Page 1 of 4 123 ... Last
  • Jump to page:
    #1
  1. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    31
    Rep Power
    17

    I am a spammer...


    ...it seems. Ok, ok, I tried some optimizing myself and got kicked from Google it seems, so I must`ve done something wrong. So I redid at least my index page to get back in. But I want to learn: what did I do wrong?

    And will this reworking do? Here is the new version:
    http://www.erwin-friedmann-verlag.de/

    Now this is what I did:

    Reduced the title to 59 characters
    Reduced the description to 144 characters
    Reduced the keywords to 987 characters

    Am I a good boy again now? I thought you can use as many keywords as you like, they just don`t get read. Was THIS my mistake?

    And now for what I didn`t change:

    As my index is a frameset I filled the noframes area with a lot of text and keywords and links to the sub-pages. That ain`t wrong, is it?

    Also I didn`t rework the subpages, as I first want to see what happens.
    I treat every subpage as a startpage (and if you want to see how the index was before just go to a subpage where everything is still cluttered).

    So what do you suggest? Shall I do more with my index? Shall I rework my subpages asap? Thank you very much!
    Stu
  2. #2
  3. SEO Freak
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    1,410
    Rep Power
    24
    Your title, plus description and keywords meta tags, are not going to be the problem. First of all the description and keywords tags are practically ignored anyway, and the title tag apart from perhaps more than 3-4 repetitions, is not going to land you in hot water. Cross linking, hidden text, tricky redirects, hundreds of doorway pages are much more likely to trigger a reaction from Google. I suspect, like many, you are also caught up in the wierd and wonderful (or perhaps not so wonderful) major algorithm changes currently going on. You will probably find your backlinks returning during the next few weeks and by mid June you should be back to normal.

    I've written a special notice in German about what's happening here.


    Schöne Gruß aus Hannover :-)
    Alan
    What is a website without traffic?
    ABAKUS Internet Marketing
  4. #3
  5. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    31
    Rep Power
    17
    First of all: Thanx for the replies, both private and in the forum!
    Secondly (regarding PhilC`s posting): Intertecs is NOT banned from Google, though it has a low/no rank, it still is indexed, as the check with site:blablabla shows. It is just not optimized for searchengines in any way but at the same time it is neither breaking any rules (I think). So I guess that shouldn`t be the problem. In a private message I got the hint that my JS is blocking out the spiders. Shock! Can it really be that JS is automatically a spider-blocker? Hard to believe I must say, but HEY! you are the experts, so I got to reconsider... but then I tested Friedman with several free tools in the net and by now it got only good results. What`s the deal?
    Stu
  6. #4
  7. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Weingarten
    Posts
    554
    Rep Power
    17
    OK

    In my PM i meant that youre Javascript Links in youre Topframe a spider only sees as "javascript:;". That means the SPider cant follow youre Links and could not catch youre Content. Its important to have a page with Content in it. The SPider only sees a single Page without content.

    Grüsse vom Bodensee
    Entschuldige bitte mein schlechtes Englisch
  8. #5
  9. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Geneva Switzerland
    Posts
    150
    Rep Power
    17
    Stu, I saw this at the bottom of your html but could not find it on your page.

    Is this some hidden/transparent gif? If so, you should remove it or make it clearly visible on the page - otherwise Google won't like you :-(

    <td height="1"><img height="1" width="599" src="file:///D|/Webdesign/BITEC/Friedmann_Verlag/spacer.gif"></td>
    <td><img height="1" width="402" src="file:///D|/Webdesign/BITEC/Friedmann_Verlag/spacer.gif"></td>

    Gruss aus Genf
  10. #6
  11. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    31
    Rep Power
    17
    You're a great bunch of guys (seen no girls so far). Some comments to your answers so far:
    First I learned something new today: You do not need a onClick, just use a proper HTML-link. Thanx Firestarter! But that didn't kick me off Google. Besides you were commenting on my top frame with the navigation, but my entry page (index) is the frameset, so I guess that is where to look first. Then regarding Fred: Yes I do use transparent gifs a lot as spacer gifs to keep tables up, you know the game. I didn't think Google is punishing for this!?! I mean transparent spacer-gifs are common (and in my eyes useful, though there are probably better ways which I just haven't found out yet), so could they really be a problem? Anyway, the spacer-gif you found is certainly wrongly adressed, so thanks for pointing out! And your english is great, understood every word, Firestarter!

