Did Traffic Power Get Me Kicked Out of Google!?

[Freedom1029]

Hi there,
We are using an outside firm to improve our ranking and up to last week we were very happy with the results however since last weekend our domain name is not longer indexed with google. :confused:

I contacted the company doing our optimisation (Traffic Power) and they told me that they were aware of the problem and that they had the same problem with many clients. According to them they were not doing anything wrong and are following all of Goggle’s rules. They told me to sit tight and wait and that everything should come back to normal in a few days. Is that a bunch of rubbish of what! :mad: Anyway so my questions are: Did google change any of their rules lately? How can I find why we got kick out? Is there anything I can do to correct the situation?
Thanks for your help

[Webmaster T]

Search Google for Traffic-Power! I would be very skeptical of anything they tell you. Also to verify that you are indeed banned search using:
site:www.yourdomain.com

That search will list any pages in the Google index from your domain.

[Freedom1029]

Hum just tried to search with the engine www.yourdomain.com and nothing is coming out! Oh boy my boss is going to kill me! :eek:
Our domain is www.clemex.com.

[Phoenix]

Hi Freedom,

I have just gone through the process with a client this past week on getting unpenalized from the Traffic Power issues. One of the causes of this penalization from Google has to do with all the doorway pages that traffic power has developed for your website. I am quessing they probably used duplicate content from your site as well as the same graphics to create these site. Additionally with multiple hidden subpages on the subject, all with urls that contain an email letter like so "youkeyphrases_f.html".

Now how to clean this up is relatively not to difficult, but it will take communicate with traffic power. You must remove all instance of the spam they created for your site. Do not listen to Traffic Power when they say "not doing anything wrong and are following all of Goggle’s rules". They how come hundreds of their clients got penalized in Google??? Avoid bad advice when possible.

They told me to sit tight and wait and that everything should come back to normal in a few days.

Crazy incorrect bad strategy statement. Google penalities can last up to 2 years! Do you think they are going to fix this in a matter of a few days. No!
You should be doing what you can now.

Did google change any of their rules lately?

Yes they did, please take a look at this article here:
http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/000596.html

Basically Google is now penalizing or removing site that have OnMouseOver JavaScript Page Redirects. And I am thinking for some of traffic power clients, there might be a duplicate content penalty going on. T-P was pretty lazy about a lot of this stuff.

What to do:

1. Ask Traffic Power to close you account, and eliminate any mention of your name or links on the doorway pages they created (on ALL of them). MAKE SURE to tell TP, you want to TAKE DOWN and REMOVE the entire site. Meaning you can't access it, it has no content, etc...

2. Get confirmation that is all done. Keep copies of Traffic Power emails. Check over your site to make sure it conforms with googles quality standards. If it does its ready to be resubmited.

3. Send email to: webmaster@google.com or help@google.com with the Subject: "Reinclusion Request".
Tell Google you were a customer of Traffic Power. Were not aware their techniques violated Googles quality quidelines, standards, and TOS. All problem pages have been cleaned up. You would like to resubmit your site for reinclusion.

Included copies of Traffic Power emails confirming content has been taken down with the email if needed.

4. Google will email you back. They will say thank you, and that the matter will be forwarded to Google engineers who will look over your site within 4-6 weeks.

5. Wait for Google to get back with you. Time period can vary widely, but I doubt they will be in any hurry.


Hope that should help. This is what I did for a site that had got penalized for the exact thing. The interesting thing was the client of mine, cancelled it traffic power account over 8 months ago, but the doorway pages still remained. I feel bad for the client of mine, cause they did really great in the serps before this update.

:)

Ben P.

[Webmaster T]

Hum just tried to search with the engine www.yourdomain.com and nothing is coming out! Oh boy my boss is going to kill me! :eek:
Our domain is www.clemex.com.IMO, no he shouldn't you are 1 of likely a thousand. Google allowed this company's work to stay in the SERPs months after the reports started coming into forums and I'm sure their own spam reports.

IMO, Googles choice of dealing with this stuff algorithmically is directly responsible for this scam reaching the proportions it has. We aren't talking about an isolated low number of occurences of this stuff there are IMO, possibly 1,000+ sites affected that's why the buzz is now loud where it was simply a hum a few months back. The only negative thing I can say about those affected was proper due diligence was not done. T-P has been out of the Google index for quite some time. I can show you posts on another forum that are over a year old warning people about this particular firm!

This article by Chris Sherman should be read by anyone looking for an SEO. You'll also find good info on the sites listed in it. Not listed is www.SEMPO.org which also is good place to find info and SEO listings.
http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/2160051

Hope this helps and keeps you out of your bosses dog house!

[NFFC]

>Not listed is www.SEMPO.org which also is good place to find info and SEO listings

You forgot to say IMHO.

[David Wallace]

We have a pretty good thread going on this (http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7421&hl=) at High Rankings.

There is also this one (http://www.jimworld.com/apps/webmaster.forums/action::thread/thread::4094/forum::seo-101/) going on over at Jim World.

The first one is new; the one at JW has been going on for about a year and a half now.

[Bernard]

Traffic Power (http://www.seoconsultants.com/traffic-power/) - class action lawsuit, 12 step program, fora threads index, company background and more.

T, I'm shocked that you are recommending folks use SEMPO as a means to find an SEO company. SEMPO does not screen the membership in any way whatsoever. As long as they pay, they are in. Traffic Power could have been (maybe they are, I haven't checked) a member if they wanted.

[Nacho]

Traffic-Power is NOT a member of SEMPO.org, you can check member listings (http://www.sempo.org/sempo-membership-directory.php) here and select letter "T".

Lets not discuss SEMPO's mission in this thread please, to stay on topic - thanks! :)

[seobook]

Traffic Power called me up not that long ago. Lots of negative feedback from others on my review of Traffic Power (http://www.seobook.com/archives/000314.shtml) .

they are consistantly one of my top half dozen (often times tip 3) keyword referals. that must be a bunch of cold calling...

[dannysullivan]

Not trying to get off the topic of Traffic Power, but this comment raises an important general point:

T, shame on you recommending folks use SEMPO as a means to find an SEO company. SEMPO does not screen the membership in any way whatsoever. As long as they pay, they are in. Traffic Power could have been (maybe they are, I haven't checked) a member if they wanted.

