SEO tip: Avoid keyword stuffing
Alex Chiu claims to have invented an immortality device:
Wow, who wouldn’t want to stay young forever? But there’s a snag. Alex claims that Google doesn’t include alexchiu.com in its index because, you know, Google is trying to suppress the immortality device. Here’s part of what one of his pages says:
I wonder if there could be some other reason that the domain doesn’t show up in Google? If you go back to Alex’s eternal life page and look at the bottom of the page, you’ll notice a very small textarea:
Hmm. It’s just a few pixels by a pixels, but it looks like there’s some text in there. So if you view the source of the page… uh oh:
“Internal vaginal aphrodisia doping hardware?” Huh? And what does a “plasma tv advanced chart” have to do with immortality? It looks like about 50KB of keywords are stuffed into that tiny textarea, from celebrity names to complete nonsense like “tupac kazaa hospital” and “alien cemetary.”
If I were wondering why I didn’t show up in Google, I would review our webmaster guidelines and read the information listed under Don’t load pages with irrelevant keywords. As always, webmasters are free to do what they want on their own sites, but Google reserves the right to do what we think is best to maintain the relevance of our search results, and that includes taking action on keyword stuffing.
libor Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 12:57 am
OK, Matt you made your point.
And now, be honest - how many Alex Chiu rings you actually wear? Or is it only for G top dogs ? :)))
dockarl Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 1:04 am
Well.. OBVIOUSLY the reference to an alien cemetery is NOT nonsense - he’s trying to make the point that the very existence of Alien Cemeteries PROVES beyond doubt that the device works - if only the Alien’s had access to neodymium magnets they could have avoided their cruel fate altogether
Michael Martinez Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 1:14 am
“As always, webmasters are free to do what they want on their own sites, but Google reserves the right to do what we think is best to maintain the relevance of our search results, and that includes taking action on keyword stuffing.”
My sentiments exactly. Clearly, engaging in keyword stuffing alone doesn’t get any free referrals from popular blogs to make up for the lack of search engine referrals. You have to WhineBait Matt Cutts so that he’ll mention your domain on his blog.
Disclaimer: I did not visit any domains that may have been mentioned in Matt’s post. Your mileage may vary.
rob Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 1:35 am
That’s a great example I can use to show clients how not to spam google, although it seems he has put a positive spin on being banned! Seems to be a legendary business man!
Jab Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 1:40 am
Why avoid it? It works great. As long as you guys don`t come up with a fully-automatic detection, there is no need to avoid keyword stuffing.
And, to be honest…it`s fun searching for stupid terms like “alien cemetary” and finding ridiculous sites like alexchiu.com. This is how you lern real SEO.
Matt, you wanna find Google`s bugs yourself…so why ask people to stop doing it? You better come up with real solutions to stop spam.
I know,…my post is somehow ironic, but I think denunciation, spam & linkreports…that is not how it should be.
Best Regards, Jab
Daniel Waisberg Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 1:45 am
Really funny post
It reminds me of a popular saying: when you point your finger at someone, three of your fingers are pointing at you.
Harith Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 1:49 am
Matt,
It seems that GOOG’s anti-spam algos are getting very smart and more intelligent indeed!
Or was that an excellent anti-spam job of a human googler
Having said that I’m just wondering; how could such an “immortality-gadget” get a patent in USA?
Tony Ruscoe Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 1:55 am
For a moment there, I thought it was our friend Ionut Alex. Chitu who was claiming to have invented an immortality device and had forgotten how to spell his own name!
Andy Blackburn Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 2:08 am
And he didn’t even flood his page with irrelevant keywords in a smart, hidden or hard to discover way… no no, just a very small text box… I think it’s hilarious
Mani Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 2:10 am
Damn - that’s a classic example of “Keyword stuffing” - it gave a whole new meaning to the word.
Cheers!
Mani
Mani Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 2:14 am
Harith, your comment just lit up something!
Would a google employee do something like that stupid?
Would he? Would he…?
garethjax Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 2:23 am
I agree Matt, but don’t you think that you’re giving exposure (traffic and an incoming link from the blog of matt cutts) to the website, by posting the link ?
Errioxa Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 2:24 am
Hello Matt.
Searching in Google “mydomain .com” with inverted commas, I have seen that there are people that inlcuye in pages a link towards my domain with words on sex, drugstores or things like that.
This is nine technical on the part of the spammers to confuse Google and that this one could not identify so easily to the pages that do this, because now many webs appear linkadas with these words.
You habeis in view of account(bill) of it?
Tim Trent Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 2:26 am
The really good news is that web sites stand more and more chance of being rated by content first and other things second.
I’ve always believed and advised that relevant, recent, and regularly updated content is the one thing that will raise SERPS above all else. Good content leads to genuine, deep inbound links (before I hear one of you cry “What about links”) and good content contains genuine outbound links to relevant sites of interest.
I support wholeheartedly all algos that spot keyword stuffing and other old school tricks.
Does that give me eternal youth, too?
