PDA

View Full Version : Wanted: Impressions of this website "tactic"



dynocat
05-22-2009, 09:56 PM
Can someone explain this site (http://www.touchoforanges.com/40ozcomsprin.html) which uses of alternative product names for the same product?

If you scroll down below the description, etc. there is a list of 30-40 (I didn't count) alternative "keyword" names for the product. Each is a link with a short description. Clicking on a link brings up the same product page, with only the product name now reading the alternative name.

I've never seen anything like this and am wondering if it is clever/helpful for SEO purposes. Or is it simply spammy?

Thanks

I also posted this on another site some of you may belong to, so if it looks familiar...

ETA: in addition to the product name, the short product description apparently changes too.

vangogh
05-23-2009, 02:04 AM
I assume they're trying to rank for all those different keywords. I'd have to do some analysis to see if it's working, but all those pages should be seen as duplicate content and odds are none of them are ranking for anything because of it.

Just did a few random searches, though nothing by any means that would be definitive. The page you linked to does rank for its page title. When I searched for Alkali Buildup Removal the Alkali Buildup Removal page did not show up, but the Calcium Deposit Removal page did. Seems like the pages rank, but not as expected.

I also noticed that the page you linked to shows as a PR1, but the few other pages I clicked on all showed PR0.

Ok, some quick checking on some of the keywords they're targeting and if they rank. Again only some surface checking. Seems like some of the pages do rank and others don't. My quick look shows a mix of it working and not working. However it's hard to know if overall they're actually getting more traffic this way. Since all the pages are competing for many of the same phrases they should end up fighting each other and ultimately resulting in less overall traffic.

The tactic looks very spammy to me and I would think if someone reported them to Google they'd see a lot less of their pages ranking for anything. It also has to be someone confusing to real people who might wonder if all the products are different or the same.

Looks like they do the same thing with other product pages too. Even though I seem them ranking for some phrases, I would think overall this is a bad idea and in the end hurts their site more than it helps because of all the duplicate content.

Spider
05-23-2009, 09:37 AM
Can someone explain this site (http://www.touchoforanges.com/40ozcomsprin.html) which uses of alternative product names for the same product? ... I didn't see anythig confusing or spammy about it (and I have a fairly low tolerance level for spam.)

There is only one product being advertised here under one name - Bring-It-On. Each page I checked (about 5 or 6 of them) all advertised, and said they were advertising, Bring-It-On. The product, according to the advertiser, is good for cleaning many things and it is these different cleaning properties that are being advertised separately - cleaning coffe stains, cleaning windows, cleaning showers and bathtubs and so on. I see nothing wrong with that - in fact, I'm sure many people will search for specific cleaning properties (otherwise they'll use whatever cleaner they already have under the kitchen sink!) So, it makes sense to promote these properties separately.

That they haven't done it well, according to VG, is another matter. What they are trying to do is quite right and above-board, in my opinion.

nealrm
05-23-2009, 12:39 PM
I'm going to agree with Spider on this one. I don't see anything wrong or mis-leading, but the implementation can be improved. There are many cases were a product has many legitimate terms. I would not fault them for trying to promote their product under the other description.

KristineS
05-23-2009, 04:35 PM
My guess the search engines would see this as spammy even if the people did not. I briefly worked for an seo company, and these sort of techniques were known as "black hat seo". They might get you rankings for a bit, but they had an equal chance of getting your site banned by the search engines.

vangogh
05-24-2009, 02:20 PM
It's spamming the search engines. The site is trying to manipulate search results by giving the same content different names. The site is creating pages for no reason other than an attempt to rank the same exact content for a variety of phrases. If you grab a unique phrase from within the page and search for it with quotes wrapped around the phrase, Google is presenting the same content 63 times. That's not a good experience for searchers to see the same content appear so many times in search results.

As for how well the tactic works, this thread is already outranking the site for the phrase 'Alkali Buildup Removal' (with and without quotes). That's an indication to me that all those pages are seen as duplicate content in the eyes of Google and are hurting the traffic the site gets.

What the site should have done was create unique content for each of those phrases. They could have written a short article about each phrase. They could even still show the same product on each page. But the content on each page should be unique to that page.

I'd also suggest from the point of view of a real person you don't need to create 50 links on a page to that same page. If a person lands on that page and is thinking of buying, why would you need to link to the exact same page again with a different headline. There's 0 benefit to real people in what they're doing. It's just a trick to manipulate search results, which doesn't seem to be working.

Dan Furman
05-25-2009, 01:17 PM
I think it crosses a fine line. I can understand what they are doing, etc, but the list of links/pages also don't offer anything of value - it's not a "real" webpage, it's merely to rank for the phrase and nothing else.