There's nothing wrong in my book in suggesting people look at SEMPO. It's one of many resources out there. It would be wrong to suggest that SEMPO is somehow screening members or providing some type of quality guarantee. They don't do that, and I don't think anyone has posted that in this thread. SEMPOs also got a number of big notes in key parts of its site making it clear they don't do this:

SEMPO is an industry organization designed to promote search engine marketing in general, not an accreditation body for SEM companies. Membership in SEMPO is not a guarantee of a particular search engine marketing company's capabilities, nor does it signify industry approval or disapproval of their practices. Potential SEM customers should carefully research any SEM company they are considering, SEMPO member or not, before establishing a business relationship.

I use my yellow pages all the time. Anyone who pays get into that. Heck, if I search for search engine optimization companies at Google, I get a bunch of ads for companies that aren't screened. Anyone who pays gets in there.

So are these useless resources? Not at all. As a consumer, it's my responsibility to check on references and understand who I choose to do business with. The rules are the same with SEM. There are plenty of resources to find companies that exist to help you. Ultimately, it remains up to you to check them out.

By the way, I think what the SEO Consultants Directory (http://www.seoconsultants.com/) and SeoPros.org (http://www.seopros.org/ ) do to try and some how give you a list of approved firms is great. But there may be perfectly good firms that simply don't list themselves in these places.

To bring it all back to the original point of this thread, is Traffic Power in trouble with Google? Hopefully, they'll give you an answer. But it would be much better if Google and the other search engines simply published lists of firms that they have banned. Then you'd know for certain easily. They don't, of course. I talked about this problem more in this recent article, which also revisits the whole topic of knowing who to trust: Spam Rules Require Effective Spam Police (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3344581).

[Bernard]

I perceive a huge irony in a suggestion that folks look for SEO companies in an unqualified list within a thread describing the problems with a company that by all accounts has managed to get their clients banned from Google.

I think that if a class action lawsuit against Traffic Power materializes, the point of whether or not Traffic Power is in trouble with Google will be demonstrated in court. For now, the empirical evidence is mounting and only the blind cannot see what has happened.

My hope is that if the class action lawsuit does materialize and succeed, it may drive some positive changes within the industry. Hopefully the neverending "debates" about ethics will become moot.

[Webmaster T]

So are these useless resources? Not at all. As a consumer, it's my responsibility to check on references and understand who I choose to do business with. The rules are the same with SEM. There are plenty of resources to find companies that exist to help you. Ultimately, it remains up to you to check them out.Excellent advice. Traffic Power was in the SeoPros directory for a brief period of time. They slipped under the radar and AFAIK at that time weren't doing what they are now. It's been 18 months or more since they were removed from the directory. Another SEO that has warranted a protest site and is mentioned on more than 1 forum was for a brief period in both SeoConsultants and SeoPros so reviews are not a guarantee of anything. Consumers should do due diligence which includes searching forums and SE for info on any company they are considering. Asking for references is good as well but keep in mind they likely are going to provide clients who they know will provide a good reference. I'd suggest contacting clients found in the third search below.

In Google search using:
1. site:wwww.companyurl.com :are they banned? Quite likely if there are no results
2. site:wwww.companyurl.com -site:wwww.companyurl.com : Do they use legit and long term link development techniques
3. link:wwww.companyurl.com : will often include clients, repeat the search above for indications of how they perform their link services
4. search on company phone number and address : reveals mini-site and mirror sites. Note sometimes aliased domains are found so finding them under another one doesn't necessarily mean a mirror or mini-site check some of the well known directories to see if they are promoting more than 1 domain in the same business
5. If they have a client list skip 2,3 and 4 and do 1,2,3 and 4 using the clients info

AFAIK, The same syntax used in the searches above also works on Yahoo! so if you want to go a step further do the same searches there. I would also suggest searching forums for the company keeping in mind that what is there may be written by a competitor or company personelle masquerading as an anonymous poster.

[donut]

The problem with referrals is that Traffic Power's clients were very happy with their high rankings- most people probably were happy to recommend them because their hidden links and other tricks were working... for a while.

But it's good to know that others in the industry "outed" their techniques many moons ago. I think most clients who bothered to do their research and knew there was something spammy going on just thought they were getting a better deal than everyone else.

They did. For a while.

[projectphp]

By the way, I think what the SEO Consultants Directory and SeoPros.org do to try and some how give you a list of approved firms is great.
An area in which both SEOConsultants and SEOPros could improve is in listing the date of last review for each company e.g. on the pages http://seopros.org/seo/profile.asp?consultant=4E71C andhttp://www.seoconsultants.com/profile/1029/, which don't contain a review date.

To be fair, SEOPros do list this on the country pages (http://seopros.org/seo/New-Zealand.asp), but a date on each specific page is a good idea.

IMHO, that little change would make a huge difference.

The problem with referrals is that Traffic Power's clients were very happy with their high rankings- most people probably were happy to recommend them because their hidden links and other tricks were working... for a while.
Which makes SEO so hard to dignify. Happy customers are not always a great way to gauge an SEO's value, because as was pointed out, by the time the clients are unhappy, the whole world knows!

[Jeff Nienaber]

Coincidently T-P contacted me just yesterday, and let me say, these kids are far from done. Whatever fix Google implemented was merely a band-aid.
Case in point:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=remote+control+golf+bag

Here's their current published client list. Anyone know any of these victims?
http://traffic-power.com/aCe/

[NFFC]

>these kids are far from done

Yeah, really they should have been burnt at a stake. It seems they have embarked on a twisted and devious plan to get web sites to rank well in the serps for terms that are very relevent to the site.

Thats unforgivable in my book, if a searcher types in "remote control golf bag" at google they get deceptively take to a page that....oh wait....my oh my...its a page about remote control golf bags.

So let me get this straight, a searcher types a term and gets taken to a relevent page. Am I missing something here?

[Jeff Nienaber]

NFFC >"Am I missing something here?"

Yeah, you missed what most users miss. The OnMouseOver JavaScript Redirect

If you click the first link in the above SERP www.kaddyusa.com/remote_control_golf_bag_l.html and make sure not to move your mouse, you'll see the black hat in action.

[NFFC]

>Yeah, you missed what most users miss. The OnMouseOver JavaScript Redirect

I was being sarcastic.

Once again, a searcher types a term and gets taken to a relevent page. Show me who the victim is?

[Nacho]

Just in case someone blinked while it happened, this is what it looked like :eek: :

http://www.mex-grocer.com/nacho/431.jpg

[Bernard]

NFFC, do you believe that the end justifies the means (http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/machiavell_bfa.html) as Machiavelli argues?

