Wired News: Single Post Wins Google Contest: "Dash became the overall winner by virtue of a single post on his blog in which he asked his readers to link from their own sites. Countless numbers did and -- after his very late entry assumed the top Google spot shortly after the competition's first round ended -- Dash was never seriously challenged.
'The impetus (was) for me, on a fluke, to say, 'Hey, I don't want these guys who do link spamming to win the contest,'' said Dash"
The contest, sponsored by Australian affiliate marketing company DarkBlue and SearchGuild.com, was designed to spotlight the various techniques used by search engine optimizers to boost sites' Google results. Those results are often a key factor in businesses' fortunes.
But Google is known for frequently changing its ranking methods, largely in an attempt to foil people who seek to manipulate its system with new tricks to improve their placement. Some charge that, partly as a result of these repeated adjustments to its ranking methodology, Google doesn't always return the most relevant results.
Nevertheless, Chris Ridings, the competition's organizer, told Wired News at the time of the first-round judging that it's easier for people to claim they can outfox Google than to actually demonstrate their prowess. The competition, he said, provides a stage for search optimization experts to show how strong particular ranking techniques really are.
To Dash, then, winning the flat-screen television awarded to the second-round victor was testament to the power of good content and a longstanding online presence.
"A lot of people are trying to increase their page rank unethically," said Dash. "I think if we show them (that) the best thing you can do is to write really good material, then hopefully, they'll spend their time doing that (instead of) spending time coming up with ways to graffiti other people's pages."
Furthermore, Dash maintained, his victory proves one thing: That the Web is a meritocracy.
"A page that's read by people instead of robots is going to do better," he said.
Have a comment on this article? Send it
More stories written by Daniel Terdiman
Page 1 of 1
Related Stories
A Contest to Outwit Google Jun. 08, 2004
Kerry Gets Google-Bombed May. 24, 2004
Dropping the Bomb on Google May. 11, 2004
How the Word Gets Around May. 07, 2004
Merchants Bemoan Google Rule Mar. 27, 2004
Spammers Clog Up the Blogs Oct. 24, 2003
Search Results Clogged by Blogs May. 16, 2003
Wired News RSS headline feeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ads by Google White Knight UK
Compare UK prices at different
retailers and save a packet!
www.dealtime.co.uk White Knight
Compare Bargain Prices.
Save Time and Money.
www.kelkoo.co.uk White Knight at Tesco
Free delivery and top brands.
1,000 Extra ClubCard points in July
www.tesco.com/electrical Save up to 40%
On high street prices! Over 5000
home & kitchen appliances
electricshop.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wired News: Staff | Contact Us | Advertising | RSS | Blogs | Subscribe
We are translated daily into Spanish, Portuguese, and Japanese
© Copyright 2004, Lycos, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Lycos Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions
Friday, July 09, 2004
Google trademarks targeted by kids' site Googles - Best Practices Search Engine Forums
Google trademarks targeted by kids' site Googles - Best Practices Search Engine Forums: "apparently there's a children's site called Googles.com that owns the Trademark for the word Google and there's a suit brewing over it.
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Stelor Productions, the operator of a children's Web site called Googles.com, said on Wednesday it has launched trademark proceedings against Web search leader Google Inc., which is preparing a much-awaited initial public offering.
Stelor, based in Darnestown, Maryland, said it filed two separate actions against Google with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Stelor, which charges that Google's mark is confusingly similar to its own, is opposing Google's trademark application to cover a 'long list of 'Google' goods and services, including children's books, stickers and children's clothing.'
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsChanne...pe=internetNews"
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Stelor Productions, the operator of a children's Web site called Googles.com, said on Wednesday it has launched trademark proceedings against Web search leader Google Inc., which is preparing a much-awaited initial public offering.
Stelor, based in Darnestown, Maryland, said it filed two separate actions against Google with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Stelor, which charges that Google's mark is confusingly similar to its own, is opposing Google's trademark application to cover a 'long list of 'Google' goods and services, including children's books, stickers and children's clothing.'
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsChanne...pe=internetNews"
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Google Filters and Avoiding their Screens
Google Filters and Avoiding their Screens:
"Possible Link Related Filters"
Identical link text
Recripricol links damped
Links pages/ guest books filtered
Interlinking on same IP filtered: Many observers have noticed a cross linking filter resulting from cross linking together too many sites from the same server and especially from the same c level block. A c level block is the part of a website address in the third section. Example: 123.123.xxx.123 xxx = c level There is some belief that the threshold trigger for that filter is about 20 linked sites.
Duplicate content may not only trigger a filter, but sites that contain a large number of pages that are similar in content might be targeted.
