Why is this spammy tactic working?
-
We've recently taken over this account and are baffled how the previous SEO company has been attaining rankings. Why in the world is this spammy tactic still working in this day and age?
This is one of many landing pages on the website consisting of an iframe of the home page and a hidden article. The page had a ton of spammy incoming links with spammy anchor text from horribly spammy blog posts.
-
Thanks Christy!
Glad i'm becoming a useful part of the group. It's tough questions every day. I love that.
-
I second what EGOL said, Ed! high-fives
-
I guess it will remain a mystery. I'm just surprised to see people using this tactic right now when so many websites have been wiped off the net doing this stuff.
-
There's just too many things it could be and I'd also be scratching my head. Maybe I'm getting paranoid listening to conspiracy theorists but sometimes things seem to be intentionally obscured so there is always ambiguity about the workings of the system.
It's enough to drive you insane but whenever in doubt just turn to thinking up a great new topic and writing a great new article that people will want to read and engage with and that might earn some decent backlinks. I swear if I spent as much time doing that as I do trying to reverse-engineer the algorithm then I'd be lots happier and more successful
There was a person last night from a major price comparison site here in the UK with a very good reputation. She told me that they had been engaging in successful black hat tactics until very recently. Like April 17th 2018 or around the time of 'Fred'
She said she was terrified to move because it felt like a house of cards about to collapse. I just didn't know what to tell her. It's the same here. What is your clients view of it? Do they accept responsibility for the shaky foundations? Have you discussed the position they're in? I'd get them to agree a strategy and make sure it involves the risk of losing rankings in the name of clearing the decks for future development and nail the financial risks associated with a drop in traffic.
-
The SEO company definitely did the client a favor by taking the links down; I'm just scratching my head that these pages were ever able to rank, given the recency of their creation.
-
Yikes.
Check this out. It's a poll on Barry Schwartz' site. They have some more grey and black hat peeps over there (especially in the comments) and they are saying that huge numbers of dodgy backlinks aren't affecting them at all. I really believe backlinks are becoming less and less important unless they are really powerful and relevant ones. It's almost like Google is ignoring this whole swathe of bad sites and the algorithm just doesn't take a blind bit of notice. But when a real person does a quality survey then this type of thing:
- Automatically generated content
- Participating in link schemes
- Creating pages with little or no original content
- Cloaking
- Sneaky redirects
- Hidden text or links
- Doorway pages
- Scraped content
- Participating in affiliate programs without adding sufficient value
- Loading pages with irrelevant keywords
- Creating pages with malicious behavior, such as phishing or installing viruses, trojans, or other badware
- Abusing rich snippets markup
- Sending automated queries to Google
is going to get you a penalty. (I pasted them straight over from google)
-
Hey EGOL,
thanks so much. I really enjoy the community. And answering the questions helps me learn more because there's never a right answer and it encourages me to be creative and think about my own site. Also I want the T-shirt lol!!
I just came back from the SEM rush conference in London and was doing a Q&A for in-house users of their product. It's amazing how much has changed really recently. I'd be genuinely afraid that if I stopped engaging I'd miss something! We have 32,000 users to our site now. Pretty much all my learning has been from Whiteboard Fridays and Moz blogs. I love the way this forum is never about gaming google like some others. It's all whiter than white hat. That's the future of SEO. There will be no black hats in a few years. It's going to be impossible to compete.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I must have read about 100 of your responses on here. You're prolific. Are you from the UK? It's Brighton SEO tomorrow?
-
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. The ironic thing is this website is actually relatively new - I believe it was created in fall of 2017. The previous seo company took down all the back links to these pages, but here is a sample to give you an idea what kind of junk was linking in. (All the backlinks looked like this). http://wadoptc.com/?How-To-Create-A-Business-By-Selling-Socks-Online-1068914.html
-
Hi Ed,
You have been giving a lot of great responses in Q&A. They are very generous and high quality.
I just want to thank you for the help that you are providing and encourage you to keep up the great work!
Cheers!
-
I've just come back from a forum where we were discussing this exact thing. It was suggested that older sites can have a multitude of sins and google will overlook them or ignore them until a big event (such as an https switchover) where google take a closer and more comprehensive look at the site and it's pages and backlinks.
A few people said that they were not immediately hit by panda and penguin type issues until they did some big event on the site and it came under scrutiny from google.
This was only anecdotal stuff but I see tons of sites with legacy black hat and grey hat SEO that are still ranking and seem to be doing ok. It was also suggested that links are just less important these days and so long as the page is getting good implicit user feedback signals like time on page, users clicking around and engaging with content then things hold out for longer.
Just like it takes time to get a pages authority and position up it also takes time for it to diminish. So in the long term you need to correct these issues or you'll gradually (or sometimes quickly) get either a penalty or an algorithmic suppression of your page.
Newer pages will never get ranked with this type of profile and the standards for indexing newer pages are much higher now. So just because it's not causing problems now doesn't mean you don't need to get it fixed or at least start adding pages that are in line with the latest stricter quality guidelines.
Hope this helps. I know it's not really an 'answer' because it's a very tricky issue. I can see how these ideas make sense though. If you were doing things that used to be ok and now are not ok, google is going to be less likely to hammer you like if you tried to launch a brand new site using clearly banned practices.
-
Well, it works. According to the spam spam analysis, they are at level 3 of 17. You can see it yourself here:
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Star snippet not work
Hi I write a json+ld script for star snippet in my website but not work in my first page. you can see it in this URL https://liliome.ir when I googled my keyword"عطر"my competitor show with star snippet in SERP but my site doesn't show.