[littleman]

Isn't it interesting how they are systematically taking the exercise out of golf? I guess they will eventually have to make 'super size' golf-carts to accommodate all the fat arses?


So, since we have the pretence of moral high ground and 'organizations' pretending to lead people down the true path, can someone offer me a reason why a doorway page is evil while a $EM campaign is righteous?

[NFFC]

>NFFC, do you believe that the end justifies the means as Machiavelli argues?

My you are deep Bernard. To be frank I have never thought about Machiavelli in relation to SEO, off the cuff I would say no, the end doesn't justify the means. Not matter what we all need to conduct ourselves in a manner that repects others, I think that applies to SEO at *least* as much as it applies to "real" life.

However, it seems this thread is implying that a "crime" has been comitted, all I am asking is who the victim is.

Once again, a searcher types a term and gets taken to a relevent page. Show me who the victim is?

[Jeff Nienaber]

The biggest victim is Kaddyusa who has no idea they will soon be royally screwed when they could have easily and legitimately achieved the exact same ranking for those terms.

[dannysullivan]

However, it seems this thread is implying that a "crime" has been comitted, all I am asking is who the victim is.
For this thread, the victim is apparently Freedom1029, assuming that Traffic Power has indeed done something Google disliked as alleged and that in turn caused his site to be removed from Google.

The issue of whether the searcher is a victim is, of course, an age old debate with doorways. And by all means, everyone should feel free to continue with it. This just isn't the right thread. This thread is about Traffic Power and the allegations against it.

To help, I've created a new thread for you, The Great Doorway Debate (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=515). Please jump on in over there -- I've put in references to things raised over here already.

[NFFC]

Point taken I shall bow out with just one parting shot.

>For this thread, the victim is apparently Freedom1029

I find it hard to take that view. A business person made what may be a wrong decsion on which SEO company to partner with, to me all that creates is a business person with poor judgement and not a victim.

As I understand it the pages are on the "real" domains, they didn't get there by accident. I don't know about you but FTP access around here is pretty tightly controlled, to give any third party access to or let "content" that a third party has created be placed on our domains has to pass some pretty high quailty control barriers. I'll go further, I could not imagine a situation where we would allow a third party to put content on our site without our explicict permission.

If some people feel that TP's tactics are wrong they need to look where the real blame lies. I would imagine TP are not a charity, they build and promote products and look for customers. It is the willingness of the customers to sign up that creates the "problem".

>up to last week we were very happy with the results

The only thing shallower than an SEO is an SEO's client, imho.

[Jeff Nienaber]

The only thing shallower than an SEO is an SEO's client, imho.
Ouch.

A business person made what may be a wrong decsion on which SEO company to partner with, to me all that creates is a business person with poor judgement and not a victim.

True, the client screwed up, but either way TP is breaking the rules and they know it.

When they called me yesterday they swore up and down that they didn't use any black hat, no landing pages, nothing; just "proprietary software" that is first to market.

NFFC, if you don't believe what they are doing is wrong that's fine, but you can't deny that how they are doing it is. By deceiving their clients.

[NFFC]

I believe big boys games are played by big boys rules.

The thing that irks me the most is that I believe that any of these TP clients that contact Google and say "sorry we messed up in choosing our SEO provider, they conned us with marketing speak" will get put back in.

In effect what they are doing is shifting responsilbilty for their own actions on to a third party.

Lets be clear, if you are not prepared to take reponsilibilty for your own web site then who else will?

Me, I would ban all of TP's clients forever on the basis of dumbness for choosing them in the first place, let darwinism decide who thrives and who falls by the wayside.

[Bernard]

... To be frank I have never thought about Machiavelli in relation to SEO, off the cuff I would say no, the end doesn't justify the means. Not matter what we all need to conduct ourselves in a manner that repects others, I think that applies to SEO at *least* as much as it applies to "real" life.

If Google sets the rules (ie. webmaster guidelines) for playing the game (inclusion in their index) and you break the rules (aka cheating), you are subscribing to that ideal assuming that ranking in Google was the intention.

... all I am asking is who the victim is.

I would imagine that Google would claim that the quality (or integrity) of their search results is the victim.

I see that DS has started a new thread on the topic, but I felt a reply to my initial question was warranted here for continuity. This is my last post on the subject.

[Nacho]

Couple things I noticed today:

1) Brittany Thompson recommends in her article (http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/searchinsider/wpn-49-20040709TrafficPowerHighRankingsorSEONightmare.htm l) to search in your favorite seach engine for "Traffic-Power" and see what the SERPs say. Huy, pobrecitos! :eek:

2) Here is a sample of what the Paid Ads have to say:


Sponsored Links

Burned by Traffic Power?
Use pay per click to maintain your
traffic. Reach visitors in hours.
www. hanapinmarketing .com

IMO, I think this is what happens when "high risk" (not hats) gets out of control . . . they are actually digging their own grave. Too late to make any corrections now. It's over - Ouch!

[hrih]

Hi there,
We are using an outside firm to improve our ranking and up to last week we were very happy with the results however since last weekend our domain name is not longer indexed with google. :confused:

I contacted the company doing our optimisation (Traffic Power) and they told me that they were aware of the problem and that they had the same problem with many clients. According to them they were not doing anything wrong and are following all of Goggle’s rules. They told me to sit tight and wait and that everything should come back to normal in a few days. Is that a bunch of rubbish of what! :mad: Anyway so my questions are: Did google change any of their rules lately? How can I find why we got kick out? Is there anything I can do to correct the situation?
Thanks for your help


Where is 'CLEMEX' in meta tag?
---
Clemex Technologies
Clemex Technology
Clemex Vision
Clemex Captiva
Clemex analysis software
--

[AdamJewell]

The victims here may be the companies that hired this particular SEO firm. OTOH, as with any purchase of goods or services, doesn't the responsibility ultimately fall on the person or company who made the purchase decision?

If Google or Overture or some other PPC rep calls and convinces you that their PPC program would be a good investment for your business, presents you with an advertising plan that puts you in the premium positions at a very high cost per click, and you follow their advice on keywords, bid prices and landing pages and you lose your shirt, do you blame the PPC provider?

You could argue that you've been taken to the cleaners and they sold you something that didn't work and didn't explain everything they opted you into.

In the case of the SEO firm you may have lost your rankings in Google, which ultimately comes down to money. If you dealt directly with the PPC provider you could argue they swindled you as well.

