SEO ripoff???

fiona davies · Sep 29, 2009

Hello,
I have paid about £2,000 for a company to SEO my site. After posting a thread on here a week ago and on the advice of those that responded to my thread I approached my SEO company because it looked like the pages where they had linked my site to were landing pages or dorway pages...they looked like link farms and spam sites to me.

My SEO comapny are saying that they are looking into my compalint and have said that whilst some of the sites are 'dodgy', they are ok for SEO purposes and that I am wrong to ask for my money back as linking is what SEO is all about, regardless of where the link is/type of site????

I know I have been really stupid in giving them my money, but without naming and shaming them (not allowed to do) they are the people that designed my site and therefore I trusted them.

I know its a really cheaky ask but could a SEO expert out there have a look at my backlinks and see if you consider them to be linkfarms /doorway pages? I don't know what to say to these people when they phone on Thursday and say they have not done anything wrong!!!!!!

my site is here:

little pinkies

Mystro · Sep 29, 2009

Well im no Seo expert but to me it looks like they have your description and keywords mixed up for a start

Taken from home page

<META NAME="Description" CONTENT="unique jewelry, Unique jewellery, Fingerprint jewellery, Fingerprint cufflinks, Fingerprint necklace, Fingerprint charms, Little Pinkies">

<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Little Pinkies creates unique jewelry. We specialise in fingerprint design and all of our jewellery is unique.">

You may want to wait for a proper expert to have a look first though before you take what i wrote as factual

Paul

fisicx · Sep 29, 2009

I suppose you could have FOUND us FIRST instead of getting COLD OUTSIDE but looking at your link profile it's pretty rubbish and not worth more then tuppence.

These are two example of the dross they have used: http://xtremefilms.net/ or http://www.mundawar.com/

Not quite link farms but pretty close.

And ask them to explain how this is going to help: http://virtualflowers.wordpress.com/

Mystro, it's irrelevant becauise the metatags are not used for ranking

Mystro · Sep 29, 2009

fisicx said:
I suppose you could have FOUND us FIRST instead of getting COLD OUTSIDE but looking at your link profile it's pretty rubbish and not worth more then tuppence.

These are two example of the dross they have used: http://xtremefilms.net/ or http://www.mundawar.com/

Not quite link farms but pretty close.

And ask them to explain how this is going to help: http://virtualflowers.wordpress.com/

Mystro, it's irrelevant becauise the metatags are not used for ranking

See I said i was no expert..

Ignore me from now on

eventdomain · Sep 29, 2009

said that whilst some of the sites are 'dodgy', they are ok for SEO purposes and that I am wrong to ask for my money back as linking is what SEO is all about, regardless of where the link is/type of site????

Oh jeeze,

How do you know the links are dodgy - did you check them out? If they are bad links, then this SEO firm have some talking to do and a clear responsibility to do the job right.

2 grand?

omg - even if you paid a quarter of that, it would be too much.

Did you actually meet with this firm or just ring them up and trusted em, based on a phone call? I'd get Consumer Direct involved in this one, as the SEO firm have to do a good job for the money, and if they linked/SEO'd your site incorrectly, it can damage the results and is not in your best interests - so you might be able to do something.

I'd ring this firm, ask them to redo the work and a lot more. If they refuse, get in touch with Consumer Direct

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/

they will tell you the options open to you, and if you have a case they will refer you to your local Trading Standards office.

I took a brief look at your source code, and it seems all you have is some very basic SEO work so far. Eg:

<TITLE>Unique Jewelry - Little Pinkies - London</TITLE>

The above title tag is nowhere near descriptive enough, it doesn't do anything for the site.

<META NAME="Description" CONTENT="unique jewelry, Unique jewellery, Fingerprint jewellery, Fingerprint cufflinks, Fingerprint necklace, Fingerprint charms, Little Pinkies">

Why are your keywords under the Description tag?

<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Little Pinkies creates unique jewelry. We specialise in fingerprint design and all of our jewellery is unique.">

What is the site description doing under the Keywords tag?

