Sphinn - Think You're Successfully Flying Under Google's Radar? Think Again.

39
Sphinn It!

Think You're Successfully Flying Under Google's Radar? Think Again.

Went Hot: January 25, 2008 - 10:21 am
Posted By: SiteMost 260 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://searchengineland.com)
Category: Google SEO

Have you been trying to "fly under the radar," engaging in activities outside of Google's guidelines but subtly so as not to get caught?... Well, think again!

6 Comments

Who Desphunn This (0)

Comments

from sza 260 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

There's quite a bit of an exaggeration here. Should only the "pearly white hats" be left standing, that would somehow assume that all valuable content originates from them. Which is very likely not true, not even close.

Would Google or any search engine doing "historical webspam forensics" throw out or relegate a large portion of its indexed content because of past infractions? Not a chance.

Aaron Wall wrote an article (I don't remember its title) that dispels this fear very effectively, saying you will cause net harm to yourself if you willingly limit your options fearing a future backlash.

from baiduyou 260 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Exaggerated yes - but still an interesting article, playing on the fear of how powerful Google almighty has become.

Maybe Santa Claus will start turning to them when he's deciding who's been naughty or nice.

"Scratch the presents for little Jimmy, Santa. Our records indicate he searched for the phrase 'stink bomb' in July - a clear signal of naughty intent."

from Ruud 260 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

I think there's no exaggeration as it is a two-part statement.

The second part doesn't read something like "because they are oh so clean".

Why will they be left standing "because they protected their pristine reputations by keeping a zero historical spam footprint over the years."

That reminds me of Jeff's post regarding digital footprints:

"So in conclusion, just be very careful to leave a clean footprint. Dust away to toe-prints where possible. And make sure the footprint matches your size."

IMO the article suggests these SEO's might be left standing because their digital footprints look clean... says nothing about whether or not they are clean :)

from sza 260 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

No, Ruud, I have to disagree.

The article says exactly the opposite of what you infer. Digital footprints only looking clean is really just another way to phrase "flying under the radar". Stephan Spencer talks about the dangers of this thinking. He believes that this will come back to haunt webmasters.

He says, even if your digital footprint looks clean for now, in the future, Google might still find out that it's tainted somehow.

So, as long as you believe that Google will sooner or later be able to detect just about anything (and impose a penalty based on this), your only option is to actually stay squeaky clean. Not just looking clean.

from g1smd 260 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Back in 2003 or 2004 Google did start to include some aspects of historical data into their algorithm - and some sites were immediately hit with penalties for stuff they had done in the past.

History has a habit of repeating. Be elsewhere when it happens.

from johnandrews 260 days ago #

Votes: 3 | Vote:

+ -

I always find it interesting to watch as SEO people "mature". As their client list shifts from Topeka Realtors to Nike and Coca-Cola, their public statements about SEO change from "Optimizing the keyword density of the title tag" to "Google Knows or Might Somday Be Able to Fnd Out about Your Paid Links".

What should you believe? Is it what they honestly know to be true about SEO, or what they want their clients to understand about how they promise to handle SEO projects for major corporate clients?

Risk management is the rule for *everyone* interested in profitable SEO.