Is a Traffic Power "See" Page dangerous?

[elysian]

Oops - I was a bit rushed on that last post. Ferret was loose- dog was chasing- you don't want to hear it.
Anyway- here are those links again. Ack!

http://www.positionconcepts.com/foru...type::orphans/


http://www.billhartzer.com/forums.ph...094/start::61/

And there was another identical clone of the Traffic Power thread on www.rexxy.com - Hartzers Affiliate business site. Apparently what I posted here last week was seen by 'someone' and they pulled it. Whats the matter people? Are you ashamed of yourselves? If you do a search on 'rexxy' and 'traffic power' you can find a cache.

As a member of the World Organization of Webmasters, all I can say is that people like this are the reason the internet has such a bad rep. They make us ALL look bad in the long run and I am sick of all of them.

[achronister]

From all research conducted here, it looks to be a 50-50 if TP will get you in trouble. However, my opinion is if they don't now they will soon. It can not be argued that they are not manipulating results and that is obviously what SE's don't want.

They can probably get you good results, but how long will they stay? I'm not willing to risk long-term viability for a few terms I can rank for anyway in the long run.

[bhartzer]

elysian, it sounds as if you have some sort of issue with other forums. If you have an issue, please take it up directly with me.

[thejenn]

The one thing these forums had in common was this- they are all the SAME forum mirrored on diff sites and diff locations. So, I ran a few searches on the ip's etc and discovered that ALL of these forums that are attacking traffic power, ABS, and other search engine optimization companies are- get this- run by a guy who owns a search engine optimization and affiliate business! LOL

Let's clear this up right here. The original posts were made at the JimWorld Search Engine Forums. JimWorld has a syndication offer that allows any Web site out there that wishes to have forum content on it pull the JimWorld forum feed into their site. There is no charge to do this, you simply allow JimWorld ads to run along side your own. (After all, JimWorld is providing content, so they should receive some type of payment.) The sites that you are viewing and cross checking IPs on are sites running syndicated content, thus, they are not the forums themselves, but a distributor who has picked up the feed. That distributor has no control over the content of the forums, no ability to edit, moderate, delete, etc... within the forums. (S)He may simply display what exists within the actual JimWorld forums.

Thus, these are not mirror sites, they are sites that share syndicated content, much the way that you will find AP newswire stories on multiple news outlets, or the DMOZ directory listings on multiple sites.

Second, the "owner" of the forums is not an SEO. Jim Wilson's widow, who owns the forums, has nothing to do with the SEO or marketing industry. John Cokos, who now runs the forums, is a programmer, not an SEO. Therefore, I can only assume that you assumed that Bill Hartzer is the owner. He's actually a staff member at JimWorld that has chosen to syndicate the content on his own sites.

Now, as with Traffic Power...people shouldn't believe everything they read online. While I find reason to be suspect of the legitimacy of Traffic Power's claims, I also find reason to suspect many of the anti TP posts that claim the damage caused by them was far worse than it actually was.

So...in all situations, please consider this... Anyone can post anything they like on the Internet. Calling someone a scam or a cheat doesn't make it true. Tarnishing someone's name based on assumptions that you've made isn't a good idea. Researching the experiences of others, the methods of a company, and then making your own decision *IS* a good idea.

[EdwardMurphy]

After reading all the opinions on Traffic Power, I removed what they did to my index page for fear of getting banned.
I e-mailed quite a few people, that were reporting negative comments about TP, with questions, no one has responded yet.

My question is: "Will Traffic Powers tactics get your site banned from google?"

I'm not knowledgable about hidden pages, link farms, doorways, etc.
Since I removed TP's work from my site you cannot judge my index page, however Heal3r posted his website, http://www.annuitypurchases.com/sell...tlement_c.html
as being traffic power "enhanced". After looking at his index page code, they have done the same thing to his, as mine. At the bottom of the page they have keywords with info pages, and some of TP's links pages listed.
Can anyone tell me if this is something that Google will ban you for?


Thanks

[Mel]

First of all when you enter that URL notice that you do not end up on that page but on the index page of the site.

Its not the ultimate content that you see that IMO is the problem (since you are immediately redirected to the home page) its the spammy page that the search engines see which is them redirected to the good page before the viewers get a chance to see the content, thus the page is ranked on content that the viewers do not see. A very effective form of cloaking.

If you want to see one of these mouseover pages in order to see what the spiders are seeing and ranking enter the full url above but be very careful not to touch your mouse and then when you see the page loading use only the arrow keys to view the content below the fold of the page. This same content is in the Google cache with the same redirect.

IMO if this is pointed out to Google by a competitor, they will institute a penalty or ban against the site in question, though it may take a couple of months.

[flood6]

"Will Traffic Powers tactics get your site banned from google?"

Yes, if google (and most of the major SE's) discovers you are using tactics similar to those shown in the example URL, your site will be banned.

This is one of those things where if you are aware of the risk and it is still worth it to you, then go for it.

If an SEO does this to your site and they did not make you aware of the risk, they are neglegent (ethically, if not legaly). If an SEO makes you aware of the possible consequences to using cloaking and doorway pages and you are not comfortable with the risk then tell them to use a diffrent method. If they are trully a search engine optimization firm, they will be able to accomidate you. The ranking may not be as high and the results will not come as quick, but at least you will be comfortable with what is being done to your site.

[tcady]

I looked at your page - Did you ay you asked them NOT to use reidrects? your page does have an initial spam page made just for Spider eyes, but hidden from the user by a mouseover redirect, which I am certain will cause it to get banned eventually when google figures out how to detect this type of spam and puts it in an update (believe me -if we know about it - they know about) .

Though i just realized one of my competitors is usuing them (TP), and I was trying to get them to stop doing the mouseover redirect thing as unethical, but I think I will just wait and let them get banned :)

[richkoi]

I have to relate my most recent phone call from Traffic-Power...

The "Sales-Manager" from Traffic-Power.com talked to me last week about signing up with their program. I told him I had to talk it over with my boss and he would give me a call next week.

So, next week (Today) shows up and I had decided to not use their program since I have been reading up on Google's policy with backdoor pages etc... So I told him I wasn't interested and he went from supper-nice-sales-guy to *explicative* in one second. He said, "The problem with prospects like you...click" (I didn't let him finish).

Anyway, any company that runs a sales force that is verbally abusive to its prospects deserves nothing but hell. I don't suggest anyone use this company on that basis alone...although there are MANY other reasons not to use this company.

I reported them to Google's Spam report...nuff said.
http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html

[elysian]

<edit>by fathom, reason: private email may not be published. Discussing with Admin, kept a copy for reference</edit>