PDA

View Full Version : Risky SEO Techniques With Non-Spam Intent



Garrett
05-11-2004, 08:54 AM
There are high risk techniques (http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/searchinsider/wpn-49-20040420NoMoreHatsHighRiskvsLowRiskSEO.html) that, when employed without the intention of gaming search results, provide solutions for some difficult-to-rank pages. Alan Webb, of ABAKUS Internet Marketing, writes that, "there is unlikely to ever be a full consensus on what is or is not an acceptable search engine optimization technique. What you need to do is simply to ask yourself, am I trying to dupe Google here?"

Webb (http://www.abakus-internet-marketing.de/) recently posted on the SEORoundTable (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/000435.html) several methods that are at the limits of search engine acceptibility. If you use any of these techniques and your intention is to help your visitors rather than raise your rankings unnaturally the chances are better that you won't receive penalty.

Webb claims that he's cloaked as well as manipulated html tags with CSS, done javascript redirection, and created pages with identical text (among a handful of other tactics) without fear of retribution.

"I have used most of the above on MY OWN website and do not fear penalization. Why am I not worried I might be penalized by Google? The reason is because my content is exactly the same for a human visitor as it would be for a search engine spider and no attempt to dupe Google through hidden content or redirection takes place."

Now what if you want to let a search engine know that a particular header is important by using one of your H1-H3 tags but the size just doesn't fit with the page you're designing? If you'd like to have the ranking bonus that's said to accompany the H tags and a clean looking design then you can use CSS.

"With css you can make it fit your site's look and feel and resize it, colour it, underline it etc. What you most definitely do not want to do is make it invisible, use it where you wouldn’t normally use a heading or make it tiny for example."

If you're looking for a non-programming means of getting your dynamic content indexed Webb also suggests creating static printer-version pages. Since your content wasn't showing up anyway, these pages won't cause you a duplicate content penalty. And, as Webb says, "it goes without saying that the content should be the same as the dynamic page."

Text link navigation in the footer is a great workaround for imagemap or java navagation bars, which "for the most part" the spiders might not be able to follow. This also reveals your internal pages to the spiders and makes your pages more navigable, especially if they're long pages. Be sure you use optimized anchor text (http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/searchinsider/wpn-49-20040510AnchorTextTipsThatRocketYourRankings.html) for your links.

JavaScript redirection, traditionally a SEO no-no, can help visitors who search their way to a framed page without its frameset. This is clearly an example where a redirect would benefit the user. He gives the following code as an example of how to redirect:

<SCRIPT language=Javascript>

<!--

if(top.frames.length <= 0)

top.location = "http://www.your-frameset-page.com";

//-->

</SCRIPT>

However, says Webb, "the above is the quick and dirty way to do it. Of course the best solution is to drop framesets altogether."

His post includes suggestions on how to work around session ids, shorten dynamic urls, php/asp url rewriting and more. Be sure to read his examples closely, as well as the situations where these techniques are the most applicable and least risky.

And remember - even these less risky techniques could potentially harm your site's rankings in Google. Consider testing these ideas on a practice domain before using them on your business site.

As Webb says, "if you are unsure if what you are doing is over the top or not, the likelihood is it is. Always err on the side of caution but also don’t be afraid to use the tips above in moderation. Common sense is really is really the best way to evaluate whether or not you are abusing or helping a search engine."

Thanks to Alan Webb and ABAKUS Internet Marketing (http://www.abakus-internet-marketing.de/) for help on this article.

abbeyinternet
05-13-2004, 10:05 AM
Alan Webb, of ABAKUS Internet Marketing, writes that, "there is unlikely to ever be a full consensus on what is or is not an acceptable search engine optimization technique. What you need to do is simply to ask yourself, am I trying to dupe Google here?"

I like this way of phrasing it, it's more direct than Google's own guidelines (http://www.google.co.uk/webmasters/guidelines.html#quality):


A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you.

mawells
05-13-2004, 10:39 AM
We have been forced to use "questionable techniques" for the benefit of site visitors and have not suffered any penalties yet.

One client had nothing but a big graphic on their home page - so we were forced to use <noframes> tags to describe the content. (They are supposed to be re-designing the site, so this was a "stop gap" measure). We warned the client that this could cause penalties - but it's been a year and their rankings still hold.

