unreviewed
Joined: Dec 07, 2000
# Posts: 6776
|
Posted: 2003-Feb-02 12:38
Very good point Barry, the bottom line is in the log. And if provided in HTML, the client can explore the referrers to see how well their competition is doing on the main keywords.
|
 |
nick53
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3
|
Posted: 2003-Feb-02 14:52
As always - good advice from MakeMeTop.
To offer an analogy; the law says no pedestrians on motorways, you say "but it is the quickest way for me to go", so someone pops up and says its OK if its 3 in the morning and providing you wear brightly coloured clothing etc etc. But you are stll breaking the rules - and if you get penalised its your own fault.
|
|
Reiser
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 4
|
Posted: 2003-Mar-05 03:07
Kudos! What a great tool for clients looking to find out how far their sites are burried under key word search phrases. I've already obtained by license number and will be sure to submit the reports to my clients. Am looking into purchasing Web Position Gold2 automated page ranking software. Any thoughts?
Thanks.
|
|
Hux
Joined: Dec 02, 2002
# Posts: 1207
|
Posted: 2003-Mar-31 01:18
Just take the time and look for placement by hand, Then bill the client. No sense in taking the risk of getting bounced for not meeting TOS.
|
|
thejaneofalltrades
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 150
|
Posted: 2003-Apr-21 18:49
Web Position Gold is the ranking software to which Google's TOS specifically refers as against their rules.
|
|
OAC
Staff
Joined: Jan 25, 2001
# Posts: 6805
|
Posted: 2003-Apr-22 02:05
That is because it has a greater market share than all its competitors, combined. All automated page ranking software breach Google's TOS and all can be detected, despite the misleading claims by some of the companies.
As stated above, if you use it carefully and sparingly, you are unlikely to get into trouble.
|
|
Hux
Joined: Dec 02, 2002
# Posts: 1207
|
Posted: 2003-Apr-22 05:24
Hmmmm, kind like "recreational" use of drugs? "But I didn't inhale officer!" Like avoiding STDs, abstinence is 100% certain!"
[ Message was edited by: Hux 04/21/2003 09:24 pm ]
|
|
netcservices.co.uk
Joined: Aug 06, 2002
# Posts: 1594
|
Posted: 2003-Apr-22 09:34
Nice analogy Hux..!
|
|
PhilC
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 75
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-10 12:43
Ok, this thread stopped being posted to a couple of months ago but I've just seen it and I have a question.
A few people seem to insist that search engines (Google in particular) can detect automated, rank-checking software even if the software is written to emulate a real person. I don't agree with that. So my question is, how? Or, to put it another way, what is it about auto-software that cannot be hidden?
PhilC
|
|
OAC
Staff
Joined: Jan 25, 2001
# Posts: 6805
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-12 02:59
It can be done through pattern matching.
|
|
PhilC
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 75
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-12 10:31
I agree that pattern matching can be a giveaway, but only if the software searches are repetitive. It isn't possible for an engine to recognise a well-written piece of auto-rank checking software.
I'm not suggesting that there is any publically available software that wouldn't fall foul of pattern matching. I've no idea - I haven't tried them all. I'm simply saying that it isn't possible for an engine to recognise automated searches if the searching software is well written; i.e. software really can emulate humans so that nothing is detectable.
My own software (not available) is actually slower than doing it by hand when only one engine is being searched, and the delays between getting one page of results and the next varies widely. It really does emulate a person who is looking through the results.
Pattern matching is something that hadn't occured to me though. I can see how it could be a giveaway, and probably is with most or all of the available software, but I can also see how to program around it.
|
|
OAC
Staff
Joined: Jan 25, 2001
# Posts: 6805
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-13 06:20
You believe whatever you like, OK?
However, for the benefit of other forum members, Google can trace you through pattern matching. This takes resources so unless you are seriously abusing their system, you are highly unlikely to have a problem.
As far as I know, Google has only ever penalized egregious use of automated rank checkers and has very rarely penalized a site - it just blocks the IPs of high volume users of automated rank checkers.
If your own software "is actually slower than doing it by hand" then the probablility of your IP being blocked is very low indeed. But because it is slow, doesn't mean they can't trace you - it just means they can't be bothered, because they have much bigger problems to worry about.
For example, I know of one case where someone did something like 120,000 checks in 24 hours. Unsurprisingly, their site earned a PR0 penalty.
|
|
PhilC
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 75
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-13 11:06
You believe whatever you like, OK?
It's not a matter of belief; it's a matter of fact 
|
|
deborah2002
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 66
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-13 22:48
If the software PhilC is using is "slower than doing it by hand", why in the world is he using it? Not tryin' to sound snippy here, but that sounds like using auto stuff just cuz you can as opposed to the convenience factor. Just do it "by hand" and then you will be doing it faster (according to you) and won't have to worry about wether or not google will ok it.
deb
|
|
PhilC
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 75
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-13 23:20
You're right, deb. I use it just because I can - it's a lot easier than doing it by hand, and I can be doing other things while it runs. It comes into its own for speed, though, when it's searching more than one engine simultaneously.
Actually, any auto-searching software that searches one engine quicker than doing it by hand is easy to detect and, therefore, poorly written. The idea of pattern matching hadn't occured to me until it came up in this thread, but it's easy to get round if the programmer wants to.
|
|
deborah2002
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 66
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-13 23:33
PhilC, truly, I wasn't trying to sound as witchy as I did. I know the whole manual thing is a pain in the @**, but (as much of a time drainer as it is), I'd prefer to do it myself then rely on ANYTHING automated (frankly, I don't trust 'em worth a darn). With all the weirdness that google's been up to now I would hate to mess with them when you consider we don't know what new and interesting things they've come up with for us now! Our jobs just get more and more interesting (let's face it--there's a special personality type for us SEO's that has yet to be labeled!).........
deb
|
|
PhilC
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 75
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-13 23:55
Deb, it never crossed my mind that you were being anything other than a person with a question. Sorry if I said something that sounded otherwise. How's this? or <hugs>
I don't blame anyone for not trusting other people's software for auto-searches. Dunno if I would or wouldn't. I use my own software so I know exactly what it does and, if I get wrong with Google for it, it's only me that's affected.
|
|
deborah2002
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 66
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-14 00:01
No offense taken PhilC ;-) just that i have some big apprehensions with google right now (getting out of the main theme of the thread right now i know but bear with me--im on a roll!). I am of the belief that google will change the algo's that will help make out job easier (?), but trying to figure them out is the unnerving part. That being said, I just don't ever use the auto stuff cuz i am also of the belief that if you want it done right, ya just do it yourself (that personality type i spoke of earlier!)
The whole deal about you being the only person who (paraphrasing here) will be affected, that's kinda a hard lesson to learn, huh? We all work hard on our sites (and other people's) so I am one to play it safe and just stick to what I know. Maybe THAT'S the problem!!
deb
|
|
OAC
Staff
Joined: Jan 25, 2001
# Posts: 6805
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-14 04:46
"it's a matter of fact"
If you are referring to your claim "It isn't possible for an engine to recognise a well-written piece of auto-rank checking software" may be so. They could care less about which brand of auto rank checking software you use - so they aren't trying to recognize one.
However, if you mean that Google cannot determine, should they so desite, who is making repeated heavy use of such a tool, then that is incorrect.
As for "but it's easy to get round if the programmer wants to" Bawahahahaha.
|
|
PhilC
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 75
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-14 09:30
As for "but it's easy to get round if the programmer wants to" Bawahahahaha.
And you're a programmer, OAC? I mean that it is possible, and not difficult, to write an auto-searching program that cannot be detected by any search engine, including Google - that's exactly what I mean.
I'll rephrase my statement that you quoted:-
It isn't possible for an engine to recognise that *any* well-written piece of auto-rank checking software is being used.
You obviously think differently, so perhaps you'll explain what it is about auto-searches that you think cannot be hidden. Pattern matching has already been mentioned, but the searches can be handled so that they produce no discernable pattern. What else is there?
|
|
Inbox