Is there any SEM company that hasn't had an inquiry from someone who has either been burned by an SEO or one of the engines themselves?

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Companies are always victimized when they (by accident or not) chose to buy a bad service. Allthough I can surely feel sorry for the companies affected by this case I must also say that they should have done their homework better. When you buy something you have a responsibility too for making the right choice.

One of the core problems, however, in this case as many others, is the apparent lack of truthfull information. If a company want to hire another company to do spammy type doorway pages and upload them to their own server they are welcome to do so but I think they should know the risks involved. Personally I would not do it, but that is beside the point. Did TP inform their clients about any such risks? It dosen't look like it and that is, in my oppinion, what makes them guilty. Guilty of holding back important information about the risks.

It could be, off course, that TP actually DID inform their clients about the potential risks (I have no idea) but that the clients just did not read the fine print or understood the message. I've seen cases like that. If that is the case I am just woundering why those clients signed something they apparently did not understand.

[Jeff Nienaber]

If that is the case I am just woundering why those clients signed something they apparently did not understand.

That's what TP is feeding off of - the mystery of SEO. This industry is still young and there are few outsiders that fully comprehend it. This coupled with the fact that most SEO companies consider their techniques proprietary, and are intentionally vague with clients and potential clients creates a lot of mystery. Obviously clients need to practice due diligence, but this is undermining the integrity of the whole industry.

[quetzacotl]

Ahh... The sweet smell of hypocrisy fills the air.
Hear this SEOs, Google HATES you!
Does Google think that any of you self-righteous "ethical" SEOs are needed or wanted in Google's cosmos?
NO!
Does Google think that one kind of SEO is better than another?
NO!

Here's the proof that all of the so called "ethical SEOs" are just blowing smoke and are blatantly defying Google's TOS:
From: Google Information for Webmasters

"You should never have to link to an SEO. "

There it is in black and white... Google says you shouldn't link to an SEO, but what do I see? I see LINKS from SEO client's sites from SEOs advertised right here on this page linking back to the SEOs site.
SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

I think some SEOs here need to quit lying to clients and to themselves about Google. In Google's book THERE IS NO ETHICAL SEO! The only links Google advocates are right there on their sponsored section where THEY make the money... BY THE CLICK!

So while the SEOs sit here braying about how their fellow competitors (such as TP etc) are violating Google's TOS, Google is planning how it will eliminate ALL SEOs GREAT AND SMALL.

YOU'RE NEXT!

Cheers!

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

quetzacotl, I do not know where you have your information about Googles so called hate aginst us, but it is certainly not something I personally see around the good people I know at Google. And that gos for the other engines too.

Yes, some of the Google folks are critical when it comes to the work SEOs does and some of them like us less than others but to say Google generally hate all SEOs is not at all close to the experience I have.

I do not think you are reading Googles TOS right. You quote it as saying: "You should never have to link to an SEO." - there is a big difference between HAVE to link and just link. I am pretty sure what Google is referring to is the SEOs that require a (sometimes even hidden) link back to their own site on all client sites. Thats what Google mean by saying you should never HAVE to link to an SEO. I personally agree with that.

[quetzacotl]

Since the information about Google is plainly written on the "internet wall" I'm forced to believe you are either extremely naive or work for Google.

Let's not get personal with the issue here.
I said Google hates SEO... Not you PERSONALLY!

So now your are Google's self appointed interpreter for their TOS.
Pretty big britches you have on there! :D

Tell us again what Google means by "linking" ;)

Cheers!

[Fear The Pie]

I agree, Google clearly does hate SEO.

Who can blame them when you look at the posts in this forum and others and see that a good percentage of them want nothing to do with ethics and decent business practices.

[David Wallace]

"You should never have to link to an SEO."
You take that one sentence and interpret that it means that Google hates SEOs?

So I guess you would take one single passage out of the Bible as well and build an entire religion around it without looking at the entirety of the message?

The reason why Google states that one should not link to an SEO has to do with PR inflating IMO and not the fact that they hate SEOs.

That being said, I never place a backlink to SearchRank on any client pages mostly because it is unnecessary but also because I don't want my client's competitors to be aware that they are aggressively marketing on the search engines. Now with web design, I place backlinks to our web design site on every page so maybe Google hates webmasters? But if that was the case, then they would hate one person for every site represented in their index because every site has a webmaster, wouldn’t they? Ridiculous!

[dannysullivan]

So now your are Google's self appointed interpreter for their TOS.
You're actually not quoting Google's Terms Of Service. You're quoting a help page for those considering using SEO firms.

That page, of course, is still subject to interpretation -- and many people did this when it first came out. That's why I also did an article (http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/2165161) on the page, to get more from Google by what they meant by it. I think this is a key quote:

"Certainly there's always room for a consultant that gives you good advice," said Matt Cutts, a software engineer at Google who deals with webmaster issues. "The intent is not to be negative or positive [about SEOs] but provide more information."

That's a far cry from saying that page says Google hates all SEOs, in my view. I've also emailed them recently on this subject, and they tell me they stand by this:

"Many SEOs provide useful services for website owners, from writing
copy to giving advice on site architecture and helping to find relevant
directories to which a site can be submitted."

Which is also on that page.

[Nacho]

Yes, Agreed, but why on earth would something like SEO does NOT work according to Google’s head of sales advertising (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=620) happen.

IMO, it sometimes feels like the attitude is spilling over as it does when a (non see-through) glass full of liquid can't hold any longer. Where you only can only see what's spilling and not its entirety. The question is, is that the what is the true color of the liquid inside?

[Jeff Nienaber]

quetzacotl do you work for TP, or are you just a fan?

[seomike]

Freedom did you ever link from your core site to Trafficpower or to any of the doorway pages they made for you?

If not:
1. Call a lawyer and sue Google. They are very straight forward in saying no 3rd party site can hurt your site. Meaning you could put up a million doorways but unless you link into those bad neighborhood you are safe. Otherwise we could litteraly manipulate their results by spamming people out of page 1.

or

2. Get some good links to the site and see if you aren't indexed becaue they never did any link pop for you.

[DanThies]

I agree, Google clearly does hate SEO.

Who can blame them when you look at the posts in this forum and others and see that a good percentage of them want nothing to do with ethics and decent business practices.
I don't think the collective hive mind of Google hates SEO. They've been showing up at SES for a long time, giving people advice on how to do it right. Well, maybe the guy in charge of selling Adwords and Adsense to advertisers does hate us just a bit. Can you blame him?