The sandbox filter allegedly works this way. A new site will receive a fresh site bonus from Google and rank highly. Following that initial blush with fame and fortune, the site will drop in the search rankings, and drop, and then drop some more. That is where the alleged sandbox occurs.
Once in the sandbox, the site will be anywhere from two to four months rising in the SERPs to a respectable position. During that sandbox period, regardless of the number and quality of inbound links and the PageRank, that site will not rank well at all. It is thought that gaining too many links too quickly might be part of the reason for the sandbox. On the other hand, building up a domain with incoming links prior to site launch may help avoid the sandbox entirely.
"Possible Link Related Filters"
Identical link text
Recripricol links damped
Links pages/ guest books filtered
Interlinking on same IP filtered: Many observers have noticed a cross linking filter resulting from cross linking together too many sites from the same server and especially from the same c level block. A c level block is the part of a website address in the third section. Example: 123.123.xxx.123 xxx = c level There is some belief that the threshold trigger for that filter is about 20 linked sites.
Duplicate content may not only trigger a filter, but sites that contain a large number of pages that are similar in content might be targeted.
The sandbox filter allegedly works this way. A new site will receive a fresh site bonus from Google and rank highly. Following that initial blush with fame and fortune, the site will drop in the search rankings, and drop, and then drop some more. That is where the alleged sandbox occurs.
Once in the sandbox, the site will be anywhere from two to four months rising in the SERPs to a respectable position. During that sandbox period, regardless of the number and quality of inbound links and the PageRank, that site will not rank well at all. It is thought that gaining too many links too quickly might be part of the reason for the sandbox. On the other hand, building up a domain with incoming links prior to site launch may help avoid the sandbox entirely.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Google Bans Traffic Power and it's Clients
Google Bans Traffic Power and it's Clients: "GoogleGuy recently broke his silence to confirm that Google has taken action against an SEO firm and it's clients for spammy techniques. The SEO company convinced some its clients to use javascript redirects and place hidden links to doorway pages created by the firm. GoogleGuy explains:
I believe that one SEO had convinced clients either to put spammy Javascript mouseover redirects, doorway pages that link to other sites, or both on their clients' sites. That can lead to clients' sites being flagged as spam in addition to the doorway domains that the SEO set up.
GoogleGuy later reassured webmasters that those who use javascript mousover to place text in the status bar do not need to worry about beeing banned."
I believe that one SEO had convinced clients either to put spammy Javascript mouseover redirects, doorway pages that link to other sites, or both on their clients' sites. That can lead to clients' sites being flagged as spam in addition to the doorway domains that the SEO set up.
GoogleGuy later reassured webmasters that those who use javascript mousover to place text in the status bar do not need to worry about beeing banned."
SearchEngineWatch Forums - Alt Attributes Appearing as Anchor Text in Text-only Cache
SearchEngineWatch Forums - Alt Attributes Appearing as Anchor Text in Text-only Cache: "Regarding the internal links (i.e. company logo that links back to the same page with same alt text), I have a solution that works well on dynamic sites.
On some of my dynamic sites, when I do an allinurl:www.domain.com site:www.domain.com most the results have that 'In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the # already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.' message.
The reason some of my sites had this was because the content closest to the top of the page was the alt tag of the logo that linked back to the homepage. All the pages had the same header with same text at the top.
What I did was change the alternative text to read the same as the page title for each unique page. Now the alt text is different at the top and no more messages like 'In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the # already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.'
Also, I do not have the same alternative text with a link back to the same page on every page. Not that I feel having the same text linking to the same page over and over again is a bad thing. I only did this because I hated getting 'In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the # already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.'"
On some of my dynamic sites, when I do an allinurl:www.domain.com site:www.domain.com most the results have that 'In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the # already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.' message.
The reason some of my sites had this was because the content closest to the top of the page was the alt tag of the logo that linked back to the homepage. All the pages had the same header with same text at the top.
What I did was change the alternative text to read the same as the page title for each unique page. Now the alt text is different at the top and no more messages like 'In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the # already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.'
Also, I do not have the same alternative text with a link back to the same page on every page. Not that I feel having the same text linking to the same page over and over again is a bad thing. I only did this because I hated getting 'In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the # already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.'"
SearchEngineWatch Forums - Alt Attributes Appearing as Anchor Text in Text-only Cache
SearchEngineWatch Forums - Alt Attributes Appearing as Anchor Text in Text-only Cache: " Some believe that all identical anchor text is fine, while others believe that if the identical phrase goes over a certain percentage of total links it can trip a penalty or filter. I'm one of those that believes it can happen, even just within the site itself without regard to inbound links, though inbounds also could possibly make it even worse if there's a problem. I've had it happen to me; that was one of the factors I identified as causing problems with the site.