They put these under the wrong titles tags

You need to get this fixed, and they charged you £2k for this? Where's the rest of this SEO keywords, where on the site is the 2k of work, bcos I cant see it :|

You got to get some legal advice me thinks.

Mystro · Sep 29, 2009

eventdomain said:
Oh jeeze,

How do you know the links are dodgy - did you check them out? If they are bad links, then this SEO firm have some talking to do and a clear responsibility to do the job right.

2 grand? omg - even if you paid a quarter of that, it would be too much.

Did you actually meet with this firm or just ring them up and trusted em, based on a phone call? I'd get Consumer Direct involved in this one, as the SEO firm have to do a good job for the money, and if they linked/SEO'd your site incorrectly, it can damage the results and is not in your best interests - so you might be able to do something.

I'd ring this firm, ask them to redo the work and a lot more. If they refuse, get in touch with Consumer Direct

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/

they will tell you the options open to you, and if you have a case they will refer you to your local Trading Standards office.

I took a brief look at your source code, and it seems all you have is some very basic SEO work so far. Eg:

The above title tag is nowhere near descriptive enough, it doesn't do anything for the site.

Why are your keywords under the Description tag?

What is the site description doing under the Keywords tag?

They put these under the wrong titles tags

You need to get this fixed, and they charged you £2k for this? Where's the rest of this SEO keywords, where on the site is the 2k of work, bcos I cant see it :|

You got to get some legal advice me thinks.

Cool, so i was not too far wrong then

Im now a apprentice Seo . just 15 more years training to go

Paul

fisicx · Sep 29, 2009

I don't actually think the SEO firm did anything to the site - that's far too much work. All they have done is set up a bunch of crappy links to non-relevant sites. Probably about a day's effort from the Mumbai sweatshop at $2/day.

This is another of their excellent links: http://www.catchspringsfever.com/?p=32

Mystro, how close are you mate, I'm waving out my window in Pitsea.

Mystro · Sep 29, 2009

fisicx said:
I don't actually think the SEO firm did anything to the site - that's far too much work. All they have done is set up a bunch of crappy links to non-relevant sites. Probably about a day's effort from the Mumbai sweatshop at $2/day.

This is another of their excellent links: http://www.catchspringsfever.com/?p=32

Mystro, how close are you mate, I'm waving out my window in Pitsea.

Im Just around the corner from you

I Live in Kingswood In Basildon

But My office is in Laindon, there you go i see you im waving back.

Paul

fisicx · Sep 29, 2009

Laindon! Thats the posh end of town that is.

AMSEO · Sep 29, 2009

Fiona,

I have attached an extremely detailed analysis screenshot of your inbound links from SEOMoz.org who are industry leaders. You won't understand the vast majority (and I guarantee the company you are using does not have a pro account with them either) of it but I have highlighted the average domain power and trust passed on from those links and it equates to 0.01 on both parts (out of 10) - proof that the company you are using hasn't delivered on your payment and is linking you out to completely worthless websites.

Type in www . zshare .net /download/662901978b496dbe/ - I'm not able to post URLs yet! :redface:

Regards,
Alex

fisicx · Sep 29, 2009

The SEOmoz report is missing quite a chunk of inbounds, they list 52 but linkdiagnosis has 96.

However, both show a complete lack of relevance in the links so the overall effect might even be to depress your ranking rather than improve things.

QVA - Emma · Sep 29, 2009

fisicx said:
I suppose you could have FOUND us FIRST instead of getting COLD OUTSIDE but looking at your link profile it's pretty rubbish and not worth more then tuppence.

These are two example of the dross they have used: http://xtremefilms.net/ or http://www.mundawar.com/

Not quite link farms but pretty close.

And ask them to explain how this is going to help: http://virtualflowers.wordpress.com/

Mystro, it's irrelevant becauise the metatags are not used for ranking

Nice references there fisicx

There are some excellent backlinks that showcase "what not to do" interestingly enough alot of the domains are registered in india too...