Several of our clients wanted to remove pages. Rather than use a redirect, we just replaced those files with copies of the home page. Eventually those pages are expected to disappear from the index since there are no links to them at the site, but we wanted to ensure that anyone that had bookmarked the page would get a viable page.

Then, in an effort to get rid of one domain, we set every page of that domain to redirect to a corresponding page at the new domain - it's a visible redirect that says there is newer content found here and you will be redirected. Darn, that old domain continues to dominate in rankings even though there is more and better content at the new site.

ferret77
05-14-2004, 08:03 AM
A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you.

Why would anyone feel comfortable explaining anything to a competitor

maybe it should say "if you are scared a competitor will find out and report you don't do it"

bascially according to the google guidlines you are not supposed to optimize

ReWritables.net
05-14-2004, 09:26 AM
The use of questionable techniques has been going on for years. From the perspective of the Search Engines, they have a "product" to deliver. Their "product" is the integrity of the search match. It's that simple.

When they see the integrity of their product compromised, they react. (note, in part, the Florida update..)

I have found that not playing the over-optimization game, providing rich and meaningful content, and still keeping an eye on the best practices of keyword density, effective site structure and other specifics that can be left for another time has enabled the vat majority of my clients sites to achieve and retain decent ranking based on respective keywords.

Quite simply, you can't go wrong by playing well with others and adhering to the rules.

Cheers,

David

mawells
05-14-2004, 10:25 AM
Dave, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I don't think anyone here was implying that you should use these SPAM or questionable techniques. It's just that there are times when you have little choice. The client wants results, but you can't change the look of his site and it's just one big graphic. As long as you give full disclosure to the client about the possible consequences, you have to do what you have to do.

Sometimes a client wants to "kill" a site that resides within another domain. He doesn't want to maintain two sites, but he's afraid to just remove the old site - a redirect is employed. A redirect that is entirely visible to the site visitor. (Believe me I would prefer that he just "kill" the old site because I have to fight with that site to get his new site to rank higher.)

Bottom line: the customer is always right (even when he's wrong)

Peter (IMC)
05-14-2004, 04:50 PM
I really don't see the purpose of using questionable techniques. First of all those very generic phrases that are so popular generally have very low conversion rates. So you´re putting a lot of effort in not that much sales.

There are so many other phrases that are worth optimizing for. From Googles point of view these are all subtopics of the very generic phrases. Optimize for all those very subtopics and you will eventually also rank high for the toplevel phrases. Without any questionable techniques in place.

It just takes time.

Of course there are types of businesses that need the high rankings today because 6 months from now they are obsolete,.. But even for those there are legal ways to get high rankings faster.

Regards,

Peter

mawells
05-14-2004, 04:57 PM
I really don't see the purpose of using questionable techniques. First of all those very generic phrases that are so popular generally have very low conversion rates. So you´re putting a lot of effort in not that much sales.

Who said anything about generic phrases? Just getting any content on the page can be an issue with some sites.

There are so many other phrases that are worth optimizing for. From Googles point of view these are all subtopics of the very generic phrases. Optimize for all those very subtopics and you will eventually also rank high for the toplevel phrases. Without any questionable techniques in place.

It just takes time.

Of course there are types of businesses that need the high rankings today because 6 months from now they are obsolete,.. But even for those there are legal ways to get high rankings faster.

Regards,

Peter

The question is "what is legal?" If you listen to Google and Yahoo - no optimization technique is "legal."

rhvo
05-18-2004, 01:22 PM
In the case of my field, which is voiceovers, the top 10 in Google and the top 10 in Yahoo are completely different, and include some sites that to my way of understanding are using some borderline SEO techniques.
It makes me wonder, but I fear trying anything like that in case my Google rank should drop. I'd rather have a quality ranking there than Yahoo.

venividi
05-18-2004, 02:08 PM
Customers may sometime think (and they probably do) "You say you've done your best, but how come that site with lots of javascript and almost no text ranks always at the top?".
Is there a way to find out if a site is using borderline / black hat methods?
Of course I have a site in mind. Grrr!

Valeria

Peter (IMC)
05-18-2004, 03:08 PM
Valeria,

Let us know which site it is,. or if you prefer to keep them out of this thread, send me a Private Message and I take a look at it.