Then there's on-page KWD and number of phrase occurences. While for Yahoo a certain ideal density and number of occurences is fine, some believe that for Google it's necessary to whittle down number of occurences of an identical phrase on a page to avoid problems."
Then there's on-page KWD and number of phrase occurences. While for Yahoo a certain ideal density and number of occurences is fine, some believe that for Google it's necessary to whittle down number of occurences of an identical phrase on a page to avoid problems."
Google Pulls Plug on "onmouseover" Pages
Google Pulls Plug on "onmouseover" Pages: "June 23, 2004 (utc 0)
Along with todays PR update, I've also noticed that several sites that used the increasingly popular tactic of creating keyword stuffed entry pages that forward to the true home page via the onmouseover javascript command are no longer found at all in the index.
This tactic has been discussed here for a number of months now. Nice to see that these sites are no longer appearing in the SERPS.
The sites that were doing this seem to have been completely booted from the index, too. Toolbar shows a gray PR. "
Along with todays PR update, I've also noticed that several sites that used the increasingly popular tactic of creating keyword stuffed entry pages that forward to the true home page via the onmouseover javascript command are no longer found at all in the index.
This tactic has been discussed here for a number of months now. Nice to see that these sites are no longer appearing in the SERPS.
The sites that were doing this seem to have been completely booted from the index, too. Toolbar shows a gray PR. "
Monday, July 05, 2004
Google Cracks Down
Google Cracks Down: "According to threads taking place in several popular search engine marketing forums, it seems that Google has adjusted their algorithms to catch a batch of sites using a JavaScript technique known as 'onmouseover.' "
Google Alters AdWords; Sharpens Relevancy Matching - The Search Engine Marketing Weblog - sem.weblogsinc.com
June 30th 2004 Google Alters AdWords; Sharpens Relevancy Matching - The Search Engine Marketing Weblog - sem.weblogsinc.com: "Google sent an e-mail to AdWords advertisers today announcing an algorithmic change to the matching of ads and keywords. For now, the change affects only broad-matched keywords associated with AdWords ads displayed on Google.com, but Google promises the improved relevance will ultimately affect other matching options and other portions of the advertising network... it is clear that broad matching will no longer be as broad. Although Google expresses a somewhat defensive tone in the e-mail and related FAQ, the truth is that this change should be good news for advertisers, especially those who rely on broad matching to eliminate the work of fine-tuning keyword. Here is the example Google uses—"
”For example, an advertiser specializing in Alaskan cruises may have selected cruises (broad-matched) for their campaign. Previously, this keyword may have been disabled due to poor performance on more popular queries such as Hawaiian cruises. Instead of disabling all broad match variations of cruises, we will now show this ad for specific query variations that are more relevant to the ad, such as Alaskan cruises.”
The big question is HOW—how will Google determine niched relevancy in an ad? Is the change really algorithmic as I stated above, or will human resources be used to evaluate ads? (The second possibility is far less likely than the first.)
One implication seems clear: Google is de-emphasizing broad matching in favor of exact matching.
If the keywords are matched more intelligently to start with, the chances of poor performance are lessened. Is it possible that Google is using this after-the-fact determination to refine the matching relevancy? Nobody outside Google knows, but some posters at WebmasterWorld are already seeing changes in ad positioning.
Includes comments by "adwords advisor"
AdWords Announce Improved Ad Relevancy: "Power posting enables you to put in a unique max CPC and URL for a bunch of different keyword tied to one ad. It helps to make things a little faster on the setup but if you want to have unique ads for each keyword ya still have to type all that in. "
”For example, an advertiser specializing in Alaskan cruises may have selected cruises (broad-matched) for their campaign. Previously, this keyword may have been disabled due to poor performance on more popular queries such as Hawaiian cruises. Instead of disabling all broad match variations of cruises, we will now show this ad for specific query variations that are more relevant to the ad, such as Alaskan cruises.”
The big question is HOW—how will Google determine niched relevancy in an ad? Is the change really algorithmic as I stated above, or will human resources be used to evaluate ads? (The second possibility is far less likely than the first.)
One implication seems clear: Google is de-emphasizing broad matching in favor of exact matching.
If the keywords are matched more intelligently to start with, the chances of poor performance are lessened. Is it possible that Google is using this after-the-fact determination to refine the matching relevancy? Nobody outside Google knows, but some posters at WebmasterWorld are already seeing changes in ad positioning.
Includes comments by "adwords advisor"
AdWords Announce Improved Ad Relevancy: "Power posting enables you to put in a unique max CPC and URL for a bunch of different keyword tied to one ad. It helps to make things a little faster on the setup but if you want to have unique ads for each keyword ya still have to type all that in. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)