I'm gonna disagree with the metatags not being used for ranking having got a clients page indexed by having a misspelling in the description tag, agreed it also helps having the correct spelling in the title as it is relevant but never say never

.

They do however help to describe and sell what your site is about which is hard when it shows up a list of keywords instead.

Another lovely site created is www.(dot)wholesale-gucci-shoes(dot)com - sorry i'm not posting a link to these cowboys - good examples of a really bad site set up specifically to house links especially in the footer, they no doubt class this as a relevant or category link - although I am not sure the trial attorneys stuck down the bottom with a link would class it as industry specific to them unless they represent big shoe firms perhaps?

Emma

AMSEO · Sep 29, 2009

fisicx said:
The SEOmoz report is missing quite a chunk of inbounds, they list 52 but linkdiagnosis has 96.

However, both show a complete lack of relevance in the links so the overall effect might even be to depress your ranking rather than improve things.

I removed some internal links which reduced it by around 20 or so links. I'd say that it's a conclusive link report Fiona could use against these jokers.

It won't affect your rankings in a negative way having those links, you're just not getting the service you paid for and thus you have a valid case against them. If farmed/irrelevant links were actually penalised, everyone would be playing foul.

Alex

fiona davies · Sep 29, 2009

hi alex,
thanks for the report. Ill use it as amo to prove the work I paid for is worthless.
thanks
fiona

SFD · Sep 29, 2009

You currently rank 7th for the term they are targetting with their anchor text. Where did you rank before they started?

fiona davies · Sep 29, 2009

I think about the same. The work they have done has not improved my position.In fact, according to my stats, the amount of visitors to my site has GONE DOWN since they started their SEO work.

fisicx · Sep 29, 2009

QVA - Emma said:
I'm gonna disagree with the metatags not being used for ranking having got a clients page indexed by having a misspelling in the description tag, agreed it also helps having the correct spelling in the title as it is relevant but never say never.

Then that must be the only site in the world to have it's description indexed! I've been tasting for years a never ever had a description indexed, are you sure that the word is indexed or is it just highlighterd in the SERPS?

fisicx · Sep 29, 2009

ASM Marketing said:
I removed some internal links which reduced it by around 20 or so links. I'd say that it's a conclusive link report Fiona could use against these jokers.

Agree that is is a good sample, mine was taken from linkdiagnosis. Just checked again it's still showing 96 links excluding all internals so SEOmoz is still very shy in it's reporting.

Fiona, if you want to run your own report, go to linkdiagnisis.com.

SFD · Sep 29, 2009

It's strange that it's the company that built your site.

The onpage stuff could be easily altered to get much better results without spamming links everywhere.

Before you take this any further I would take a complete backup of your site, just to be on the safe side incase it turns nasty.

Ali-v-8 · Sep 29, 2009

fisicx said:
Then that must be the only site in the world to have it's description indexed! I've been tasting for years a never ever had a description indexed, are you sure that the word is indexed or is it just highlighterd in the SERPS?

Ha ha ha
The meta's return with the cold steel of revenge.

Just one question i have.
Is are trade the one who (supposedly) optimised your website.
If so how much did you pay
And did you look at their website prior to sining up with them
ok ok so i asked 3 questions. Shoot me.

fiona davies · Sep 29, 2009

Hi, my contract was with a***trade to SEO my site. So far I have paid over £2,000, and no, I didn't look at their website. I was really stupid. They called me in (as they designed my site and did my PPC), spoke about SEO, guaranteeing 1st page in google (I know, I know....should have run a mile) but I trusted them. They have a high street presence...so not a 'cold call' from a random company

justinmarch · Sep 29, 2009

fisicx said:
Mystro, it's irrelevant becauise the metatags are not used for ranking

Did the company (I can't call them an SEO company) do this, if so it does indicate that:

A: They think that the keyword meta is a ranking factor which is incorrect.

B: They have not cared enough to implement it correctly.

The description tag is a great way to entice people to click on your listing so not sure why its a list then irrespective of any SEO value.