But you're right on the money, to read some of these posts, it's not hard to see why search engines might consider the group more than a little hostile.

[Xaa]

>Yeah, you missed what most users miss. The OnMouseOver JavaScript Redirect

I was being sarcastic.

Once again, a searcher types a term and gets taken to a relevent page. Show me who the victim is?

1) The guy with the #2 result, who may or may not have better products available, but very few will ever find out about. You'd be surprised how many people just click "I'm Feeling Lucky" and nothing else.

2) The consumer, who doesn't find out about the guy with the #2 result and ends up paying more.

[Incubator]

Hum just tried to search with the engine www.yourdomain.com (http://www.yourdomain.com/) and nothing is coming out! Oh boy my boss is going to kill me! :eek:
Our domain is www.clemex.com. (http://www.clemex.com.)
I see it http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=www.clemex.com&btnG=Google+Search

Cheers

[Freedom1029]

Yes we got back in google index maybe a week ago after beeing out for about a month or so.

[Incubator]

WOW, best of luck to you ....


Cheers

wC

[NFFC]

Freedom1029 that is good news.

[fathom]

Point taken I shall bow out with just one parting shot.

>For this thread, the victim is apparently Freedom1029

I find it hard to take that view. A business person made what may be a wrong decsion on which SEO company to partner with, to me all that creates is a business person with poor judgement and not a victim.

As I understand it the pages are on the "real" domains, they didn't get there by accident. I don't know about you but FTP access around here is pretty tightly controlled, to give any third party access to or let "content" that a third party has created be placed on our domains has to pass some pretty high quailty control barriers. I'll go further, I could not imagine a situation where we would allow a third party to put content on our site without our explicict permission.

If some people feel that TP's tactics are wrong they need to look where the real blame lies. I would imagine TP are not a charity, they build and promote products and look for customers. It is the willingness of the customers to sign up that creates the "problem".

>up to last week we were very happy with the results

The only thing shallower than an SEO is an SEO's client, imho.

>up to last week we were very happy with the results

The only thing shallower than an SEO is an SEO's client, imho.

The real question now is: if everyone start talking about this a week before that, and everyone knew that the "results" was coming from these pages... and unfair to your competitors - would you have immediately gave your competitiors a helping hand by removed them without Google giving you helping hand?

The honest answer might be quite surprising - and completely different from after-the-fact.

[seoauditor]

I have had several phone calls on this. I believe that they were using roll over redirect scripts which google caught on to.

[Chris Boggs]

from a propective client today:

"We currently use Traffic-Power for keyword and website inclusion, however I have become increasingly unhappy with their results, and their poor support. We are paid through the next 7 months with them, but I am looking for a company that can provide results at a decent price."

how can this company stay in business? now they are releasing a "new" method of PPC that they call a "Pay per visitor" model. any scoop on this repackaging? more of the same?

[fathom]

from a propective client today:

"We currently use Traffic-Power for keyword and website inclusion, however I have become increasingly unhappy with their results, and their poor support. We are paid through the next 7 months with them, but I am looking for a company that can provide results at a decent price."

how can this company stay in business? now they are releasing a "new" method of PPC that they call a "Pay per visitor" model. any scoop on this repackaging? more of the same?

It has been recently noted that TP is now setting up shadow domains (moving away from doorway pages [their advertising pages]) and not optimizing client websites.

I guess they want to "lock" clients in to paying and if they don't - redirect to a new client in the same industry segment.

I also suspect that as client must sign a release not holding TP responsible for plagiarism they are possibly intent on breaking copyright laws to quickly setup these up.

I highly recommend the client seek long and hard and drop TP as soon as possible.

I can take a look and depending on industry will make a offer, but unless I have existing experience in their industry - I am quite expensive to redevelop and research to a new area of interest.

[Chris Boggs]

thanks fathom I agree with you. we do SEO as well and I'll let you know who it is if we don't get the gig :) :p

[fathom]

thanks fathom I agree with you. we do SEO as well and I'll let you know who it is if we don't get the gig :) :p

No problem - BTW > I have know problem assisting a website get re-established whether there is anything in it for me or not.

With a number directories, forums, and business venues on the go (most on unique co-located servers around the world) they can help a great deal.

I truly hate seeing things like TP happen - it helps noone and re-iterates that we need some form of protection/guidance (the consulting firm and all clients).

Complacency "is" our worst enemy.

[Chris Boggs]

i agree with you whole-heartedly. I would advocate the creation of a "League of Justice" within our ranks that would help to do battle against BS artists like TP that take advantage of the SEM "handicaps" of many companies that are just trying to get their site in front of the right people.

[NFFC]

>I would advocate the creation of a "League of Justice" within our ranks that would help to do battle against BS artists like TP that take advantage of the SEM "handicaps" of many companies that are just trying to get their site in front of the right people.

Yeah.

Shall we start with you?

[DanThies]

Companies like TP can already be handled by the attorney general (or equivalent) where they do business, and by organizations like the Better Business Bureau.

The big problem with TP isn't spamming and getting clients banned, it's business practices, and that's got nothing to do with the SEO/SEM industry.

[dannysullivan]

New article on Traffic Power, with this quote standing out from the company:

Traffic problems (http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2004/09/09/local_news/news02.txt)

"Google can kiss my ass," Powers said. "This is the wild wild west. As they [Google] get hip to a trick, they change their rule. Google cannot control my business."

Like this, as well:

"Powers said Ohrum failed to understand that getting banned by Google is part of the business."

Ah, no, getting banned is not part of the business.

[Nacho]

"Powers said Ohrum failed to understand that getting banned by Google is part of the business."
With comments like this, no wonder why our SEM industry has reputation problems (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1052).

Why can't we all keep a nice clean enviroment and get along?

Then again, there will always be a wise ass running loose.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Why can't we all keep a nice clean enviroment and get along?

I expect you already know the answer to that: Money and power!

As long as this much money (or more) float through our industry we will continue to see these kinds of companies. If not TP - then someone else.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I was just reading that entire article Danny linked to, and maybe that one needs a whole new thread to be discussed, but I just could not help comment on a few of the more "entertaining" parts ...

Hedger said Google takes such violations very seriously because it costs them money. The extra Web pages Traffic Power creates to link sites eats up space on databases, which takes big dollars to maintain. Even though each page only costs fractions of a cent, when enough are out there, he said, the fractions add up - potentially in the billions of dollars.

