<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: SEOinc. vanishes from Google SERPS</title> <atom:link href="http://www.stepforth.com/blog/2005/seoinc-vanishes-from-google-serps/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.stepforth.com/blog/2005/seoinc-vanishes-from-google-serps/</link> <description></description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 03:10:32 +0000</lastBuildDate> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" /> <item><title>By: Bill Smith</title><link>http://www.stepforth.com/blog/2005/seoinc-vanishes-from-google-serps/comment-page-1/#comment-1697</link> <dc:creator>Bill Smith</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:11:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://dev.stepforth.com/blog/seoinc-vanishes-from-google-serps.php#comment-1697</guid> <description>Hi,&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Thank you for posting my comments, I did not think you would.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;My point is.... what is cheating?  Google is very vague and confused on this point.  Also this is a very debatable topic.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;You can make the arguement that good white hat SEOs actually help Google by using good correct anchor text.  Most people that give links do not even know how to do it properly.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Also in some peoples opinion includiing mine, MSN is now a better more relevent search engine than Google and the main difference is Google is filtering and blocking powerful sites that sell text link ads.  I have a list of over 3000 sites that Google has blocked from passing PageRank.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;MSN is not blocking sites from passing PageRank (Google) or WebRank (Yahoo) or whatever MSN calls it.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;So it is interesting to study this.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p><p>Thank you for posting my comments, I did not think you would.</p><p>My point is&#8230;. what is cheating?  Google is very vague and confused on this point.  Also this is a very debatable topic.</p><p>You can make the arguement that good white hat SEOs actually help Google by using good correct anchor text.  Most people that give links do not even know how to do it properly.</p><p>Also in some peoples opinion includiing mine, MSN is now a better more relevent search engine than Google and the main difference is Google is filtering and blocking powerful sites that sell text link ads.  I have a list of over 3000 sites that Google has blocked from passing PageRank.</p><p>MSN is not blocking sites from passing PageRank (Google) or WebRank (Yahoo) or whatever MSN calls it.</p><p>So it is interesting to study this.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jim Hedger</title><link>http://www.stepforth.com/blog/2005/seoinc-vanishes-from-google-serps/comment-page-1/#comment-1696</link> <dc:creator>Jim Hedger</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:11:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://dev.stepforth.com/blog/seoinc-vanishes-from-google-serps.php#comment-1696</guid> <description>To be fair Bill, we used the exact same measuring tool (faulty as it may be) against all sites mentioned in this piece. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;SEOinc was punished by Google for excessive exploitation of PageRank via unrelated links and what appeared to be a  very clever industrial link farm.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;As for removing the Top50 SEO firms, if they got there by cheating perhaps Google should however, we have not achieved our placements by cheating and might be a tad ticked if they did.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To be fair Bill, we used the exact same measuring tool (faulty as it may be) against all sites mentioned in this piece.</p><p>SEOinc was punished by Google for excessive exploitation of PageRank via unrelated links and what appeared to be a  very clever industrial link farm.</p><p>As for removing the Top50 SEO firms, if they got there by cheating perhaps Google should however, we have not achieved our placements by cheating and might be a tad ticked if they did.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Bill Smith</title><link>http://www.stepforth.com/blog/2005/seoinc-vanishes-from-google-serps/comment-page-1/#comment-1695</link> <dc:creator>Bill Smith</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:17:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://dev.stepforth.com/blog/seoinc-vanishes-from-google-serps.php#comment-1695</guid> <description>Hi,&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;It is wrong to state that you have 812 backlinks seen by Google.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Google sees all the backlinks your web site has; they just do not report them correctly since June of 2004.  Google broke the backlink checker on purpose and said it was to help promote smaller sites at a SEO conference in Las Vegas.  This is a stupid evil lie by Google, and just hurts their credibility and proves that they can and do EVIL things.  To me lying is evil.  The true reason Google broke the backlink checker report was so SEO&#039;s can not see what a sites important backlinks are.  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;So you just use Yahoo to see the correct backlinks.  Furthermore Google implements penalties in an inconsistent and unfair manner.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Google should take out the top 50 for &quot;search engine optimization&quot; if they want to punish everyone that try’s to increase their number of backlinks, and the top 10 for any competitive keywords (e.g. hotels, flower delivery, online shopping, etc.)&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I think Google just felt SEOinc just went too far.  Check and compare their backlinks on Yahoo and compare them to Microsoft.  So a 10 million dollar a year company had more backlinks than Microsoft does.  Clearly Google would see this as SEOinc going way too far.  Also all the other SEO&#039;s did not like SEOinc and reported them to Google for spam and link violations.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;End of story.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;This is the way it really is.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p><p>It is wrong to state that you have 812 backlinks seen by Google.</p><p>Google sees all the backlinks your web site has; they just do not report them correctly since June of 2004.  Google broke the backlink checker on purpose and said it was to help promote smaller sites at a SEO conference in Las Vegas.  This is a stupid evil lie by Google, and just hurts their credibility and proves that they can and do EVIL things.  To me lying is evil.  The true reason Google broke the backlink checker report was so SEO&#8217;s can not see what a sites important backlinks are.</p><p>So you just use Yahoo to see the correct backlinks.  Furthermore Google implements penalties in an inconsistent and unfair manner.</p><p>Google should take out the top 50 for &#8220;search engine optimization&#8221; if they want to punish everyone that try’s to increase their number of backlinks, and the top 10 for any competitive keywords (e.g. hotels, flower delivery, online shopping, etc.)</p><p>I think Google just felt SEOinc just went too far.  Check and compare their backlinks on Yahoo and compare them to Microsoft.  So a 10 million dollar a year company had more backlinks than Microsoft does.  Clearly Google would see this as SEOinc going way too far.  Also all the other SEO&#8217;s did not like SEOinc and reported them to Google for spam and link violations.</p><p>End of story.</p><p>This is the way it really is.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced) (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 4/13 queries in 0.017 seconds using disk

Served from: www.stepforth.com @ 2010-03-15 21:32:49 -->