In terms of the links a good SEO will let you know what work they have completed on your behalf IMHO.

Hopefully you can move away from them, I would also ask for a report on what activity your money has paid for.

eventdomain · Sep 29, 2009

They have a high street presence

Doesn't mean a thing unfortunately, as SEO it such a 'trust thing' - and these guys are clearly good at web design, yet screwed up your site with bad link practises at the same time.

The very thing everyone shares is the 'demand for results'. By law, the service provider must show a duty of care to their work, bcos they are being paid - this firm didn't do that with this particular service.

Well if they aren't competent, they shouldn't even be offering to do it for money.

fiona davies · Sep 29, 2009

hi,
thanks.
They did send me three reports but the sites mine are linked to are just 'rubbish'...the text is written in bad English and it total nonsense and when you navigate around the sites you get a 404 message. the majority of the linked sites are like this....unfortunately I would love to move from them but they host my site and designed it and I can't just move (something to do with the programe they have used)...V sorry about my ignorance in all things web related.:|

eventdomain · Sep 29, 2009

fiona davies said:
hi,
thanks.
They did send me three reports but the sites mine are linked to are just 'rubbish'...the text is written in bad English and it total nonsense and when you navigate around the sites you get a 404 message. the majority of the linked sites are like this....unfortunately I would love to move from them but they host my site and designed it and I can't just move (something to do with the programe they have used)...V sorry about my ignorance in all things web related.:|

Ok, did they send you a copy of your website on CD?

If no, I suggest you get one (they have to give you this by law!).

You must get that site copy!!!! You want the MySQL access, and Hosting control panel access. They cannot deny you this information - if they refuse then threaten to get a solicitor involved.

Once you get a these details, then you can switch web hosts. But you at least need the copy of the site.

UKSBD · Sep 29, 2009

Unbelievable.

People are commenting on a company and outing them as being rogues on
the basis of 2 weeks SEO work and a few so called dodgy links.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves

justinmarch · Sep 29, 2009

As the others suggest I think you have a few options here, figure out what you want as an outcome put it to the company, if they don't comply try the legal route.

Spock · Sep 29, 2009

Also use a free program like SiteSucker to download all the web files before you have a go at them, just incase.

Was there a contract of any kind?

TheWordWell · Sep 29, 2009

Hi Fiona

I'm sorry this has happened to you. I'd be really angry too!

I do a lot of SEO work through my copywriting and I have a few observations having looked at your site.

1. The spelling of jewellery is double l in the UK, whereas jewelery is American. Your SEO company have used the American spelling. This will need changing!

2. You are based in London and need more geographical words in your meta data and your site copy.

3. They have definitely mixed up the description and keyword meta tags. Highly unprofessional! Google only reads the title and description tags - so these need to be professional.

4. Most of the meta data is identical and it should be slightly different according to the page.

May I ask who did your SEO keyword research and copy for the site? I'm happy to chat about it (for free) if you need some advice.

Your site looks really nice, with some lovely items. This company should put everything right for you. Appalling!

I really hope you get it sorted out.

Nikki

petera · Sep 29, 2009

UKSBD said:
Unbelievable.

People are commenting on a company and outing them as being rogues on
the basis of 2 weeks SEO work and a few so called dodgy links.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves

The link building is one thing, but mixing up the meta keywords and the page description is a decent indication that this company aren't the best

SFD · Sep 29, 2009

UKSBD said:
Unbelievable.

People are commenting on a company and outing them as being rogues on
the basis of 2 weeks SEO work and a few so called dodgy links.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves

Maybe, but not letting the OP have a copy of the site or move hosting isn't really a good sign is it?

fiona davies · Sep 29, 2009

to reply to UKSBD the company didn't do two weeks work they did 4 months work...ALL the links are dodgy.

TheWordWell · Sep 29, 2009

UKSBD said:
Unbelievable.

