Google Bombing or Incremental Tool for Search
Engine Ranking?
by Mike
Banks Valentine © Sept. 1, 2004
Today I visited the WebProWorld forums and stumbled
across a topic "New Google Bombing Technique"
and was startled to see that the topic had been
viewed over 22,000 times! It is by far the most
active of the forums in the "Search Engine Insider
Reports" section.
This article is simply my response to that discussion
thread and I hope it helps cool off the heat being
generated there. <http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=19786&start=100>
The general gist of the conversation suggests
that appending a question mark ? or a pound sign
# to the end of an ded link in a web site could
lead to ranking a site at the top for any search
phrase. An example is given of top rank for a
particular phrase, then immediately forum members
post their own URL's in the discussion replies,
using the technique to link back to their own
sites with their own targeted search terms in
an attempt to gain advantage with the technique,
many times with odd or obscure terms.
This "new" so-called "#Google-Bombing" technique
is simply a routine SEO strategy that has been
used for years by pros. When we optimize a site
for a client, we include keywords wherever possible
within the visible page text. The top priority
is ALWAYS page text and title tags. From there
on, ALL uses of additional techniques are only
incremental in value and don't dramatically affect
ranking for targeted keyword phrases.
I demonstrate the ease of ranking for obscure
terms on a page where I discuss the foolishness
of SEO guarantees by including the phrase, "screeching
camels" one time on the page in visible text.
<http://seoptimism.com/SEO_guarantees.htm>
There are no keyword or description metatags on
that page, yet it ranks number one at Google when
you search for "Screeching Camels". That is not
Google bombing. A one-time use of a keyword phrase
on a page got this number one ranking for that
phrase simply because it is an absurdly rare phrase.
Use of irrelevant and misleading keyword phrase
stuffing in keyword metatags, in comment tags
<.!-- keyword stuffing --> (leading period used
in examples to allow display without ding links
in HTML email) and in ridiculous "invisible text"
(using text the same color as the background)
got abusive and so the search engines began to
penalize those who did those things. They will
always attempt to ban the obsessive cheaters and
keyword stuffing liars.
The ? and # technique has always been used legitimately
for ?tracking-referrers, calling ?search-terms
and #jump-links to take you to a named anchor
within a page. Now obsessive webmasters are attempting
to use the technique to increase their own search
engine rankings.
Sometimes when I link OUT to a site, I append
?WebSite101 to the tail end of the URL simply
to let them know where the visitor came from (referrer)
when they view their logs or use a traffic analysis
or tracking service.
The ? technique for tracking traffic is even
recommended by Pay-Per-Click engines which give
instructions to advertisers using the technique
to track clickthroughs from PPC ads. Appending
"?overture-keyword" to the end of PPC destination
URL's makes that visior who clicked your ads show
up in your log files and allows you to know the
phrase that delivered that visitor and that the
visitor originated from Overture.
SEO's have always used # and ? to advantage
in an incremental fashion to optimize client sites.
The jump links to named anchors is routinely used
by SEO's by placing keywords in the #named-anchor
links.
This works particularly well on long FAQ pages
and on glossary of terms pages. Instead of doing
what most do and using <.ahref="#FAQ1"> Keyword
Phrase<./a> instead we use <.a href="#keyword-phrase">
Keyword-Phrase<./a>. Of course you'll need to
use it again in the anchor tag at <.a name="keyword-phrase"><./>
Again, just an incremental tidbit to increase
the use of the keyword phrase by a slight margin
THROUGHOUT the site in that same incremental fashion,
without being excessive.
The same is done with image filenames <.img
src="keyword.gif"> second level directory names
/keyword-phrase/keyword.html, page filenames,
and ding links in visble page text keyword phrases
<.a href="keyword-phrase.html"> Keyword Phrase
<./a> rather than the worthless <.a href="wordfrag4.htm">
Click Here<./a>
Every once in a while someone re-discovers these
incrementally valuable techniques and attempts
to abuse them a la "Google Bombing" (as discussed
in the WebProWorld forum) and they get abused
obscenely by overly agressive folks that risk
being banned in order to gain short term advantage
for their own sites.
This leads the search engines to downgrade or
penalize those who abuse the techniques. SEO is
not made up of a single technique used to compulsive
levels. Wholistic SEO is using many techniques
moderately for incremental gains. When you get
obsessive about any one technique it leads to
trouble.
Stay out of trouble Ð please!
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Banks Valentine is SEO for <http://AsbestosHelpCenter.org/>
Contact Mike at: <http://seoptimism.com/SEO_Contact.htm>
Improve your site <http://website101.com/Free-Tutorials/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------
The Linking Matters Report
A free report to help website owners and publishers
plan effective linking strategies and boost link
popularity - includes guidelines, worksheets and
links to over 50 articles on linking.
Return
to SEOptimism articles index
|
Visit Our Sponsor! WebPosition Gold