Submit Your Article Forum Rules

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Risky SEO Techniques With Non-Spam Intent

  1. #1
    Senior Member Garrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    316

    Risky SEO Techniques With Non-Spam Intent

    There are high risk techniques 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 recently posted on the SEORoundTable 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 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 for help on this article.
    Garrett French
    Editor, WebProNews.com
    http://www.WebProNews.com

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    15

    Re: Risky SEO Techniques With Non-Spam Intent

    Quote Originally Posted by Garrett
    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:
    A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you.
    Tim Acheson, BSc
    Technical Director

    Abbey Internet
    Web Design & Development

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    133

    Questionable Techniques

    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.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    188
    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

  5. #5
    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

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    133

    Risky SEO Techniques With Non-Spam Intent

    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)

  7. #7
    WebProWorld MVP Peter (IMC)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,483
    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
    FREE SEO ! Really? YES! All you have to do is implement it!
    Follow me on Twitter PeterIMC

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)
    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."

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8

    google and yahoo results never alike

    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.

  10. #10
    Member venividi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I live near Varese, northern Italy
    Posts
    93
    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
    Italian Food Slicers
    www.shop-shop.it

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Risky Business in Albany
    By Markll in forum Funny Pics and Vids
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-05-2008, 03:08 AM
  2. More Database of Intent and the Law
    By WPW_Feedbot in forum Search Engine Optimization Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-14-2005, 06:00 PM
  3. The Financial Times Using Search Spam Techniques?
    By WPW_Feedbot in forum Search Engine Optimization Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-13-2005, 09:00 AM
  4. IE6: Too Risky to Use?
    By mike in forum Internet Security Discussion Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-11-2005, 07:30 PM
  5. Database flaws more risky than thought
    By WPW_Feedbot in forum IT Discussion Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-23-2004, 04:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •