SEO ripoff???

[VinceSamios]

Nope, just commenting on what we've been told by another member. If a member is saying the firm in question is holding her website to ransom, who are we to disbelieve her? Is she lying? Why would she lie about this, what has she to gain?

Web designers deal with terrible clients daily - if pressured I'm sure they will help move the site, but they are within their rights to charge for this since it takes effort.

The site is based on http://www.oscommerce.com/ and therefore should be moveable - some proprietary systems can't be moved, its just a fact.

Someone said just download a copy of every page - don't do this - you have a content management system for a reason.

 

[david64]

I'm saying it again, its immoral to link to yourself from your clients homepage!

Good to see someone else who agrees with that. Using spam sites for links and putting spam on the sites you are working for are two very different things.

I'd like to know the quantity of backlinks that was build, but I would initially say £2000 for this SEO work is NOT unreasonable... they are, for the most part, good back links! be patient!

Would also agree that the work they have done can be considered a fair deal. It's certainly not a rip off as the thread questions. I think the problem was is that the linking building was being sold as strictly adhering to the Google guidelines as QVA Emma pointed out. However, you can't claim that when all/most of the sites that links were built from would be removed from Google's index if they find them.

A lot of SEOs seem to be doing nothing but bombing their clients out on splogs at Sponosred Reviews etc and not telling them what they are doing. If you're not telling the client that is what you are doing, you can't really complain when they get confused at all the guttr splogs that are linking to them when you are flying the white hat banner.

I suspect that the companies that are just hitting the splogs are web design companies who have stumbled across SEO and subsequently quick fix link solutions like SR and PPP; as many of these companies are linked to the hilt with splogs. It works fine for a while, but 1 year later, expect a decent wodge of your inbound splogs to have vanished or been removed from the Google index.

A friend bought a load of splog links about 1 1/2 years ago and got good SERPs from it. Now if you compare his inbound links in GWT and MajesticSEO its a 1:3 ratio of unique domains as the splogs have been butchered by Cutts and Co. and the same is going to happen to the sites that link to Little Pinkies.

Splogs are a short term solution that will only work long-term if you are constantly getting more slpog links, in which case you might as well invest that money is something that isn't scraping the gutter and more sustainable.

 

[VinceSamios]

Would also agree that the work they have done can be considered a fair deal. It's certainly not a rip off as the thread questions. I think the problem was is that the linking building was being sold as strictly adhering to the Google guidelines as QVA Emma pointed out.

To be fair, this was never brought up.

I personally know exactly where these links were purchased from, and they are about the best value links you can buy.

Its about bang for buck - £2k is not a lot to spend on SEO - ROI on SEO is very high, but very very few companies see that.

I think threads like this sort the twats and the trolls from the people who have half a brain.

I'm not at all affiliated with the company in question, but Fiona, you have received BETTER THAN AVERAGE service. You just need to be more bloody patient.

Is it against googles guidelines?

a) who gives a toss?
b) no - its not. These are not definitively splogs. The content on them is original.

I wouldn't take 95% of the posters on this thread out for a beer, let alone on as a client. Its bloody appalling the band wagon jumping try hard hypocrites condemning an SEO firm that, granted made a few minor mistakes, but generally delivered BETTER THAN AVERAGE value.

 

[david64]

To be fair, this was never brought up.

It was brought up earlier in the thread. Granted we can't know the process this client went though, but it seems to me the client was expecting something other than what they got.

Is it against googles guidelines?

a) who gives a toss?
b) no - its not. These are not definitively splogs. The content on them is original.

I wouldn't take 95% of the posters on this thread out for a beer, let alone on as a client. Its bloody appalling the band wagon jumping try hard hypocrites condemning an SEO firm that, granted made a few minor mistakes, but generally delivered BETTER THAN AVERAGE value.

I guess that depends on your definition of a splogs. Wikipedia says:

"The purpose of a splog can be to increase the PageRank or backlink portfolio of (affiliate) websites"

and that is all these sites exist for. They solely exist for Google to index them. That is not in the guidelines. Although I'd agree with your statement a if all you care about is SERPs as anyone who has a broad SEO experience will know that you are not going to have any adverse affects from these type of manufactured links, which seems to be the concern of the thread.

As for the content, I had a look at that when the thread was posted and it seemed the content was a load of spun and stolen garbage. For example this splog post:

http://www.brighthills.org/top-five-bargain-destinations-for-summer-2009/

has partly been stolen from ABC News:

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=7578627&page=1

The links from the original article have been removed and links to a site have been added to manipulate Google.

Is that an SEO client who has paid and SEO company and unwittingly ended up being put in a position where it could look like they are breaching copyright of a mainstream media giant?

It doesn't take much Googling to find that those sites are full of stolen content from Reuters, CNN etc.

The links to Fiona's sites would struggle to qualify even as splog:

http://xtremefilms.net/?p=81

It looks more link a reciprocal links dump.



I'm also familiar with this network and have seen plenty of sites, which have been de-indexed in it.

 

[VinceSamios]

copyright is a matter google doesn't bother themselves with, and the content is not duplicate according to the miss-understood duplicate content filter.

the matter of googles guidelines was brought up later in the thread, however my point was that it wasn't part of the original blurb.

They also aren't reciprocal link dumps because there is no reciprocity in the linking...

 

[Annoying Donkey]

Its Area Trade that did the website and SEO. I'm saying it again, its immoral to link to yourself from your clients homepage!

I don't see a problem, if it is clearly spelled out and the client has an option. I do think it is immoral to force it on the client, though they still do have a choice to go elsewhere...

I'd like to know the quantity of backlinks that was build, but I would initially say £2000 for this SEO work is NOT unreasonable... they are, for the most part, good back links! be patient!

I think £1700 was the on page changes, with a monthly fee thereafter. I don't think it's clear how long the contract went on for. I don't feel the links at the bottom of the page are good SEO. I don't consider the backlinks are 'good', but we could argue all day about what a good backlink is. My definition of a good backlink is one that is likely to stay in place for a long time.

Time is the single biggest SEO factor!

Wholeheartedly agree... and given time, those backlinks are likely to disappear.

I'm not at all affiliated with the company in question, but Fiona, you have received BETTER THAN AVERAGE service. You just need to be more bloody patient.

I think they may well have provided the service that they said they would, but I might debate it is better than average SEO. If it is, it perhaps speaks volumes about the industry!

Is it against googles guidelines?

a) who gives a toss?

I do. I believe these spammy type sites will be delisted at some point and the links disappear, thus Fiona has paid for nothing. I don't believe a site will be delisted or banned for poor backlinks, but it may well be penalised in the rankings, now or in the future. If you at least look like you are conforming, then you are less likely to be penalised.

I wouldn't take 95% of the posters on this thread out for a beer, let alone on as a client. Its bloody appalling the band wagon jumping try hard hypocrites condemning an SEO firm that, granted made a few minor mistakes, but generally delivered BETTER THAN AVERAGE value.

Are you sure you don't want to take a stand rather than sitting on the fence

The site is based on http://www.oscommerce.com/ and therefore should be moveable - some proprietary systems can't be moved, its just a fact.

Are you sure it's OsCommerce? Then their terms are breaching the OsCommerce licence - they claim to 'own' the software.

 

[VinceSamios]

I might debate it is better than average SEO. If it is, it perhaps speaks volumes about the industry!


Are you sure it's OsCommerce? Then their terms are breaching the OsCommerce licence - they claim to 'own' the software.

Yeah, the seo industry is a sham at present.

definitely oscommerce.

 

[Ali-v-8]

Gah - get with the times! Internal linking is a mega power seo tool in 2009.

Tomahawks are great weapons too. Shoot yourself with it and your gonna feel STUPID. You need to aim it at the enemy.

Open your eyes and look at the links.

There is no benefit linking from the same page to the same page you are on and doing it more than 3 or 4 times is STUPID.
But if you recommend it Who am I to argue.

I always recommend internal linking that has been mapped correctly and not over done.

 

[fisicx]

Gah - get with the times! Internal linking is a mega power seo tool in 2009.

Err, it's been an important part of SEO since before SEO had a name.

 

[Ali-v-8]

Also vince now you have me on a rant.