On-Page Optimization | | renorenotoodanes3330 -
Cannonical tag not working
I have put canonical tags on most of my pages as I'm slowly fixing the website errors that cause me to lose my rankings last July. However, when I search google for "graphene nanoplatelets" i find it shows the non canonical version. see below cut from the 2nd page of organic results. Graphene Nanoplatelets-GNPs - Cheap Tubes Inc. <cite class="_Hd">cheaptubes.com/graphene-nanoplatelets.htm</cite>High quality, low cost Graphene Nanoplatelets-GNPs.I know I put the canonical tag on the page, see code below. I do not see an error but I am an SEO rookie <title>Graphene Nanoplatelets-GNPs</title> If anyone can find an error in my canonical tag, please tell me where it is so I can fix. I know its affecting other pages as well and most should have the tag. Some non product pages don't have it yet but will as I continue fixing it.
On-Page Optimization | | cheaptubes0 -
Spammy page titles
Over the last couple of weeks, I have noticed that Google aren't showing the page titles for my online shop anymore. They're set up with a third party plug-in piece of software, and while it's an old version of the software, the developer said it wouldn't be causing issues. They have suggested that I re-write my page titles to be less spammy. The thing is, Google haven't attacked just spammy looking titles, they're just taking a swoop through my whole site and not showing any of my page titles in their search results. I'm getting "Category Name - Shop Name" showing. Here's some of the page titles no longer appearing and I honestly have no idea how to rewrite these to not be spammy. Are there any good articles on what's spammy and what isn't? "Coconut oil - best tasting in Australia. Buy online from <my business="" name="">"</my> "Discount Vitamix Blender. Best deal in Australia. Buy online from <my business="" name="">."</my> "Natural & Organic skin care for the face | buy online in Australia from <my business="" name="">."</my> There are others that are showing the real page titles, but I think it's only a matter of re-indexing before they're all not showing. Any clue?
On-Page Optimization | | sparrowdog0 -
Would this hack work? - human-readability-optimized headline -> keyword-optmized headline
Hi Moz-ians, I need your insight. I am thinking of the following hack: 1. Writing the headline of a blogpost as human-readable & catchy as possible and publish on content voting communities like Hacker News. (basically serving human readers the best) 2. After the influx of large traffic, change the title based on the target keywords of the blogpost. (basically serving Google Search Engine the best) I would like to know whether making such a change after publishing a post would nullify any positive impact I will earn by publishing the post in terms of the search ranking of the page? (=whether it would be a sound strategy.) I am worried a sudden change in the headline (e.g., or element) would damage the increase in page authority I've gotten through the incoming traffic from, say, Hacker News, which makes this hack not worthwhile to explore.
On-Page Optimization | | Plivo0 -
Reverse 301 redirect - how will that work?
Hi We have done some testing where we have changed our URL to a new name and 301 redirected the old to the new. It has now been decided to go back to the old url again but is there an seo risk to this? Will all the inbound links that as redirected in the first change be lost or?
On-Page Optimization | | AndersDK0 -
Spammy link for each keyword
Some people believe that having a link for each keyword and a page of content for each keyword (300+ words) can help ranking for those keywords. However, the old approach of having "restaurant New York", "restaurant Buffalo", "restaurant Newark" approach has become seen as a terrible SEO practice. I don't know whether this was because it's spammy or because people usually combined it with thin content that was 95% duplicate. Which brings us to; http://hungryhouse.co.uk/ Why does such a major company have the following on the site (see the footer); Aberdeen Takeaway Birmingham Takeaway Brighton Takeaway Bristol Takeaway Cambridge Takeaway Canterbury Takeaway Cardiff Takeaway Coventry Takeaway Edinburgh Takeaway Glasgow Takeaway Leeds Takeaway Leicester Takeaway Liverpool Takeaway London Takeaway Manchester Takeaway Newcastle Takeaway Nottingham Takeaway Sheffield Takeaway Southampton Takeaway York Takeaway Indian Takeaway Chinese Takeaway Thai Takeaway Italian Takeaway Cantonese Takeaway Pizza Delivery Sushi Takeaway Kebab Takeaway Fish and Chips Sandwiches Do they know something I don't? [unnecessary links removed by staff]
On-Page Optimization | | JamesFx0 -
If you were working on a wine site would you include the wine year in the URL?
I've come across a case where I'm asking myself what the best direction would be to go and while there is no right direction I would like to here some feedback from others. I'm working with some great content pages all about wine. As you probably know the difference between a 07 wine and a 95 is vastly different and up to this point I'm using the full year in the url much like this: grapesinyourtoesexample.com/2007-cellar-pod-viognier-adelaide-hills/. What I'm worried about is my use of the year in the URL. I feel it's very important for it to be used in the page title and on page but I'm concerned that it might be setting me back with my use of it in the url. My concern is that search engines might be interpretting it as a datestamp rather than as a informational piece of data describing the asset. Looking at my competitors, my content is one of the only sites using the year and in most searches for various wines my content is in the second half of the SERPs. If you were creating this content would you use the year? If you were working with current content would you drop the year across all of the site and implement to necessary redirects? Just to be clear this is a client related project so my use of "my site|my content" refers to the client's content.
On-Page Optimization | | DotCar0 -
20 x '400' errors in site but URLs work fine in browser...
Hi, I have a new client set-up in SEOmoz and the crawl completed this morning... I am picking up 20 x '400' errors, but the pages listed in the crawl report load fine... any ideas? example - http://www.morethansport.co.uk/products?sortDirection=descending&sortField=Title&category=women-sports clothing
On-Page Optimization | | Switch_Digital0