So, why is Google filling up it's index with crap that would be so easy to remove, such as: duplicate indexing of http and www versions, indexing of robots.txt files, css files, external js files, thousands of identical copies of ODP, their own search results (The ever lasting loop!) etc, etc.

I must say, that Google is contributing to the bad reputation of this business just as much as TP if they continue this kind of BS. Google is basically playing the media for their own game just as well as TP play their game. Who is better who is worse? To me it just look like a bunch a gamblers around the same table - getting drunk! :)


"If you're trying to get your company on the public market, you don't want people thinking your product can be manipulated."

Well, I got news for you: Google CAN be manipulated, just like any other "mechanism" - accept it or find another job.

Yes, TP is making a fool of themself in that article but Google is certainly doing their best to get the second place.

[fathom]

As I understand TP is now 1p.com

Needing some branding changes I guess?

[Chris Boggs]

I wonder how much that cost (1p.com)???

Must be making money I guess...great, more hesitant SE-repair jobs (Banned sites) coming down the road in the future.

[seobook]

I wonder how much that cost (1p.com)???

Must be making money I guess...great, more hesitant SE-repair jobs (Banned sites) coming down the road in the future.

http://www.seoconsultants.com/traffic-power/1p/
somewhere between 6-12K?

[fathom]

Oh they're still making good money (millions). They still have around 5K client base and as quickly as humanly possibly turning to shadow domains with stuff like this.

http://www.softbabyplushtoy.com/

Quite innovative IMHO, unfortuately due to the time constraints imposed by keeping clients "clients" there is a major flaw... they are replicating content from the owners sites... and then pointing to it.

Bad, bad, bad move!

[fathom]

Actually to clarify the above post:

1. no one wants to watch a flash movie when they want products so they click skip intro... and now at the real website

2. the text ads that resemble AdSense are other client's website... that have similar shadow designs or shadow domains themselves to other clients.

[Jeff Nienaber]

I'm no fan of TP, not because of these techniques, but because they don't fully disclose the inherent risk involved to their clients/prospects.

In the case of their plushbabytoys.com client, TP's new approach utilizing shadow domains is not in violation of any of Google's published guidelines. Except with regards to duplicate content; but there are millions of other indexed pages with more blatant duplicate content than that. Look at any major affiliate network (like Amazons) that are feed driven and you will find thousands of more obvious violations.

http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html

You're right Mikkel, Google is just as guilty as TP...so who's calling them out?

[fathom]

I'm no fan of TP, not because of these techniques, but because they don't fully disclose the inherent risk involved to their clients/prospects.

In the case of their plushbabytoys.com client, TP's new approach utilizing shadow domains is not in violation of any of Google's published guidelines. Except with regards to duplicate content; but there are millions of other indexed pages with more blatant duplicate content than that. Look at any major affiliate network (like Amazons) that are feed driven and you will find thousands of more obvious violations.

http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html

You're right Mikkel, Google is just as guilty as TP...so who's calling them out?

Totally agree that Google plays the same game... but SEO guidelines do specifically indicate things to be aware of and one is:

What are the most common abuses a website owner is likely to encounter?

One common scam is the creation of "shadow" domains that funnel users to a site by using deceptive redirects. These shadow domains often will be owned by the SEO who claims to be working on a client's behalf. However, if the relationship sours, the SEO may point the domain to a different site, or even to a competitor's domain. If that happens, the client has paid to develop a competing site owned entirely by the SEO.

Not to mention... the copyrights is now in question - since the original owner clearly knew that the text copy was copied and they were ok with it.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

As discussed before, that page at Google is nothing but a laugh worth. I do not have a problem discussing Google's official standpoint on things but if we have to start from that page I don't think we will get very long...

Do you give unconditional money back guarantee? Do Google?

Let's not go down that route again :)

[Jeff Nienaber]

Understood ~ Google's guidelines are a joke, and there are no guarantees in this business. I know this, but it's not helping our reputation a bit.

One common scam is the creation of "shadow" domains that funnel users to a site by using deceptive redirects.

In the plushyfuntoy example dropped in this thread there are no "deceptive redirects". Which was my point in the last post. The only line they're crossing is the duplicate content line, and there are many worse offenders in the Google index. So isn't it hypocritical to continue to come down on TP for morphing from black to gray?

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Yes, just as an example: How difficult do you think it would be to filter our the thousand of pages of identical copies of ODP? Are the many identical versions of the ODP directory in the Google index to any benifit of the users? No, probably even less than deceptive doorway pages :)

Google is indeed a very active part in this game.

[NFFC]

I'm not a big fan of the TP business model nor their methods but I would agree that all parties [TP, the client, Google] are not without blame.

I'm a live and let live guy but two things caught my eye:

"Google can kiss my ass,"

I could broadly agree with that, I don't think that in itself damages the users. In some ways it may be a helpful attitude.

"This is the wild wild west"

Its not, it's the Internet. Treating it as if it was the wild west, even the wild west of staines [only Brits may get that], is damaging to the user.

On balence I'm less inclined to "defend" TP than before.

[Jeff Nienaber]

Yes, just as an example: How difficult do you think it would be to filter our the thousand of pages of identical copies of ODP? Are the many identical versions of the ODP directory in the Google index to any benifit of the users? No, probably even less than deceptive doorway pages
Google is indeed a very active part in this game.

I couldn't agree with you more Mikkel.
It's time for a better mousetrap.

[fathom]

Understood ~ Google's guidelines are a joke, and there are no guarantees in this business. I know this, but it's not helping our reputation a bit.

In the plushyfuntoy example dropped in this thread there are no "deceptive redirects". Which was my point in the last post. The only line they're crossing is the duplicate content line, and there are many worse offenders in the Google index. So isn't it hypocritical to continue to come down on TP for morphing from black to gray?

Agree - the design is innovative and the black to gray is apparent. Forgetting the dup content and ownership for the moment...

The promotion is no longer of the client - TP does "zero" optimization and "zero" link development, "zero" content creation, "zero" advising on how to improve their own website for the client specifically.

All the promotion is on "TPs" own website and subsequently all their other interconnected developing websites.

I doubt the client will get blocked again but for TP own websites - well that graying is getting a little darker and "if" like the example site all other sites contain duplicate content - is that a little problem or a big problem?

Now instead of a bunch of clients interconnect together with "doorway pages" being block - all TP interconnected websites get block and since all clients websites can't stand on their own merits without TP websites - isn't this the same thing?

[pageoneresults]

This is real innovative...

