<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Selective Page Filtering &amp; Web Spam &#8211; Payola $180 Gift</title>
	<atom:link href="http://andybeard.eu/874/google-web-spam.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://andybeard.eu/874/google-web-spam.html</link>
	<description>Internet Marketing, Lead Acquisition, Online Business Strategy and Social Media with Original Opinion and Loads of Attitude</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:54:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: &#187; Don&#8217;t Fuck With Google Marketing Conversation - New Marketing and Social Media by Abraham Harrison LLC</title>
		<link>http://andybeard.eu/874/google-web-spam.html#comment-87679</link>
		<dc:creator>&#187; Don&#8217;t Fuck With Google Marketing Conversation - New Marketing and Social Media by Abraham Harrison LLC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 05:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andybeard.eu/2007/06/google-web-spam.html#comment-87679</guid>
		<description>[...] If I may quote the Holy Bible, &#8220;as I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it.&#8221; So, Mark sent me an email with a link to Google Purges The Payola: &#8220;Search engine marketing consultant and blogger Rand Fishkin recently compiled a list of more than 70 sites with names like LinksFactory.net and DirectoryDump.com, which have been relegated in the past three weeks to the hardly seen back pages of Google&#8217;s (nasdaq: GOOG -  news  -  people ) results, even when users search for them by name.&#8221; Via Forbes and Andy Beard [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] If I may quote the Holy Bible, &#8220;as I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it.&#8221; So, Mark sent me an email with a link to Google Purges The Payola: &#8220;Search engine marketing consultant and blogger Rand Fishkin recently compiled a list of more than 70 sites with names like LinksFactory.net and DirectoryDump.com, which have been relegated in the past three weeks to the hardly seen back pages of Google&#8217;s (nasdaq: GOOG &#8211;  news  &#8211;  people ) results, even when users search for them by name.&#8221; Via Forbes and Andy Beard [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Volusion Review Followup &#124; Andy Beard - Niche Marketing</title>
		<link>http://andybeard.eu/874/google-web-spam.html#comment-60833</link>
		<dc:creator>Volusion Review Followup &#124; Andy Beard - Niche Marketing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:14:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andybeard.eu/2007/06/google-web-spam.html#comment-60833</guid>
		<description>[...] reported 6 weeks ago that for some reason for a period of maybe 2 months my review of Volusion had disappeared from Google search results although it remained on a tag [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] reported 6 weeks ago that for some reason for a period of maybe 2 months my review of Volusion had disappeared from Google search results although it remained on a tag [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steal Content From Download Squad to get links! &#124; Andy Beard - Niche Marketing</title>
		<link>http://andybeard.eu/874/google-web-spam.html#comment-55263</link>
		<dc:creator>Steal Content From Download Squad to get links! &#124; Andy Beard - Niche Marketing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andybeard.eu/2007/06/google-web-spam.html#comment-55263</guid>
		<description>[...] I often include lots of internal linking in every post to maximise the benefit, and it helps to establish ownership of the original article (Google might have fixed some of my previous link attribution worries) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I often include lots of internal linking in every post to maximise the benefit, and it helps to establish ownership of the original article (Google might have fixed some of my previous link attribution worries) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CoolAdzine for Marketers</title>
		<link>http://andybeard.eu/874/google-web-spam.html#comment-51925</link>
		<dc:creator>CoolAdzine for Marketers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:53:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andybeard.eu/2007/06/google-web-spam.html#comment-51925</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Do You Know What Google is Doing to Andy Beard?...&lt;/strong&gt;

Niche Marketing - Andy Beard has exposed some problems with the Google algorithm and syndicated content.  He shares this problem with his readers.Apparently, Andy wrote a blog post about dofollow plug......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Do You Know What Google is Doing to Andy Beard?&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Niche Marketing &#8211; Andy Beard has exposed some problems with the Google algorithm and syndicated content.  He shares this problem with his readers.Apparently, Andy wrote a blog post about dofollow plug&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Beard</title>
		<link>http://andybeard.eu/874/google-web-spam.html#comment-44774</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Beard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:51:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andybeard.eu/2007/06/google-web-spam.html#comment-44774</guid>
		<description>Rob - I am juggling so many things currently it is hard to decide what to do next as SEO of this site, but more likely it will be the Sandcastles approach I talked about.

That will be a much larger change than I have made in the past, but I am hoping for it to make a dramatic difference to write about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rob &#8211; I am juggling so many things currently it is hard to decide what to do next as SEO of this site, but more likely it will be the Sandcastles approach I talked about.</p>
<p>That will be a much larger change than I have made in the past, but I am hoping for it to make a dramatic difference to write about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Beard</title>
		<link>http://andybeard.eu/874/google-web-spam.html#comment-44773</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Beard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:47:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andybeard.eu/2007/06/google-web-spam.html#comment-44773</guid>
		<description>I agree it was a long post, and it was also lacking in images to break up the flow. It is quite technical as well and it took a lot of words to explain my reasoning.

Sometimes it can&#039;t be helped if you want to portray the full arguments, and I also find that providing detailed posts makes the comments much more interesting as well.

I would be quite happy if Google decided that a lot of my duplicate content pages should hit the supplemental results.
If someone searched for &quot;Volusion Shopping Cart Review&quot; they might show the supplemental page rather than a &quot;Volusion Review&quot; page.
Supplemental results are meant to be because of lack of pagerank, duplicate content typically has lower pagerank, because it doesn&#039;t have links.

I think it might have been a manual or semi-automated removal &quot;sight unseen&quot; - they didn&#039;t really look at the value of the page.
A real algorithm would have also picked up my volusion tag page which is still indexed.

I can&#039;t see a reason that the original page was kicked out, but the volusion tag remains other than a mistake in a manual review.

Also of note, Google have said that they woouldn&#039;t be penalising the content that has the links, but devaluing the  links on the page. They are not meant to be kicking my content out of the serps.

This is easpecially true because less than 1% of my original content is paid reviews. Hell I don&#039;t even use text-link-ads, and my affiliate links are mainly nofollowed, though on some I have been a little careless.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree it was a long post, and it was also lacking in images to break up the flow. It is quite technical as well and it took a lot of words to explain my reasoning.</p>
<p>Sometimes it can&#8217;t be helped if you want to portray the full arguments, and I also find that providing detailed posts makes the comments much more interesting as well.</p>
<p>I would be quite happy if Google decided that a lot of my duplicate content pages should hit the supplemental results.<br />
If someone searched for &#8220;Volusion Shopping Cart Review&#8221; they might show the supplemental page rather than a &#8220;Volusion Review&#8221; page.<br />
Supplemental results are meant to be because of lack of pagerank, duplicate content typically has lower pagerank, because it doesn&#8217;t have links.</p>
<p>I think it might have been a manual or semi-automated removal &#8220;sight unseen&#8221; &#8211; they didn&#8217;t really look at the value of the page.<br />
A real algorithm would have also picked up my volusion tag page which is still indexed.</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t see a reason that the original page was kicked out, but the volusion tag remains other than a mistake in a manual review.</p>
<p>Also of note, Google have said that they woouldn&#8217;t be penalising the content that has the links, but devaluing the  links on the page. They are not meant to be kicking my content out of the serps.</p>
<p>This is easpecially true because less than 1% of my original content is paid reviews. Hell I don&#8217;t even use text-link-ads, and my affiliate links are mainly nofollowed, though on some I have been a little careless.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Billy</title>
		<link>http://andybeard.eu/874/google-web-spam.html#comment-44735</link>
		<dc:creator>Billy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:58:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andybeard.eu/2007/06/google-web-spam.html#comment-44735</guid>
		<description>Long post, but managed to finish reading it. On the terms of categorizing Volusion into different categories, I think it is correct for search engines to accept one copy and place the other categories into supplemental since it is exactly the same page with only one article.

What&#039;s more fascinating in regards to your study is if you think Google did a manual removal of your reviews after you had reported them as paid for reviews. If Google does not have a true algorithm in place to handle these paid link reports, they will take forever and spend too much unnecessary resources to fight paid links.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Long post, but managed to finish reading it. On the terms of categorizing Volusion into different categories, I think it is correct for search engines to accept one copy and place the other categories into supplemental since it is exactly the same page with only one article.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s more fascinating in regards to your study is if you think Google did a manual removal of your reviews after you had reported them as paid for reviews. If Google does not have a true algorithm in place to handle these paid link reports, they will take forever and spend too much unnecessary resources to fight paid links.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob - SEO Advice</title>
		<link>http://andybeard.eu/874/google-web-spam.html#comment-44209</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob - SEO Advice</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:36:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andybeard.eu/2007/06/google-web-spam.html#comment-44209</guid>
		<description>Nice post Andy

Just this morning, I  noticed quite a few of my content pages on my blog have gone supp, whereas my tagged cat pages are ranking and non supplemental.

Ive just removed the cat list from the internal pages to see if it makes any difference. I thought of nofollowing them, but its just as easy to remove the loop. Home page cat list remains.

Maybe this will result in my cat pages going supp too, will be interesting to see.

Its difficult to gauge whether for me, its an authority thing. I havent gotten too many back links to many of my internal pages and the sites pr isnt exactly huge either.

I just thought it was interesting how their algo decided that my cat pages were worthier than my actual content pages. When I think that every page on the blog had a link to  the various cats, then when viewed from a linkpop perspective its hardly surprising. I was effectively saying, &quot;hey search bot, these are the pages I value the most, because i link to them more than any other&quot;.

I may well change it again and use a robots.txt file instead.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice post Andy</p>
<p>Just this morning, I  noticed quite a few of my content pages on my blog have gone supp, whereas my tagged cat pages are ranking and non supplemental.</p>
<p>Ive just removed the cat list from the internal pages to see if it makes any difference. I thought of nofollowing them, but its just as easy to remove the loop. Home page cat list remains.</p>
<p>Maybe this will result in my cat pages going supp too, will be interesting to see.</p>
<p>Its difficult to gauge whether for me, its an authority thing. I havent gotten too many back links to many of my internal pages and the sites pr isnt exactly huge either.</p>
<p>I just thought it was interesting how their algo decided that my cat pages were worthier than my actual content pages. When I think that every page on the blog had a link to  the various cats, then when viewed from a linkpop perspective its hardly surprising. I was effectively saying, &#8220;hey search bot, these are the pages I value the most, because i link to them more than any other&#8221;.</p>
<p>I may well change it again and use a robots.txt file instead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MoneyFromHome</title>
		<link>http://andybeard.eu/874/google-web-spam.html#comment-44089</link>
		<dc:creator>MoneyFromHome</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:49:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andybeard.eu/2007/06/google-web-spam.html#comment-44089</guid>
		<description>My take on all of this:

google wants to be the only game in town for &quot;paid links&quot; via Google Adwords and Adsense.  And in the short to long run, this is not good!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My take on all of this:</p>
<p>google wants to be the only game in town for &#8220;paid links&#8221; via Google Adwords and Adsense.  And in the short to long run, this is not good!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Beard</title>
		<link>http://andybeard.eu/874/google-web-spam.html#comment-44057</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Beard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:25:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andybeard.eu/2007/06/google-web-spam.html#comment-44057</guid>
		<description>You can have a bonus entry for spotting the typo</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You can have a bonus entry for spotting the typo</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: basic
Database Caching 29/34 queries in 0.007 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 500/504 objects using disk: basic
Content Delivery Network via cdn5.andybeard.name

Served from: andybeard.eu @ 2012-02-13 07:25:15 -->
