I requested the Planet Ocean guys to take a look at one of those banned sites. Someone there took the time to do a farily detailed check (judging from their response) and finally said that they could find nothing wrong with it.
Doesn't surprise me. All the more reason why I don't thnk James knows either.
Sorry about your sites san1. Best thing probably is to do what James did - just redo them on new domains.
Maybe there's no discernable reason other than Google took umbrage to the claims James made about achieving a certain ranking in Google, and then teaching others how to do it.
I've seen this happen before when marketers made claims about beating Google. Not that James was blatant, either. But the trend seems to be that it's the "kiss of death" to make statements like: "Here's my site and it's currently ranking #1 under these keywords due to the following methods," and so forth. I get this feeling Google sometimes replies with "Well, we shall see about that!" And then BAM, the site drops like a rock.
I wonder about Brad Fallon's wedding favor site which he loves to toss around in a similar fashion. I loved reading his success story but worry that if Google gets wind of it they'll ban it out of existence, just because they can.
BTW, I'm new to this board, and love the exchanges. I'm also building a couple sites, one of which has been a total flop for the past year. So I'm learning with everyone else.
Welcome ubiqitous ! I too am fairy new, and there are some good things to learn here.
As for the Martell issue, since he really hasn't come forth with a clear explanation, it's still only speculation. I have my doubts that google would respond in the way you've described. I lean to something in his linking - for example, dynamic linking, cross-linking etc. For his credibility sake, I hope he gives some detail soon.
Maybe there's no discernable reason other than Google took umbrage to the claims James made about achieving a certain ranking in Google, and then teaching others how to do it.
I agree. I think this is the reason. I personally believe the "1st-in" sites were manually removed from Google and the PR0 penalty has nothing to do with an algorithm.
I agree too. I think he drew attention to himself and his sites and any real "problems" he may have had with his sites then became big problems in a sense.
I also agree with regards to STSE. Google crushing or stomping? That's definitely begging for it
Do you really believe that google would drop someone just because they are popular ? That's abolutely contrary to the whole point of a SE. If you really think so then what about SBI ? Evoy makes the same claims to being at the top and getting his students there.
Besides, the great majority of Martell's sites were not in the top 10, or even 30. And I'd bet that most of his keyword pages dont make it to the top 10 either. A couple months back, I randomly checked 70 of his pages - 1 was in the top 10, another at 35. The rest were somewhere below 50.
Martell's system works, but it works by taking basic SEO and shot-gunning 200 pages to the engines. Out of hundreds and hundreds, a few words make it high enough to get visitors. Get enough of those and you'll get decent traffic to support a site. nothing wrong with that. But it doesnt get you a PR0.
Not because they are popular, but because they are teaching "se optimization", with example sites sitting there that may have some issues ("excessive" self crosslinking or whatever).
Last edited by MakeMoney on Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:38 pm; edited 7 times in total
I didnt like the format of it. That's all I'm gonna say about it.
There is no magic with this stuff, at least according to what I've read. You basically just do your on page optimization, and keep it mild - and then ... get links, links, links and then when you are tired and exhausted, finally, go get some links already.
Last edited by MakeMoney on Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Do you really believe that google would drop someone just because they are popular ? That's abolutely contrary to the whole point of a SE. If you really think so then what about SBI ?
MakeMoney wrote:
Not because they are popular, but because they teaching "se optimization", with example sites sitting there that may have some issues ("excessive" self crosslinking or whatever).
A certain SE expert (lets call him M) used to claim he had all his sites banned from Google for writing just one article about how to optimise.
I'm not sure exactly what he was advocating in that article, but he had to resort to the rather dubious practise of spoofing domain regs to get around the problem.
johncpu wrote:
Evoy makes the same claims to being at the top and getting his students there.
He also openly praises Google and repeatedly emphasises the way his method is SE-friendly - by producing pages searchers will expect (and be happy) to find.
In addition to reassuring customers, maybe there is a secondary agenda, too. Support the supporter is a time-tested, effective policy, so why not do something similar here?
Just my opinion,
Charlie. _________________ "Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx
There is no magic with this stuff, at least according to what I've read. You basically just do your on page optimization, and keep it mild - and then ... get links, links, links and then when you are tired and exhausted, finally, go get some links already.
There is more to critique than the format, but I basically agree with makemoney. $170 ??.... no way. It always amazes me how internet marketers are willing to buy a book for 100 times more than what they would pay for that same book in a book store. People pay such ridiculous amounts for poor quality, which breeds more poor quality.
Quote:
A certain SE expert (lets call him M) used to claim he had all his sites banned from Google for writing just one article about how to optimise.
Sounds like a back door self-compliment. So among all the other well-known google optiomisers out there, this one guy was banned because of one article ? Nah. There are plenty of black-hat SEOs well ranked in google for pitching manipulation. More likely this Mr M was banned because his site violated a google rule, and he got caught... simple as that. We need to get away from this notion that Google is this big monster always trying to thwart people who rank well or teach us how to rank well.
Quote:
He (Evoy) also openly praises Google and repeatedly emphasises the way his method is SE-friendly
But so does Maretell. His constantly says to give google and the other SEs what they want in terms of good contect. The big difference from SBI is that Martell's 200-300 word articles are usually void of meaningful content. But even that by itself, IMHO, is not enough to get you banned.
Joined: 24 Aug 2004 Posts: 97 Location: Down by the sea in NC
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 8:20 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Quote:
I didnt like the format of it.
There is more to critique than the format, but I basically agree with makemoney. $170 ??.... no way. It always amazes me how internet marketers are willing to buy a book for 100 times more than what they would pay for that same book in a book store. People pay such ridiculous amounts for poor quality, which breeds more poor quality.
johncpu,
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion however, to set the record straight, MakeMoney was talking about Brad Fallon's Stomping the Search Engines when he stated that he "didn't like the format of it," not James Martell's Affiliate Marketer's Handbook.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Your host: Allan Gardyne. Earning a good living from affiliate
programs since 1998.
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
