affiliate program. I haven't signed up for it, but does Amazon
basically say "Sure, you can scrape our site, as long as we get the
sale!", or is this more along the lines of scurrilous link-hoarding via
Google hacks? I'll posit the latter.
- Jim
Kevin Graeme wrote:
>Speaking of that, I've noticed some really bizarre search results lately.
>When searching for reviews on a product, I'll often find lots of urls that
>point to exactly the words I searched for, the content on the page includes
>the exact search phrase in a paragraph, and ultimately it's just Amazon
>content on the page.
>
>For instance:
>http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=bosch+4412+review
>
>The first links are directly to Amazon, but then it's followed with pages
>and pages of sites with scraped Amazon info. But I'm beginning to wonder if
>they aren't on-the-fly pages and even urls based on the Google search.
>
>-Kevin
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jim Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:10 AM
>Subject: Re: Cute
>
>
>
>
>>A lot of people have figured it out. I was searching for something
>>moderately benign the other day, and the first ten links were almost all
>>taken up by placeholder pages for half-assed "search" sites. Click on
>>one and you're bombarded by Xupiter install requests, "Would you like to
>>set your homepage to shittywebpage.com?", pop-ups, pop-unders, banner
>>ads and (shudder) MIDI tunes.
>>
>>Google does respond to complaints, though. I sent my search query and a
>>list of results that were obviously nothing more than hijack links, and
>>they were extricated from future results. I wish I could remember what
>>the searches were for, now :)
>>
>>- Jim
>>
>>Kevin Graeme wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The link Philip gave is the clue.
>>>
>>>One of Google's biggest determinants in ranking is how many sites link to
>>>
>>>
>a
>
>
>>>site. Also, Google pays particular attention to the actual wording of the
>>>text within the <a href>. So by having lots of bloggers include this: "<a
>>>href="" failure</a>" on their posts,
>>>there is a multitude of that specific phrase pointing to the white house
>>>site.
>>>
>>>It's a basic search engine placement strategy that has been turned on
>>>
>>>
>it's
>
>
>>>ear into a Google hax. Now the real question is what happens with the
>>>
>>>
>next
>
>
>>>administration? Will those cobwebs still be there, or will they have
>>>
>>>
>dropped
>
>
>>>enough by then to negate the effect?
>>>
>>>BTW, this came up in some additional reading:
>>>http://www.gwbush.com/
>>>
>>>-Kevin
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Ian Skinner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:42 AM
>>>Subject: RE: Cute
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>After enjoying a nice giggle, the geek in me wanted to know how this was
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>set
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>up? Any ideas? Would it had to have been done from inside by a Google
>>>>employee, or could somebody set it up from outside? Could it have
>>>>
>>>>
>somehow
>
>
>>>>happened unintentionally, even though neither the words "miserable" or
>>>>"failure" appear anywhere on the page?
>>>>
>>>>The geek in me wants to know.
>>>>
>>>>--------------
>>>>Ian Skinner
>>>>Web Programmer
>>>>BloodSource
>>>>www.BloodSource.org
>>>>Sacramento, CA
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Jim Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 4:49 AM
>>>>To: CF-Community
>>>>Subject: Cute
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Google for "miserable failure".
>>>>
>>>>- Jim
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
