net and http://www.geeks-webhosting.com/ according to her profile at webproworld
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I read over this site it occurred to me that I had read alot of what was on the pages before somewhere else though.

I ran through each of the links from the home page and going accross the horizontal navigation bar

Here is what I found:


Yahoo link

http://www.ranked1.net/yahoo-No1.php

Found on goarticle.com

http://topwebhostingproviders.net : We rated the Top 10 Web Hosting Companies Online. Visit us today.[/b]


Ranked1.net removed author link not nice...but gets worse

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AltaVista

http://www.ranked1.net/Altavista-search.php

Taken word from word from here

http://www.altavista.com/about/



Taking the search engines content does not seem to smart



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Google

http://www.ranked1.net/Google-Adwords-Experiment.php

Comntent taken from


http://www.articlecity.com/articles/...cle_3503.shtml



Authors link removed....nasty people ranked1.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Msn Web Search

http://www.ranked1.net/MSN-Search.php



Content taken from

http://www.answers.com/topic/msn-search


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overture

http://www.ranked1.net/Overture.php

Taken from


http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-29-2005-72310.asp


Authors link removed....dirty cheap shot


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AllTheweb


http://www.ranked1.net/AlltheWeb.php

Found here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlltheWeb

I am sure they wrote this on the wiki.....if they knew it existed would amaze me


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Teoma


http://www.ranked1.net/Teoma.php


Found on the search engines website itself


http://sp.teoma.com/docs/teoma/about...authority.html


Another search engine .....are they vapid???


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I really do not have the time to run through the ledt side links but I did do the one at the bottom labeled

The Importance Of Relevant Website Content

http://www.ranked1.net/The-Importanc...te-Content.php


Found here almost word for word an article written by Matt a copywriter who owns
http://www.webwisewords.com/

http://searchwarp.com/swa29901.htm

I would fathom a guess there are other pages on the ledt that had the content taken from somewhere else and while I suppose it would be more interesting if the whole site were unoriginal contwent the point is this is not an SEO firm I would want my competition to use.



Perhaps it is time to call for regulation and licensing in the search marketing industry after all we are not much unlike lawyers andthey are degreed and licensed before being allowed to practice in the USA

Other countries I cannot speak for however I imagine in some remote mountain villages or dry desert land even deep forest towns...people can also label themselves a Lawyer as well as an SEO

I have taken screen shots as well.

To the owners of WPW time to clean up your ranks.

Peace

[mike]

To be fair, it's hard to say from just looking what kinds of arrangements sites might have with other sites insofar as content relationships are concerned. That should certainly be kept in mind.

As for the suggestion that some action is called for on the part of WPW because a member engages in a practice or methodology you might disagree with, that's simply irrational. WPW doesn't condone, endorse, advocate, much less control what the membership does with their respective sites.

We aren't the search engine police. We aren't the guardians of good seo. We simply provide a forum for people to come and discuss the topics and learn from one another. One person's black hat technique might be another person's secret to success. I don't judge in either case. If it works for you, go for it as far as I'm concerned.

[sem-seo-pro]

To be fair, it's hard to say from just looking what kinds of arrangements sites might have with other sites insofar as content relationships are concerned. That should certainly be kept in mind.

Yes you are right however removing author links is not the agreement if using articles from other websites. I doubt a search engine would allow its content to be re-used but again anything is possible.

As for the suggestion that some action is called for on the part of WPW because a member engages in a practice or methodology you might disagree with, that's simply irrational.

Actually Mike that depends on your view point or how much the owner of a business decides he has control over what occurs within his domicile or place of business....for instance if you owned a bricks and mortar convenience store and people were trying to shoplift ftom you ...then in most instances you would take steps to protect your business.

Same as say a member of a professional football team cannot go around and disparage other team matess and think the team will support him

He learned otherwise now didn't he.

So then the point is as this forum is run, it would be irrational...perhaps.....

You are right you are not the SE Police and neither am I....

I just wrote what I see as the facts....it is for others to decide if an SEO firm should use anothers content ...

I guess however you get the client is all that matters for some at times...

Thank you for the podium

Returned to you safe and sound.

[SPC2]

Taking the search engines content does not seem to smart

Haven't you learned to keep your head down (or to spell) yet, Clint? Do you imagine that you will affect anything? Remember what happened to you in your awards scam thread. Your best bet is to lie low for a while, and hope that people forget.

[greeneagle]

As bhartzer a leading SEO member and contributor here eloquently pointed out in the past; There is room for "White", "Gray" and "Black" Hat SEO, because certain clients will most likely demand those services into the future.

I am not sure who copies from who, when and where, but I don't believe it is our job to point out other members practices that may be questionable, placing them on exhibit for others here, as the focus of a thread. The SEs do a pretty good job with duplicate content filters these days, anyway.

I am not sure this thread shouldn't be put away right away since it smacks of a direct attack, but I will be watching it closely.

Ken

[janeth]

Nice post and thanks for pointing this out.

I have around 2,000 sites and 20 employees. I told them to use sites like http://www.goarticles.com/ to get some content for some of the sites.

It appears that they did not understand what they were suppose to do.

We will get it fixed asap.

Thanks for pointing this out.

[greeneagle]

It's always a good idea when using even approved content from other Sites not only to give credit due, but add enough commentary to bypass duplicate content filters.

Ken

[janeth]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

It's always a good idea when using even approved content from other Sites not only to give credit due, but add enough commentary to bypass duplicate content filters.

Ken

You are correct Ken and I do plan to do more with the site.

I was just trying to get them started.

But I did get some free links (-;

[janeth]

It looks like the only problem is that the link in the arthur information is not working.

Come on sem-seo-pro you been trying to post bad stuff about me on all the forums and this is the best you can do.

Give me free links lol

[janeth]

Originally Posted by sem-seo-pro

the point is this is not an SEO firm I would want my competition to use.

I would hope not as we would out rank you any day of the week. (-;

[ADAM Web Design]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

As bhartzer a leading SEO member and contributor here eloquently pointed out in the past; There is room for "White", "Gray" and "Black" Hat SEO, because certain clients will most likely demand those services into the future.

I'm not sure I agree with this. White, yes. Grey...a lot of it falls under shades of grey, so I think that has to be accepted.

The black is where I have some issue. If we start allowing it, we open the door for newcomers who may not necessarily have the ability to distinguish between wrong and right in terms of SEO to cause potential damage to their sites (or to have others do the same) without realizing it.

Granted, it's not WPW's job to act as a content censor, but by the same token there's got to be some happy medium or some way to inform newcomers of what to look for and the warning signs and whatnot.

If not, this is one of those situations where WPW could face a lawsuit for providing the gateway between the newcomer and the blackhat. If Jews for Jesus can go suing Google, and some idiot can sue McDonald's for burning her tongue on a hot cup of coffee, this really isn't much of a stretch.

Do I think the lawsuit would happen? Probably not. But anything is possible.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

It's always a good idea when using even approved content from other Sites not only to give credit due, but add enough commentary to bypass duplicate content filters.

Ken

Actually that is very sound advice. Nice post.

________________________

Off-Topic Comment edited by Greeneagle
________________________

[janeth]

Check out the new content. (-;

[s_clay]

Time to close this thread? Janeth has responded, and predictably, the boys are kicking sand again.

Steve

[greeneagle]

I have gone back and edited multiple posts that had improper and off topic content, locked it and returned it here.

The original thread issue was appropiately addressed and resolved.

Ken