I would feel much different if each page had a paragraph or two explaining the problem/keyword and how product xyz tackles it. THAT, to me, is perfectly acceptable.

I did similar to the above for a client. He had me write about 600 pages, of maybe 200 words each, with explainations of how his service helped various industries. It was pricey, but it worked, as he ranks #1 on almost every keyphrase imaginable for his industry. The pages I wrote are actually interesting, and solve whatever problem the person came to that page for - it wasn't just spammy keyworded nonsense.

edit: my client also did this in a branching format. In other words, there was one link on the main pages ("other services"), that opened to 12 links (top level categories... ie: "automotive") then each of those 12 opened to more ("service stations" "car washes") and so on. So it wasn't just a list of links - to me, that's the proper way to do this.

jem
05-25-2009, 06:50 PM
In the good ol days (like years ago!) this worked a treat. The search engines were in Kindergarten and if you told them this was a great page about "Alkali Buildup Removal" then they believed you.

My how quickly the little ones grow up - they are now out of high school and freshmen at college and boy have they become cynical in their old age, they want proof that it really is a good page about "Alkali Buildup Removal", and that needs a little more juice (can still be done but takes more elbow grease)

Vangoh, hope this post gets us ranked #1 on goog for Alkali Buildup Removal

Actually that would be great experiment, between everybody on the forum how quickly we could get #1 for a MEANINGFUL phrase....would imagine with all the diverse web real-estate we have it would be bloody quick.

Simon

vangogh
05-26-2009, 01:44 AM
hope this post gets us ranked #1 on goog for Alkali Buildup Removal

We're currently #6. The other site is #16. I'm not going to, but I bet if I changed the title of the thread to include the phrase we might rank #1. It's not the most competitive phrase. If you wrap the phrase in quotes we are #1 with all the other results being the site in question.


the list of links/pages also don't offer anything of value - it's not a "real" webpage, it's merely to rank for the phrase and nothing else.

That's how I see it. Those extra pages offer nothing useful. They just repeat the same information and add a new page heading in an attempt to rank for the phrase. How different is that than stuffing meta tags full of keywords?

The site could have taken the time to write something useful for each or most of the phrases and have those pages still point to the product. Had they done that, they'd probably rank #1 for each phrase and sell a good amount of their cleaner.


that would be great experiment, between everybody on the forum how quickly we could get #1 for a MEANINGFUL phrase

I don't think we have enough authority and incoming links to be able to rank for general phrases outside of business yet. In this case the phrase was so uncompetitive that it wouldn't take much for anyone to rank well for the phrase. I'd think if you created a page with the phrase in the page title and a few mentions in the content it would be enough for a top 10 rank. Let's face it, there's no reason why this thread should rank for Alkali Buildup Removal and anyone clicking through from Google is only going to be disappointed landing here unless they click the links to the other site.

Business Attorney
05-26-2009, 11:02 AM
Those extra pages offer nothing useful. They just repeat the same information and add a new page heading in an attempt to rank for the phrase. ...

The site could have taken the time to write something useful for each or most of the phrases and have those pages still point to the product. Had they done that, they'd probably rank #1 for each phrase and sell a good amount of their cleaner.

That was my thought precisely. They did so much work and still did it wrong. A little useful general information on each page would make all the difference.

Spider
05-26-2009, 11:18 AM
We're currently #6. The other site is #16. .... Let's face it, there's no reason why this thread should rank for Alkali Buildup Removal and anyone clicking through from Google is only going to be disappointed landing here unless they click the links to the other site.So, even though the other site wasted their time and should not rank well, their site is still more useful than SBF, with its higher rank, for someone with alkali buildup and wanting to remove it.

So, bad as the other site may be, the search engine (Google, I presume) has it wrong, too!

vangogh
05-26-2009, 11:45 AM
David, it's someone looking for a quick route to success. Someone wanting to do the minimum and trick their way to more traffic instead of putting in a little extra effort.

Frederick, Google can only rank pages based on what they can tell about a site. In this case I don't think Google is doing anything wrong. I think the mistake is on the part of the site. They are adding additional pages with no value to their site. Google has no reason to display all those pages in their results since it would only cloud the results and create a poorer environment to the searcher. Overall it leads Google to see that site as having more noise than signal and have less trust in the idea that someone will be happy visiting that site.

The issue is with the site more than it is with Google.

Spider
05-27-2009, 09:53 AM
VG, I accept that the site is poorly written. I accept that the tactics are not to Googles liking. However, the ordinary web searcher (which is the person everyone should be focussing on) is not being served well by placing SBF at #6 and a site that can answer the problem at #16

I contend that Google's (and other search engines') job is not to judge quality of website but to provide relevant links to the searcher.

