Comments on: Wordpress.org Hosting Spam http://elliottback.com/wp/wordpressorg-hosting-spam/ Internet & Technology Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:40:56 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: New Jersey Web Design http://elliottback.com/wp/wordpressorg-hosting-spam/#comment-21376 New Jersey Web Design Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:30:12 +0000 /?p=594#comment-21376 I ran into a similar problem with a client. Their current infrastructure requires a redirect, and it is done ethically and inline with Google's guidelines. It would be very costly to remedy this situation, and their rankings have not been affected thus far. However, the developer put a div tag on the redirect page with "display=none" and provided text that was not being displayed on the screen. Google says "why have text, if the user cannot read it?" The client insisted that the redirect page stay completely white, and refused to put the text in correctly. To make a long story short; the client received an email from Google and was removed from the index 3 days later. After 9 days of emails, and phone calls to Google employees, I was able to get them back into the index. They sustained their rankings and ironically improved in some regards. The bottom line is text is meant to be read by the user, and any attempt to disguise or hide the text is considered unethical practice by Google and the other top tier engines. Don't expect to get back into the index as fast as I did for my client. I luckily got in touch with someone that had a connection with the engineers. Normally it can take weeks or months to be reincluded in the index. I ran into a similar problem with a client. Their current infrastructure requires a redirect, and it is done ethically and inline with Google’s guidelines. It would be very costly to remedy this situation, and their rankings have not been affected thus far. However, the developer put a div tag on the redirect page with “display=none” and provided text that was not being displayed on the screen. Google says “why have text, if the user cannot read it?” The client insisted that the redirect page stay completely white, and refused to put the text in correctly. To make a long story short; the client received an email from Google and was removed from the index 3 days later. After 9 days of emails, and phone calls to Google employees, I was able to get them back into the index. They sustained their rankings and ironically improved in some regards. The bottom line is text is meant to be read by the user, and any attempt to disguise or hide the text is considered unethical practice by Google and the other top tier engines. Don’t expect to get back into the index as fast as I did for my client. I luckily got in touch with someone that had a connection with the engineers. Normally it can take weeks or months to be reincluded in the index.

]]> By: Kino http://elliottback.com/wp/wordpressorg-hosting-spam/#comment-1134 Kino Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:31:21 +0000 /?p=594#comment-1134 Hi Elliott :) Yes sorry I should have been clearer with my definition there. The page which the user sees is *not* the same page that the search engine spiders see. This is why you can only discover cloaked pages by checking the search engine cached pages. The code that was placed on the page was visible to everyone which would put it into the class of 'hidden' rather than 'cloaked'. You are right though, the intention is the same. Great blog btw Hi Elliott :)

Yes sorry I should have been clearer with my definition there. The page which the user sees is *not* the same page that the search engine spiders see. This is why you can only discover cloaked pages by checking the search engine cached pages.

The code that was placed on the page was visible to everyone which would put it into the class of ‘hidden’ rather than ‘cloaked’. You are right though, the intention is the same.

Great blog btw

]]> By: Elliott Back http://elliottback.com/wp/wordpressorg-hosting-spam/#comment-1067 Elliott Back Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:39:04 +0000 /?p=594#comment-1067 The whole thing is really quite weird, but also quite understandable. The only problem with his actions is the cloaking and deception, otherwise hosting advertising to support WP.org would be fine. Personally, I don't know what to make of it, except to remove all my links to WP.org. Since it's open source, I have no obligation to link to them or anything, so I can reserve more real estate on my blog for myself. But, I really like the product, and I think they should keep the advertising and just link to it directly. The whole thing is really quite weird, but also quite understandable. The only problem with his actions is the cloaking and deception, otherwise hosting advertising to support WP.org would be fine. Personally, I don’t know what to make of it, except to remove all my links to WP.org. Since it’s open source, I have no obligation to link to them or anything, so I can reserve more real estate on my blog for myself.

But, I really like the product, and I think they should keep the advertising and just link to it directly.

]]> By: jmc http://elliottback.com/wp/wordpressorg-hosting-spam/#comment-1065 jmc Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:31:07 +0000 /?p=594#comment-1065 Kinda weird to think about this in connection to Matt's late-February blog entry about spam: http://photomatt.net/2005/02/24/at-spam-summit/ Kinda weird to think about this in connection to Matt’s late-February blog entry about spam:
http://photomatt.net/2005/02/24/at-spam-summit/

]]> By: Elliott Back http://elliottback.com/wp/wordpressorg-hosting-spam/#comment-1060 Elliott Back Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:28:47 +0000 /?p=594#comment-1060 WP has just removed the /articles/ stuff from its homepage, too! I thought they had a contract w/ HotNacho to fulfil, though? WP has just removed the /articles/ stuff from its homepage, too! I thought they had a contract w/ HotNacho to fulfil, though?

]]>