People are commenting on a company and outing them as being rogues on
the basis of 2 weeks SEO work and a few so called dodgy links.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves

Hi... I understand why you said that. But, if you look at the behind the scenes stuff going on, Fiona and her business haven't been treated professionally and the meta data certainly isn't professional.

This is not a witch hunt. People are simply trying to support Fiona with the situation she finds herself in.

justinmarch · Sep 29, 2009

If they have been running your PPC you will also need access to any analytical data you don't want to loose this valuable piece of market research particularly if you do switch companies.

QVA - Emma · Sep 29, 2009

fisicx said:
Then that must be the only site in the world to have it's description indexed! I've been tasting for years a never ever had a description indexed, are you sure that the word is indexed or is it just highlighterd in the SERPS?

it's been indexed on page two, it wasn't indexed before for this word and yes it is highlighted.

Why wouldn't google index a site for a common mispelled word using the description tag only? Google has been collecting data for years so it would rank a site for a word that is searched for frequently misspelled or not - if it can find it in the tags or on page.

I'm going to try it again with another site for another common misspell with a word in the description only.

My arguement is you could put any number of made up words in a description and of course it will never rank - noone has ever searched for it before....whereas misspells are common, therefore lots of data and searches. Anyway I digress sorry to fiona for hijacking the thread!

Emma

justinmarch · Sep 29, 2009

QVA - Emma said:
it's been indexed on page two, it wasn't indexed before for this word and yes it is highlighted.

Why wouldn't google index a site for a common mispelled word using the description tag only? Google has been collecting data for years so it would rank a site for a word that is searched for frequently misspelled or not - if it can find it in the tags or on page.

I'm going to try it again with another site for another common misspell with a word in the description only.

My arguement is you could put any number of made up words in a description and of course it will never rank - noone has ever searched for it before....whereas misspells are common, therefore lots of data and searches. Anyway I digress sorry to fiona for hijacking the thread!

Emma

Matt Cutts says this "Even though we sometimes use the description meta tag for the snippets we show, we still don't use the description meta tag in our ranking."

Source: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/09/google-does-not-use-keywords-meta-tag.html

More than the above though I think that I would handle this in another way via PPC for example depending on the numbers involved. Descriptions should be used to inform and entice the user to click thru IMHO.

KM-Tiger · Sep 29, 2009

justinmarch said:
Descriptions should be used to inform and entice the user to click thru IMHO.

Or any other call to action. Perfectly possible to get your telephone number into the SERPS snippet, if that's what you want the visitor to do.

justinmarch · Sep 29, 2009

KM-Tiger said:
Or any other call to action. Perfectly possible to get your telephone number into the SERPS snippet, if that's what you want the visitor to do.

Well yes you could do that...

I'd prefer to get the data from the click in the site analytics, would also prefer to concentrate on the key benefits / USP. Also you would have to bear in mind the 150 or so visible characters and make sure your number is not cut up.

fisicx · Sep 29, 2009

KM-Tiger said:
Or any other call to action. Perfectly possible to get your telephone number into the SERPS snippet, if that's what you want the visitor to do.

Agree but not for ranking.

I have the word 'genre' in the description of www.fisicx.com. A google search for fisicx+genre has a load of results but not one is for the actual site itself. As Justin states, google have been very public on this SEO fact for many years - I know of 4 different Google documents and any number of tests that have proven the meta description is not used for ranking.

justinmarch · Sep 29, 2009

QVA - Emma said:
Why wouldn't google index a site for a common mispelled word using the description tag only? Google has been collecting data for years so it would rank a site for a word that is searched for frequently misspelled or not - if it can find it in the tags or on page.

Misspellings if visible can also look so unprofessional if you do implement through PPC

you can see that ads with misspellings don't perform nearly as well as those with the correct spelling.

Also Google returns a "Did you mean:" result to tell the user how daft they are being (sometimes even when the spelling is correct) "optimisation" for example even on google.co.uk

AAAaaaaaaagghghh.

SEO ripoff???

eventdomain

AMSEO

AMSEO

eventdomain

eventdomain

petera

Similar threads