Hrm, what about wrapping chunks of Text inside divs that have visible = false?
Has anyone applied that technique aswell (now you all have be curious again on SOE) On Apr 1, 2005 12:25 PM, Rick Faircloth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh, certainly you're right, because various pages in my clients > sites show up in the rankings...not just the index or home page. > However, those other pages appear in the rankings when they > actually have more relevant keywords/phrases searched for than > the index or home page. > > I have one Real Estate broker who also sells insurance. When insurance > is search for, the insurance page shows up in the rankings, but not > the index or homepage...and that's the way I think it should be. > > The pages of the site seem to be ranked individually, rather than the > site as a whole...again, which is the way I think it should be. I would > hate to have to try to get all the keywords/phrases I need for some > of the larger sites on the homepage! > > > > 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. > > But I wouldn't want a page like that on the site...it would appear to the > viewer that the page had no content...that's as bad as some of the > gateway pages I've seen. The copy is terrible for the human visitor, > but great for the bot... > > Rick > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Barnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 8:44 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Search engine question > > 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. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:201145 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