Perfect baby gifts for new babies, baby showers and birthdays. Baby Shower Gifts related phrases are on Softbabyplushtoy.Com. Choose a sweet teddy bear from our Gund® Teddy Bear collection - you can't go wrong with this choice. If, for any reason you are not satisfied with our products, we will give you a full refund or replacement. Other phrases include baby bedding decor, boyds bears baby bedding, baby convertiable sleigh cribs, nursery decor tree, baby italia carlisle crib, photos baby toys, baby convertiable sleigh cribs, nursery decor tree, baby bedding decor, baby italia carlisle crib, boyds bears baby bedding, bassett cribs baby furniture, baby cribs memphis tennessee, baby cribs by baby furniture designs, humphreys corner baby bedding, boyds bears baby bedding, bassett cribs baby furniture, baby cribs memphis tennessee, photos baby toys, nursery decor tree. Our soft play sets make a fun and unique gift. Sign up for our Newsletter and you will be automatically entered to win a Gund® teddy bear. Look for baby shower gifts on Softbabyplushtoy.Com. Have your gift sent all wrapped up in cute baby wrapping paper. In addition to our Gund® and babyGund® products, we have beautiful custom painted nursery artwork. Related phrases are baby italia carlisle crib, humphreys corner baby bedding, baby cribs by baby furniture designs, baby bedding decor, and baby convertiable sleigh cribs. Prince comes with a puppy that barks and Princess comes with a frog that ribbits.So are the Google lookalike Sponsor Ads. That should get some attention.

It never fails, Traffic-Power always leaves a distinct footprint on their pages. It amazes me how they will continue to fly in the face of the algos with some of this innovation that is being discussed.

Most of those machine generated pages are not fit for human consumption. They've taken the 1998 gateway page concept and have added some flash and color. If you look closely at the network, it is just one big ring of gateway sites all using the same flash intro and general page layout.

I find it amazing that a client would even approve of the above. Now they can see the content that is generated since the onmouseover event is no longer being used.

[fathom]

...with some of this innovation that is being discussed.

... They've taken the 1998 gateway page concept and have added some flash and color.

hmmm... You can teach a dog to fetch a stick, ball, or your slippers... but I've never seen one fetch it's own poop and put them where they belong! ;)

These must be an upgrade to "advertising sites"!

[Jill Whalen]

So shall we take bets on how long before all these Flashy SEEs are banned?

After the comment Mr. Powers made in that article, I would guess they might go for it sooner, rather than later. That way Mr. Powers can kiss Google's ass instead! ;)

[DianeV]

Regarding the reputation of the SEM industry, it seems to me that the problem is a matter of generalities: the fact that one company does something bad/wrong/detrimental-to-its-clients is somehow expanded to encompass the entire industry.

As well, since most non-Web people (and even many or most of those) have little or no information about about SEO/SEM, hearing about a company such as Traffic Power becomes what they know about the industry simply because it's all they know about the industry.

Kudos to seoconsultants for doing some good work there in clarifying what's going on with one such detrimental-to-its-clients company, and helping to clean up the reputation of the SEM industry. http://www.seoconsultants.com/consortium/

[fathom]

Regarding the reputation of the SEM industry, it seems to me that the problem is a matter of generalities: the fact that one company does something bad/wrong/detrimental-to-its-clients is somehow expanded to encompass the entire industry.

As well, since most non-Web people (and even many or most of those) have little or no information about about SEO/SEM, hearing about a company such as Traffic Power becomes what they know about the industry simply because it's all they know about the industry.

Kudos to seoconsultants for doing some good work there in clarifying what's going on with one such detrimental-to-its-clients company, and helping to clean up the reputation of the SEM industry. http://www.seoconsultants.com/consortium/

I don't believe the industry has a bad reputation any more than any other industry or segment.

That's a perspective thing and biased to the background of the person and their circles of influences (or lack of).

Additionally, as pointed out many times in this thread and others, the client and the search engines cannot be excluded from taking their share of the blame.

The Client - putting their livelihood exclusively in the hands of another firm automatically assumes they accept all the risks associated with that business decision... it's your business (client) - are you capable and competent to make your own business decisions or not?

Search Engines - given the role they play as an advertising media, they make the rules as they go along to suite their own biases (and/or vulnerabilities) at the time. Radio, TV, Newspapers, and other medias are bound by non-self goverance, SEs are not.

If any of these other media "hand picked" specific advertisers out to set "examples" for all others, I'm quite sure they would have a legal battle on their hands with the government - "you just can't do that"... and whether SE's do this out of ignorance or intentionally at some future date - that will change with dramatic consequences.

Notwithstanding, it is all about risk management and all players whether they believe they are in the right, knowingly in the wrong, or ignorant to right or wrong are all accountable... and each contributes to the perception of good or bad reputation.

[DianeV]

You've got a point there, fathom. I was echoing the concerns others have posted here about the perceived "reputation" of the SEO/M industry.

I also wanted to point out what happens with generalities, as well as how someone lacking in information about a subject might confuse the first information s/he gets as the way it is with everything in that sphere.

There are problems in other industries, to be sure. Anyone can call himself a web designer, and even truly great designers may be unaware of SEO. I *still* hear that all you have to do is fix the meta-tags, and this is 2004.

[fathom]

You've got a point there, fathom. I was echoing the concerns others have posted here about the perceived "reputation" of the SEO/M industry.

I also wanted to point out what happens with generalities, as well as how someone lacking in information about a subject might confuse the first information s/he gets as the way it is with everything in that sphere.

There are problems in other industries, to be sure. Anyone can call himself a web designer, and even truly great designers may be unaware of SEO. I *still* hear that all you have to do is fix the meta-tags, and this is 2004.

Ya agree.

It's interesting to note:

1. add up all businesses the have used SEO

2. Compare that to those that have been "taken", to those that have not, and

3. Compare that to the number of businesses that have no clue about SEO and think it stand for "Senior Executive Officer"...

The reputation is pretty good! ;)

[DianeV]

I'll bet your right.

As well, what I've found as a web design company is that people who, let's say, did not get what they had in mind don't particularly blame it on the industry, be it web design or SEO. They're just looking for someone who can do it right, though their understanding of what "right" means is usually lacking. As it would have to be, given that both are technical fields.

[stephenluft]

I have read all of this thread. I too, or at least my company got slammed by Google back in March. We had used TP (interesting initials...lol) since September 2003. Wasn't really all that high pressure sales. Anyways, got "delisted" by Google in mid March. Got rid of all the links to the home page, as well as all the link pages. With, several correspondence to Google, it took about a month to get back in the index.