A) always follow Googles Guide lines. Interpret them how you want but definately follow them.
b) I would hate to see your clients if you class that SEO as acceptable.
c) Oscommerce is open source and people use it as a template for their own version. You sign an agreement for the t and c that they provide then thats how it lies.
d) Copyright is something that has cost google billions and have spent the last few years resolving "so yes google are bothered". I believe the algoryhm can match text from original source.

 

[Annoying Donkey]

c) Oscommerce is open source and people use it as a template for their own version. You sign an agreement for the t and c that they provide then thats how it lies.

I haven't specifically checked the OsCommerce licence, but I thought the essence of the open source licence was that if you modified the source you had to make the source available. Otherwise it becomes propriety! You certainly cannot take ownership of someone else's software...

 

Also vince now you have me on a rant.

A) always follow Googles Guide lines. Interpret them how you want but definately follow them.

I suppose your in the girl guides to.?

Earl

 

[Ali-v-8]

I suppose your in the girl guides to.?

Earl

Come on earl. Bending and breaking are two different things
You would never tell a client to break the rules.

By every means necessary so long as Google doesn't penalise you for it.
And by that I mean stay with in guidelines.

Guidelines are exactly what they are. They show you the way.

 

[david64]

I don't see a problem, if it is clearly spelled out and the client has an option. I do think it is immoral to force it on the client, though they still do have a choice to go elsewhere...

The problem is clients don't really have the knowledge to know the true implications. When I see companies with [SEO], [web design] or other similar links in all client footers, it puts them in the scuzzers bin. If thats all you can do to get rankings, you are not worth a penny.

I think £1700 was the on page changes, with a monthly fee thereafter.

Not sure about that. Fiona posted earlier about her SEO company trying to charge her to make more changes to here site because Google had changed their algorithms? Maybe she misunderstood them, but it sounds like snake oil SEO if I ever heard it:

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=125821

d) Copyright is something that has cost google billions and have spent the last few years resolving "so yes google are bothered". I believe the algoryhm can match text from original source.

Google are legally obliged to respond to reports of copyright violation on websites in their index:

http://www.google.com/dmca.html

 

[fiona davies]

hi,
just to clarify, I paid £1700 for initial 3 month set up and SEO then a further £320 to maintain my position. It was when they asked for an additional £250 for a change to Algorithms that I started to become suspicious - hense the post (and title)

In my meeting with them to discuss SEO initially they sold it to me that I would be on P1 google, they would write articles, submit them to relavent web sites (relivent to my business I was assurted), post on blogs etc. I KNOW NOW I should have looked into it more, this is MY mistake.

Anyway I just want to get to the bottom of this. The company in question have agreed to meet me next week which is a good sign.

Many, many thanks for all who have given sound advice which I have sifted through on sleepless nights spent in front of the computer.

Gets kinda heated on this forum.

 

[marekdoyle]

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

Hi Alex, just wanted to know if you know of any sites that will provide ratings on my own backlinks (similar to SEOMoz) without having to subscribe for 79 dollars a month? Just started to get interested in the SEO arena!

Regards, Marek

 

[SFD]

classic.linkdiagnosis.com

Gives you an idea of backlinks along with

anchor text
pagerank
no of outgoing links

 

[VinceSamios]

Hi Alex, just wanted to know if you know of any sites that will provide ratings on my own backlinks (similar to SEOMoz) without having to subscribe for 79 dollars a month? Just started to get interested in the SEO arena!

Regards, Marek

Install "SEO for Firefox" plugin

then...

Go here

That combination will give you a lot more relevant data on each individual link. And its all free!

 

[marekdoyle]

Thanks David and Vince, much appreciated.

Install "SEO for Firefox" plugin

then...

Go here

That combination will give you a lot more relevant data on each individual link. And its all free!

Final question - are inbound links from pages with a PageRank of "NA" worth having?

Thanks, Marek

 

[VinceSamios]

Final question - are inbound links from pages with a PageRank of "NA" worth having?

Any link is worth having....

If it isn't indexed in google, it still might work for yahoo/bing etc.

 

[marekdoyle]

Thanks for your advice, really appreciate it.

Regards, Marek