Negative Seo - Google bans Forbes
- 3rd Jul 2007
- Leave a Comment
- Google
SEO
check out the search terms Negative Seo, where the fuck is Forbes, it was number 1 at the weekend.
look at Brendan’s Blog he outline the positions on the keyword “Negative Seo”, so what happened.
Did Google really ban Forbes ( again ), if so that’s foul play, but honestly I don’t think it’s a ban.
Google has been rolling out new data, gut feeling they have targeted sites that have the footprints of Link Baiting or a Pseudo Google bowling and buy links the easiest place to buy links is Blogs ! www.johnchow.com example that was banned in google recently. It to early for me to make a judgement call on this, But that forbes article did get a lot of blog links quickly, anyway I will digger deeper. this Data Push has hurt White Hat Sites more than Black Hat site
DaveN
22 Comments | Leave a comment »
Forbes is still alive and kicking in the States Dave. Being a webmaster was so easy 10 years ago - now it seems if you make one slip up you either get toasted or have sites saying that you’re toasting will happen very soon…
TOASTED!
It not a “ban” ban for sure - they still have hundreds of thousands of pages indexed in a site: search, decent ranking for some nice 2 word generics (ie business news).
What does occur to me though is that G seem to be a bit freer with term specific penalties these days. I had a recent client who had lost a LOT of ranking for their 2 word money term (from #3 to 100+). It looked as though they had overused it a bit internally, and a bit of de-optimising (mixing up some internal anchor text), and a few other tweaks have restored them to #3.
I wonder if something similar may have happened here, a LOT of links using the same anchor text suddenly appeared… and the target page is gone. Is that the definition of “irony”?
Opera now, Dave?
Yeah, I don’t see them up there from here in the UK either.
I see them in 5th on http://216.239.59.104.
They redirect you the first time to a nice big ad before allowing you to click continue to read the article…
I still see’em there in the US serps
Here in Japan, although accessing google.com, I am seeing the Forbes article at #5 or #3 if one doesn’t count the indented same-domain results.
Hey, Dave, what happens when an SEO visits Matt the cat?
He loses his hat - head.
:)
Igor
Probably there was a problem with google dadabase, sometimes it takes place for a short time!
I got Forbes at #2 here in Canada Dave (although on Google.com and not .ca obviously).
I see them at #5 both on google.com and google.co.uk.
I am curious though… why do you keep using the word “banned” on sites that aren’t?
Well I could see their website on the main index of google. Looks like the problem is sorted out or some dc’s different result!
Being indexed is not a sign of not being penalized anymore, Google has evolved beyond that.
Whoops, comment #7 was meant as a response to Comment #6, not like I was trying to tell DaveN he didn’t know already.
Being penalized means that you get filter, but ban you get manualy and you site is out of google index.
Ha, even the MFA site wwwjohnchow.com appears above johnchow.com for his name.
Seriously though, how stupid does G look! Fair enough the guy openly admits to pushing the limits, but at the end of the day, johnchow.com IS WITHOUT QUESTION the most relevant site for the query ‘john chow’ - no matter what tactics he has used.
Hey Dave, I just have to say that I love the new site design.
There are definitely some interesting lessons to be learned about John’s site. The search results for the “john chow” name seem to be changing daily, though, so the MFA site isn’t there anymore.
Still alive and kicking on Google China, too. Mind you, I think it’s fair play if they ban all the major corps one by one at some point.. perhaps someones throwing darts at a Fortune 500 list?
Well then that f*cking idiot john chow shouldn’t have sold links.
I heard John Chow still ranks number one for asian american transexual seo’s
Forbes is still #1 here, i’m #5 for the term which i havn’t really been trying to rank for and this page is currently at #10
I think it’s a term they would love to remove Forbes for due to the impact Negative SEO is having on the index and reputation to Google, but they really can’t.
A lot of Google changes seam to hurt White Hat Sites more
I have a tough time keeping up with google and all the changes they make. Dont get me wrong, I think they are on top of their game but I find myself spending more time worrying about my google organic search rank than my own health.