    Gruss aus Regensburg

    Stu
  12. #7
  13. SEO Freak
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    1,410
    Rep Power
    24
    I doubt very much you are penalized at all. As I said, Google is a bit sick at the moment so do not read too much into toolbar pagerank etc.
    The transparent gifs, onclick etc, the js you mentioned and used is not going to get your site banned. In fact I doubt you have been penalized at all. It just looks that way because Google 'Spinnt' at the moment.
  14. #8
  15. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    31
    Rep Power
    17
    Thanx Webby! Let's hope google has soon "ausgesponnen"
    Still glad I came here, great place!
    Stu
  16. #9
  17. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    341
    Rep Power
    17
    Originally posted by "domainsnow4u"


    <td height="1"><img height="1" width="599" src="/Webdesign/BITEC/Friedmann_Verlag/spacer.gif"></td>
    <td><img height="1" width="402" src="/Webdesign/BITEC/Friedmann_Verlag/spacer.gif"></td>
    just using a spacer.jpg in a table can hurt you? There is no keywords or anything.

    just asking a question.

    Thanks in advance

    lilbit
  18. #10
  19. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by "lilbit"

    Originally Posted by domainsnow4u
    <td height="1"><img height="1" width="599" src="/Webdesign/BITEC/Friedmann_Verlag/spacer.gif"></td>
    <td><img height="1" width="402" src="/Webdesign/BITEC/Friedmann_Verlag/spacer.gif"></td>
    just using a spacer.jpg in a table can hurt you? There is no keywords or anything.

    just asking a question.

    Thanks in advance

    lilbit
    No, just using spacers can't get you in trouble with google. I think the people who have been suggesting that transparent gifs (or jpgs or pngs or whatever) have gotten a little confused about something they read before. Using transparent 1x1 gifs as LINKS on your page is something that may trip the google spam algo, because that is a link clearly not meant for your user. If your transparent images aren't links, then you have nothing to worry about. They are simply used to control the display for your user, and while not directly seen by the user, they *are* itegral to the finished product your user sees. So don't worry.

    Flamewine
  20. #11
  21. SEO Freak
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    1,410
    Rep Power
    24
    You got it flamewine. That's exactly what Google doesnt like. Its the 1x1 transparent gif as links they are most likely to penalize. Hell, if you penalized transparent spacer gifs, half the web would fall out of google ;-)
  22. #12
  23. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    524
    Rep Power
    17
    Originally posted by "Webby"

    You got it flamewine. That's exactly what Google doesnt like. Its the 1x1 transparent gif as links they are most likely to penalize. Hell, if you penalized transparent spacer gifs, half the web would fall out of google ;-)
    And some of us would be a bit peaved at not being able to place our stuff where we want it.

    Cheers,
    theBear
  24. #13
  25. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    91
    Rep Power
    17
    I would get rid of that duplicate content but fast. your site got a grey bar meaning Banned. (as you have been in the index before).
  26. #14
  27. SEO Freak
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    1,410
    Rep Power
    24
    Actually viggen grey normally means a site that has missed a deepcrawl (unspiderable) or is brand new. As it stands however Google is broke and a grey bar/pr0 may well just be a temporary thing whilst Google sorts its act out. A white bar with pr0 is more likely to be a penalization, and even then don't read anything into a white bar pr0 right now. People have to now accustom themselves to the fact Google is undergoing major changes and what webmasters used to be able to call a black and white situation is no longer the case. We shall have to wait until Google sorts its house out, apparently mid june time.
  28. #15
  29. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    31
    Rep Power
    17
    Yeah, I should just be a bit more patient - and do what Firestarter suggested, including the dmoz thing. Then wait and see... thanx again!

    BTW what do you all think of this tactic of trying to get every subpage listed by treating it like a index page (meta-tags etc). I do this to subpages with content but also to pages that have no or little content, like the header-page within the frameset that has no info but the navigation bar. I certainly understand that those with little content have a smaller chance to get listed but could they even be considered a dirty trick?

    Stu
Page 1 of 4 123 ... Last
  • Jump to page:

Similar Threads

  1. Blogged links - auto linking?
    By TigerGreen in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Nov 20th, 2003, 05:17 PM
  2. Is this site a spammer?
    By cnxnet in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Aug 27th, 2003, 04:45 PM

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo