Comments on: Guilty by Association – the Google Penalty http://www.jtpratt.com/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/ Wordpress Consulting, Wordpress Help, Custom Themes and Plugins Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:54:26 +0000 hourly 1 By: Boat Rod http://www.jtpratt.com/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-6788 Boat Rod Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:23:06 +0000 http://www.jtpratt.com/2008/03/04/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-6788 Yes, I would agree that Google gets better every year with identifying reality. Automated post and bookmarking tools are usually a short term solution. The best thing to do is to manually write unique content that you would want to read. Yes, I would agree that Google gets better every year with identifying reality. Automated post and bookmarking tools are usually a short term solution. The best thing to do is to manually write unique content that you would want to read.

]]> By: admin http://www.jtpratt.com/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-4442 admin Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:54:25 +0000 http://www.jtpratt.com/2008/03/04/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-4442 @Ivan - In my experience, those pages omitted almost always have something duplicate on them, the title, description, or otherwise... @Ivan – In my experience, those pages omitted almost always have something duplicate on them, the title, description, or otherwise…

]]> By: Ivan | JobsBlog.ie http://www.jtpratt.com/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-4440 Ivan | JobsBlog.ie Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:40:42 +0000 http://www.jtpratt.com/2008/03/04/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-4440 Are you sure that the quoted text impies a duplicate content: In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 18 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. Almost all the common searches within any big sites will return this text at the bottom. And google is well able to show them all if you ant. And they are certainly not duplicate. I got an impression Google just tries to remove simmilar results, to show you the variety in teh SERP? Ivan | JobsBlog.ies last blog post..<a href="http://www.jobsblog.ie/Jobs/resignation-letter-the-yahoo-stile/129" rel="nofollow">Resignation Letter the Yahoo Stile!</a> Are you sure that the quoted text impies a duplicate content:

In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 18 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.

Almost all the common searches within any big sites will return this text at the bottom. And google is well able to show them all if you ant. And they are certainly not duplicate.

I got an impression Google just tries to remove simmilar results, to show you the variety in teh SERP?

Ivan | JobsBlog.ies last blog post..Resignation Letter the Yahoo Stile!

]]> By: admin http://www.jtpratt.com/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-4182 admin Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:33:12 +0000 http://www.jtpratt.com/2008/03/04/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-4182 @iPhone Auctions Australia - I don't know about penalized as much as "ignored". I've seen a few posts lately by people who were using "bookmarking demons" to get links to their sites or other kinds of semi-blackhat tools, to which I say why? You're just asking google to eventually catch you. The point of a social bookmarking site is to link sites that interest you and "tag" them in relevant categories. Seems to me (if you were going to bookmark yourself), it would be more beneficial to change the title, keywords, tag, description, etc. - because it would look more "natural". @iPhone Auctions Australia – I don’t know about penalized as much as “ignored”. I’ve seen a few posts lately by people who were using “bookmarking demons” to get links to their sites or other kinds of semi-blackhat tools, to which I say why? You’re just asking google to eventually catch you. The point of a social bookmarking site is to link sites that interest you and “tag” them in relevant categories. Seems to me (if you were going to bookmark yourself), it would be more beneficial to change the title, keywords, tag, description, etc. – because it would look more “natural”.

]]> By: iPhone Auctions Australia http://www.jtpratt.com/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-4179 iPhone Auctions Australia Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:30:55 +0000 http://www.jtpratt.com/2008/03/04/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-4179 Regarding duplicate content - When submitting a blog post to social bookmarking sites, is it important to write new content to explain the post? I've been submitting blog posts word for word (same headline and a few sentences from the blog) to social bookmarking sites - and am now wondering if i would be penalized for doing this...? Your thoughts? Anthony iPhone Auctions Australias last blog post..<a href="http://iphoneauctions.com.au/iphone-21-software-will-have-directional-gps/" rel="nofollow">iPhone 2.1 Software will have DIRECTIONAL GPS</a> Regarding duplicate content -

When submitting a blog post to social bookmarking sites, is it important to write new content to explain the post?

I’ve been submitting blog posts word for word (same headline and a few sentences from the blog) to social bookmarking sites – and am now wondering if i would be penalized for doing this…?

Your thoughts?

Anthony

iPhone Auctions Australias last blog post..iPhone 2.1 Software will have DIRECTIONAL GPS

]]> By: Acupuncture http://www.jtpratt.com/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-3402 Acupuncture Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:18:18 +0000 http://www.jtpratt.com/2008/03/04/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-3402 I see this is an old post. . . but still very relevant. The first site I did a few months ago was #4 for an easy term but key for me =)] Did a few "SEO" techniques and as soon as google crawled it again I was 100+ Dropped like a rock. Changed a few things back. . . similar to the seo mistakes article you linked to (some SEO stuff out there is so wrong!). Within a week I was back to the previous spot. So, is there a penalty for the top commenters?? =)r Charles I see this is an old post. . . but still very relevant.

The first site I did a few months ago was #4 for an easy term but key for me =)]
Did a few “SEO” techniques and as soon as google crawled it again I was 100+
Dropped like a rock.

Changed a few things back. . . similar to the seo mistakes article you linked to (some SEO stuff out there is so wrong!).

Within a week I was back to the previous spot.

So, is there a penalty for the top commenters?? =)r

Charles

]]> By: Shafiq Rehman http://www.jtpratt.com/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-3192 Shafiq Rehman Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:09:03 +0000 http://www.jtpratt.com/2008/03/04/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-3192 I must say that its very very helpfull. Now a days, my blog also seems penalized by Google as I am not getting any traffic from google. I am unable to find the exact reason of penalty, still trying to figure it out. <em>Shafiq Rehman's last blog post..<a href='http://shafiq.pk/2008/03/18/watch-dawn-news-tv-live/' rel="nofollow">Watch Dawn News TV Live</a></em> I must say that its very very helpfull. Now a days, my blog also seems penalized by Google as I am not getting any traffic from google.

I am unable to find the exact reason of penalty, still trying to figure it out.

Shafiq Rehman’s last blog post..Watch Dawn News TV Live

]]> By: Ian (from Canberra) http://www.jtpratt.com/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-3017 Ian (from Canberra) Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:49:43 +0000 http://www.jtpratt.com/2008/03/04/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-3017 Thats a very good explanation of the "google slap". I hope they don't start penalising the top commentators plugin - that would be going over the top I think. <em>Ian (from Canberra)'s last blog post..<a href='http://www.mybigworldofcrap.org/2008/03/09/corey-meet-gemma/' rel="nofollow">Corey, Meet Gemma</a></em> Thats a very good explanation of the “google slap”. I hope they don’t start penalising the top commentators plugin – that would be going over the top I think.

Ian (from Canberra)’s last blog post..Corey, Meet Gemma

]]> By: Sneef http://www.jtpratt.com/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-2985 Sneef Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:34:29 +0000 http://www.jtpratt.com/2008/03/04/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-2985 While you are not wrong about what you say about you being able to "come out" of the omitted search results by making your page substantially different from others, this had NOTHING to do with the google duplicate content penalty... the google duplicate content penalty works completely differently. I will not be taking the time to teach you or your readers about how is actually works... I will leave it to you and let you do the research and then hopefully you can make an informed blog posting about the real truth of google dupe content penalty. While you are not wrong about what you say about you being able to “come out” of the omitted search results by making your page substantially different from others, this had NOTHING to do with the google duplicate content penalty… the google duplicate content penalty works completely differently.

I will not be taking the time to teach you or your readers about how is actually works… I will leave it to you and let you do the research and then hopefully you can make an informed blog posting about the real truth of google dupe content penalty.

]]> By: admin http://www.jtpratt.com/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-2984 admin Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:14:31 +0000 http://www.jtpratt.com/2008/03/04/guilty-by-association-the-google-penalty/#comment-2984 Wow! I mispoke about the "google" 50 and have since edited that sentence. If you read the whole article, you'd see that while I initially said it was a 'number of days' penalty, in the very next paragraph I explained exactly what you said - it drops you 50 places in SERPS. Regarding your comment about the "ommitted results" - if you think it's nonsense I challenge you to prove it. I myself, know that it's true because I've had sites (and seen sites) where there was duplicate content either by content, title, or description. And by changing them to be unique - all or nearly all pages "came out" of the 'omitted results' (or supplemental index) to be included in the main search results once again. So, by my own personal experience of fixing this problem for myself and for others - I have proven that it is indeed not "total nonsense". I am completely willing to listen if you can give concrete evidence as to why you think I'm misleading people - I will approve your comment so all can read... =)] Wow! I mispoke about the “google” 50 and have since edited that sentence. If you read the whole article, you’d see that while I initially said it was a ‘number of days’ penalty, in the very next paragraph I explained exactly what you said – it drops you 50 places in SERPS.

Regarding your comment about the “ommitted results” – if you think it’s nonsense I challenge you to prove it. I myself, know that it’s true because I’ve had sites (and seen sites) where there was duplicate content either by content, title, or description. And by changing them to be unique – all or nearly all pages “came out” of the ‘omitted results’ (or supplemental index) to be included in the main search results once again.

So, by my own personal experience of fixing this problem for myself and for others – I have proven that it is indeed not “total nonsense”. I am completely willing to listen if you can give concrete evidence as to why you think I’m misleading people – I will approve your comment so all can read…
=)]

]]>