Now, if the other 14 sites up there are better at providing relevant information, then only SBF is improperly placed. As it happens, though, only 4 of the first 16 sites seemed to offer any use for such a searcher, and TouchOfOrange appears at #12 now (and SBF did not appear in the top 30 on Google when I searched just a moment ago.)

My point is, we must not lose sight of the purpose of search engines - to provide relevant links. SBF placing well for a search for alkaline deposit removal is simply ludicrous, no matter how well SBF is coded and how poorly TouchOfOrange is coded.

vangogh
05-27-2009, 11:05 AM
Frederick I understand and I agree. I would be frustrated if I was a searching for the phrase and landed here, though I will say we are providing a link to a site that might be more relevant and so are only one step away. But I do agree this page isn't a good result for the query. My point in showing that it does rank is simply that the tactic that other site is using doesn't work.


Google's (and other search engines') job is not to judge quality of website but to provide relevant links to the searcher.

The problem is how do they do that. It's not as easy as one might think. A simple example. Say you type 'bass' into a search engine. What's relevant? Sites about bass guitars or sites about bass fishing.

Add in sites that can easily appear relevant. If you start to understand how a search engine defines relevance you can craft a page that appears relevant, but really isn't. Search engines have to constantly play a cat and mouse game with these sites to determine which is the best to rank for different queries. If we were all 100% honest we could describe our content in a couple of meta tags and search engines could easily tell what we're about. I probably don't need to tell you we're not all 100% honest, especially when money is involved.

However that would still lead to problems. Which site is more relevant for a given news story. The New York Times or CNN. How about the Los Angeles Times or The Wall St. Journal. All 4 (and many more) will ultimately have pages with mostly the same content. So which one should be ranked first?

It's not an easy problem to solve and search engines look at hundreds of different signals to determine which page they think is the best one to show first. And best is defined by their own internal definition, which is probably along the lines of which results make people come back and use their search engine more.

It's also important to understand that there's no inherent right for any web page to rank well. As site owners if we want to rank well and pull search traffic, it's up to us to do the best we can to give the search engines what they want. In the case of TouchofOrange they took the route of trying to manipulate the search engines (and real people) by presenting the same content over and over with a different page title and page heading. That leads Google to lose trust in their site as a whole and trust has become an important part of Google's algorithms. It's not about whether or not they should or shouldn't rank. In the end only people can decide that anyway. It's about search engines get to set the rules for what they present in their results and if you want to be in the results you need to play their game.

This thread simply asked a question about a particular tactic used presumably for SEO. My answer is that it wasn't a good tactic and would probably cause more harm than good. I think the fact that this thread almost instantly outranked that page is proof that the tactic is best avoided, for the very thing you're saying. This thread clearly isn't relevant to the query in question, yet it does rank better. TouchofOrange should rethink what they've done and get rid of the duplicate pages. Doing so would likely lead to their pages ranking above this thread.

Spider
05-27-2009, 11:27 AM
I agree it's not easy - at least, I presume it's not easy, VG. And I don't have the answer to 100% relevant search results. That's why the Google guys are getting paid the big bucks. As a consumer of their services (not really, I prefer Ixquick search) I feel I have the right to expect a better service.

Whether I'll get it, is neither here nor there, but I have a right to expect it. I'm sure all the SEs are trying to find that perfect algorythm that will deliver perfect results.

In the meantime, we, honest website owners that we are, must play by the rules - guided by the likes of you and others on this forum - and hope Google at al will deal with the cheaters.

vangogh
05-27-2009, 11:57 AM
I know how you feel. There are times I go to a search engine and get back results and wonder what that algorithm was thinking. But when I take a step back I realize how amazing it is they even found anything.

What we've been talking about is really the key problem search engines try to solve. It seems easy on the surface. You or I could visit a site and know fairly quickly if it's relevant to us. An algorithm can't do that. And to complicate things what's relevant to you might not be relevant to me and vice versa. You might have been looking for bass fishing and I might have been looking for bass guitars.

billbenson
05-27-2009, 09:12 PM
VG eluded to it above, but there is a big difference between search engine spam and human spam. This is search engine spam. Another example of search engine spam would be putting a ton of keywords in white text on a white background in a small font. You could put an image right over the top of it and the site visitor never sees it. Its very real search engine spam and could get you banned though.

In general, you want a short key phrase (3 words is ideal) that you optimize a page for. Each page is only optimized for that one key phrase. If you have 100 key phrases, you want to write 100 unique optimized pages, each for one and only one keyphrase.

vangogh
05-28-2009, 01:36 AM
you want to write 100 unique optimized pages

Emphasis on the word unique all mine. That's where this site fails. They just offer the same content again and again. I'd say it's not particularly useful to real people either, but it's more along the lines of search spam or search manipulation. My guess is the site means well and isn't trying to do anything wrong. Maybe they'll find their way to this thread and remove the duplicate pages.