People often think competitors use ilegal techniques, but often all they did was more than they did.

Regards,

Peter

Krapulator
05-18-2004, 07:30 PM
Using css to style Hx tags is not a risky technique at all - it is the functional purpose of css!

Webby
05-19-2004, 05:06 AM
@Ferret
You're right, in hindsight it should say "feel comfortable if a competitor fills out a spam report." It is certainly what I meant to say. Sorry for the confusion.

I personally don't think the methods I've described are questionable. As Krapulator pints out using css to redefine headers is more a design than a SEO issue and is never going to be penalized. Removing session ids is actually requested on Googles own pages. The other techniques are helping google to spider a page. Even with great content you could end up nowhere in the serps simply because you havent made the great content search engine friendly. The article is really directed at those with little seo experience who have been caught up in some of the OTT scare mongering that some seo professionals have posted on forums (not this one I should add). The good content point however is very true as good content get links to and link pop/anchor text is probably more than 60% of the ranking algo. Crap contant gets no links, no pr and even with all the techniques mentioned isnt going to get anywhere.

Pretty much all the techniques I've mentioned are clearly open to abuse. If used though as I've highlighted they are not imo high risk but sound seo practice. High risk for me is cloaking with the intent to manipulate the serps, multiple doorway pages with redirects, hiding text through whatever method (there's a bunch of them) and generally using techniques that provide different content to a spider than is visible to a human with a browser.

There are webmasters however who believe using css for headings, redirectection on framed pages, removing session ids etc. is an absolute no-no. This is completely unfounded and that is thepoint I was hoping to get across.

Cheers
Alan

T2DMan
05-19-2004, 07:27 AM
Hi Mawells


but he's afraid to just remove the old site - a redirect is employed. A redirect that is entirely visible to the site visitor... Believe me I would prefer that he just "kill" the old site because I have to fight with that site to get his new site to rank higher

The best redirect to use that gets around the "site still appearing on Google" problem is a 301 permanent redirect. Just make sure that you have a few links to the old site, so that Google finds the old site, finds the redirect, and only shows the new site for the url/snippet. All the PR from old site links goes to new site, visitor gets transported to new site, MSN and other search engines that have the old links on for months are still able to show visitors through to correct pages, everyone happy.

mawells
05-19-2004, 08:17 AM
Sorry, 301 redirect is not an option. The site is hosted as a subdirectory of another site (Thomas Register) and we don't have that option. The only thing we can do is use the meta refresh tag to redirect (it's the only thing Thomas Register allows). We had hoped that this technique would get this site banned and improve positioning on his new site - but no such luck. The redirect site still sits prominently in the top 10 position at Google.

eko
05-19-2004, 05:06 PM
I searched on Google.de with the Keyword "ranking optimization" but couldnt find Alan Webb 's web site on the list.If I were him, I ld firstly optimiza my own site.;)

I optimized myself and now #1 in Google over 75.000 sites with one keyword.I will optimiza more keywords whenever I have time.

Happy week end

Webby
05-19-2004, 05:26 PM
.. and if I were you eko, I'd consider what search terms a German business targetting german speakers might be focusing on. I can assure you "ranking optimization" is not one of them (and it wouldn't be if I was focusing on english speakers either).
Like for example "Suchmaschinenoptimierung" ("search engine optimization" in englisch).

I dont think I do so badly (http://www.abakus-internet-marketing.de/report/abakusrankinge.htm) :-)

Alan

eko
05-20-2004, 06:36 AM
Right Alan.You are on the 3rd with the keyword "Suchmaschinenoptimierung" Ofcourse respect man! I was kidding I know that you are really good in this job.

Have a nice day my friend

mawells
05-20-2004, 08:09 AM
eko, I have to agree. Preliminary research for the term "ranking optimization" showed only about 163 searches conducted last month. While "search engine ranking optimization" had 2,609.

It's important to research your keywords and not all SEO companies will optimize for all of the popular SEO terms. We service primarily New England - so that's the terms we focus on even it the amount of searchers for that term are low. We don't want to take on clients that we can't service.

(With that said, we actually have clients in NC, OH, IL and Ontario, Canada - go figure)