I have several questions and observations that I would like to pose to many of the contributors of this thread.

Has anyone noticed any affect to other search engines other than Google...for instance Yahoo, MSN, Dogpile, etc...

IMHO, Google is highly overrated...in essence, they are all flawed. I will give you an example. My company manufacturers what is called a programmable logic controller. Its acronym is plc. If you do a search in google for plc, you will find only one relevant link in the first 13 pages. That link is for a web site that offers learning and a message board. You will not find a manufacturer until much later in the search results.

Why, do you ask???

In the world of Google, they do not differentiate. In Britain, all incorporated companies have a suffix "plc", just as our companies have "inc.". So, if you do a search for plc in google, you will find Psion plc as the top listing. People doing a search for plc are not looking for these types of companies, but rather manufacturers of programmable logic controllers. Therefore, you now have to refine your search, after you have gone through pages of garbage. I would not consider that efficient to say the least.

As a previous post stated if you have relevant content and the person searching finds what they are looking for...is there truly a problem??? I ask this as one who is always learning about this in that I update my company web site frequently.

I do admit that TP's approach is questionable at best. When we were delisted from google, their response to me was that google was reshuffling their index. They took credit for us reappearing, but that was after I had redone our index page.

Someone mentioned the quality of service...I to must agree that TPs service was sub par.

Then you have google's service, viewing the world from their ivory tower, not letting anyone in the gate, everything done through email. (FYI, for those of you who don't know, if you call google @ 650-623-4000 and ask for the word of the day and put that in the subject of your email, they will give you a quicker response). Stating that it could take up to 3 months for your web site to be reindexed, assuming that their "engineers" deem your web site to be within their guidelines.

Google is a necessary evil when it comes to the internet, however, there are other alternatives. Unfortunately, the majority of people go the road most traveled.

At our peak with TP, we generated nearly 3000 searches to our web site through their methods with google. Since, we are now in the 700-1000 range on a monthly basis. At this point right now, Yahoo is a better pull for us than Google.

I guess what soured me most about Google was their, ho hum, we could care less attitude to your problem. They never gave you specific information when trying to solve my company's delisting problem.

Traffic power is an SEO that we won't be using again. In fact, as this was all transpiring, I was assigned a new rep for my account. The only time he called was to try to sign me up for their new PPC product. Needless to say, it has been nearly six months and I haven't heard a word from them.

With our home page clean, just for yucks, I kept some of the doorway pages, on the site, and still have good and yes relevant search terms for my company and its products. I know that they will not be picked up by google, but are still part of other search engines. What is worse, using these relevant terms, or taking them off altogether and making it appear like your company doesn't exist anymore?

I understand that what TP did, bent if not broke google’s listing rules, and I will never be doing business with them again. The entire purpose of a search engine is to find relevant results for your search. I have already provided an example of a search engine term, through google that did not provide relevant results...therefore, if google doesn't provide relevant results for a search term, what are we supposed to do about it?

If anyone has any thoughts they would care to share, I am always open for some suggestions.

Thanks to everyone that has provided input to this thread...that is certainly in a cloud of gray.

God Bless,

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

People doing a search for plc are not looking for these types of companies, but rather manufacturers of programmable logic controllers.

I do not believe there is any way to determine that for sure. You think so because its your world but there might very well be other reasons people search so. Having said that, you can indeed find examples of bad search results in Google, just as well as any other searh engine. The point is not so much that but how often they actually DO serve relevant results that users like. Google, Yahoo and MSN (amongst others) seems to be able to deliver relevant results enough for users to stick around... A lot of them actually.


They never gave you specific information when trying to solve my company's delisting problem.


I must say, Google never engaged in a business relationship in the first place with you for inclusion or ranking in the organic index - you made a deal with TP, so I don't really think you can expect Google to sort it out for you. You service provider - TP, should do that.

I wish Google would get some kind of inclusion program in place, or a support program, but untill they do I don't think we can expect them to service us. We are on our own - or in the hands of the SEO we chose - in SEO.

[seomike]

They never gave you specific information when trying to solve my company's delisting problem.

The exact reason why we should stop doing conventions WITH them and hopping into bed with them at ever chance we get. They couldn't give a rats "you know what" about any of us, our clients and/or future clients. They wrote off TP and their associate and it was no sweat of their cohones. I'm sure not a single google tech lost any sleep over that :D.

Unless you're an ebay or an amazon where your sites lack would take away googles credibility as being a good search engine because your listing is sorely missed then you're nothing more than trimmed fat. Live and learn then move on. Buy a new domain and start over, do it right and the next time someone calls promising the moon, hang up. :D

[Chris Boggs]

I wish Google would get some kind of inclusion program in place, or a support program, but untill they do I don't think we can expect them to service us. We are on our own - or in the hands of the SEO we chose - in SEO.

I agree with you that (unless we are spending mucho dinero) we are on our own in SEO...however websites CAN get re-listed with a letter explaining that the relationship with TP or any other dark "black hat" has been severed. Seoguy mentions the concept of being "trimmed fat." I respectfully disagree. Google values 99% of it's customers I would think...especially now that they are publicly-owned. Google will make the effort to restore indexing if the proper guidelines are followed.

I think Google's getting a pretty bad rap here, especially in the Stephen post.

1. The Google standards and FAQ clearly state "how to."
2. It is difficult to contact them.

These are both traits of many succesful e-commerce websites because of one reason: it costs too much money to deal with every gripe. Once you have fixed the damage, simply contact Google (with or without the "word of the day ;) ) and they will fix it.

As far as indexing in other Directories and SE's...time=results.

[seomike]

Once you have fixed the damage, simply contact Google (with or without the "word of the day ) and they will fix it.

and John Kerry doesn't flip flop
and George Bush wasn't AWOL
and Ralph Nader isn't on the Florida ballot.
and Mike Moore tells the truth.
and Janet Jackson didn't have a wardrobe malfunction.
and OJ didn't do it.

Shall I go on?

[Chris Boggs]

I have yet to experience "reviving" a TP client...but according to others at the conference in San Jose...it can be done. Was I misled?

I maintain my position that Google cannot afford to lose us as important members of their system. The Google shareholders won’t allow them to “bite the hand that feeds them.” Even SEO’s that do not use AdWords are important.

Perhaps sugar would draw more flies than salt?