Correct me if i'm wrong and chances are it may be the case, but i think i remember reading that google doesn't base its ranking on index page alone. It weighs up the entire site and then asses its ranking capabilities.
If you were to have a sitemap and it spiders that page and you *hide* that link from a user (by color if need be) then in fact you achieve the same results. I could be off on this one but thats what i interpreted from Google Hacks. eg: MossyBlog tends to have more hits show up based on relevant pages vs index? On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:19:14 -0500, Rick Faircloth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well...what you've stated is true and blacklisting is to be > avoided at all costs...that being said, there's a different > perspective that can be taken on using the "Flash Forwarding" > approach. > > I believe you're writing from the perspective is that the method > we're describing would utilize a page of content that is irrelevant > to the actual site. If so, then, you're right...however... > > I do SEO for clients and think that the method > can be used well, if the page that the bots are scanning, but > the people can't read, does contain only relevant information. > > I do organic SEO as much as possible for clients as well as PPC, > but it's difficult to work in a keyword/phrase the recommended 5-7 times > on a page without offending the sensibilities of the reader. And, > if you put every keyword/phrase 5-7 times for which you want to appear on > search engines, you end up with really thick, mechanical copy. > > However, if you're writing copy only for the bots, they couldn't care less > about whether or not the copy reads smoothly...they just check for > the existence of keywords/phrases. > > So, the actual copy on the page that the person visiting the site doesn't > read, but the bots do, can be heavy with repeated keywords/phrases that > are completely relevant to the site content. I don't consider this approach > unethical at all. I *would* consider any attempt to abuse keywords/phrases > to bring traffic to a site which has nothing to do with the keywords/phrases > a visitor actually uses to be completely unethical, whether the site had > adult content or content about lawnmower maintenance. > > I don't see how Google could consider "Flash Forwarding" method to > be inappropriate under any circumstances. It amounts to the same thing > as having a Site Map on a page which simply contains links to various > parts of the site based on keywords/phrases that searchers are using, such > as: > > Hinesville Real Estate > Hinesville GA Real Estate > Hinesville Georgia Real Estate > > Fort Stewart Real Estate > Fort Stewart GA Real Estate > Fort Stewart Georgia Real Estate > > While such an approach may not seem to make a lot of sense to a viewer > who is unaware of why these variations would be on a page, which is to > appeal to bots, I don't see how it would be considered unethical to include > those variations on site map. > > Any thoughts on this? > > Rick > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Barnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 6:08 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Search engine question > > This concerns me the most, you can trick the bots until you have a > total monopoly on keywords. Yet, if someone reports you to google (and > it happens) for hijacking traffic (only have to look at your > competitors) and they then find you're hacking the bots, they > blacklist you. > > Ontop of that, do you really want to trick your customers into going > to a site thats of no relivance. What about if the flash swf fails or > they can't load it? then what... > > I used to work for *one* of the worlds adult content providers, my job > was to farm adult sites out to reap search engine / ecommerce rewards. > > Our strategy was like a solider based system, where we would create > lots of this annoying crappy little websites all over the shop using > geocities, anglefire and all that crap to link back to first tier > domains, which were upsell sites. We would then populate these tier > domains with more established content and so on until it went back to > key / rich content based sites where the actual cc transactions would > begin. > > I've seen some talented folk use tricks that have me giving > mass-golf-claps as to how well they counter-acted it - yet i've seen > yahoo / google pounce on them fast. Google prides itself on being a > fairly clean / noiseless search engine so that if my kids search for > "Dallas" they get results based on the city - not - DEBBIE DOES DALLAS > FOR 98th time. Actualy relivant key words returning such results. > > any h00t be mindfull of who your traffic will be, and what risks you > take in tricking bots. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:201114 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