Harith Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 2:35 am
Mani,
I was referring to identifying spam pages loaded with irrelevant keywords, and whether the identification was done by algos or by human googler at Google Search Quality Team!
Gids Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 2:38 am
Matt - You’re sure it’s not just because Google’s scared of Alex putting you out of business!?
Michel Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 3:00 am
“SEO tip”? I would rather say that’s more a “Seo Rule”, than just a tip
Dave (original) Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 3:05 am
Never seen a spammer yet own up and admit to spamming.
Matt, this a reason why myself and others NEVER want spammers to be told ANYTHING other than a link to the Guidelines. You last post with the vote, was over-run with people wanting Google to tell spammers more detail on bans/penalties. Don’t do it! PLeeeeeeeasssssssse
SearcHEnGineSWeB Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 3:17 am
No…no…No! A Thousand times, no!
There is no excuse to BAN the ENTIRE SITE!! NONE whatsoever.
Even the homepage should not be banned - Google sometimes will do a keyword banning - where a site will show up for a check on the URL but NOT show up for any keyword searches.
SEOs know that regardless of the keywords on a page - the real power comes from the quality anchor text backlinks - so it is unlikely that the person in question would really be getting a great deal of relevant traffic.
Essentially, what difference is there in loading a page with irrelevant keywords - and putting those same keywords in META DESCRIPTION or ALT TAGS.
Banning is unethical - it is a form of censorship. The only sites that should be banned are those that sneak malware onto the computers of unsuspecting visitors.
Google also factors in Click Popularity - so users who are deceived will be measurable by their time spent before returning to Google SERPS.
Hence, a site will drop much lower on the SERPs because of this constant pattern.
Let the public decide what sites they should or should not visit. Don’t decide for them. Banning is WRONG and undemocratic and a coward’s way out.
SearchEnginesWeb insists that you change your policies this instant!
Jimcat Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 3:19 am
They commit in a silly mistake. However, I see many sites use external CSS stylesheet and display:none to do keyword stuffing and can get around Google. e.g. avantbiz.com makes a class “t-seo”, and then stuff keywords and paragraphs, and links in the homepage. However, all these text and links cannot be seen by visitors. They did it for several years and gain good rankings. Indeed, they have a whole network of sites and use the same techniques.
I wonder why Google cannot catch them.
Lucio Dias Ribeiro Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 3:32 am
Hi Matt,
I think that Google as any other company can decide (and must) whatever to show on its searches results.
As any other company decides for their suppliers Google can decide to ban or not their suppliers (website). But what I really do not respect on Google, repeat I do not respect, but accept it, is the fact that the decisions are taken out of the blue!
Sometimes some web developers, bloggers do not have the experience that it takes to be under Google’s guidelines, and commit some mistakes and those mistakes are rewarded with exclusion or supplemental index…
I think it’s just not fair, why does Google do not notify giving the reason and a time to get it fixed?
Cheers
Lucio
Philipp Lenssen Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 3:36 am
> And what does a “plasma tv advanced chart” have
> to do with immortality?
Well, what are you gonna do after living, say, 400 years, having seen every city in the world, having tasted every food and wine, and having gone on every imaginable adventure?
You’ll end up home watching TV all day, that’s what!
Sasidhar Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 3:42 am
@garethjax
There is a no-follow on the outgoing link
Not sure about the eternal youth, but he’s sure gonna get eternal embarassment !
JohnMu Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 4:07 am
You’re almost helping them by banning them - imagine if they can’t claim that “very important people don’t want you to know about Chiu” :D. Next thing they’ll set up a robots.txt to block the other search engines as well.
I am kind of wondering how the site would do if it wasn’t banned. It certainly won’t rank for “plasma tv”, so what good would it do them? How quickly would they be reincluded if they removed that code block and files a reinclusion request?
Andrew Heenan Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 4:12 am
You’re all missing the Big Picture - this guy has a patent, so his techniques must work, mustn’t they?
Kudos to MC for giving him free publicity; Kudos to him for promoting the “alien cemetary” - since X-Files went, so few people have supported alien rights..
But as for the point I suspect MC wanted to make, it is timely; at least two forums have recently had threads about using text areas for ‘extra text’ - and at least one of them has effectively encouraged this kind of spamming.
So it’s good to know that Google has already rumbled this one.
Rimantas Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 4:12 am
@SearcHEnGinesWeB
I insist that you learn the difference between tags and attributes.
Veky Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 4:13 am
Don’t bother. I sent them email a few months ago about that:
—
I’m writing to let you know something you maybe do not know, and might
help you. It concerns the question of why you aren’t in Google’s
index. It might be that it’s because the big guys there know that you
found out something revolutionary, and are scared of that. But I must
say that there is a much simpler explanation. Addressing that could
help your publicity, especially if Google still won’t include you in
their index.
On your main page, http://www.alexchiu.com/, you have a textarea
element, named S1, with 0 rows and 0 columns, so it would not be
visible to visitors of your site. That element, unfortunately,
contains very much text (about as much as the rest of the main page
together), and moreover, that text is looking much like spam (sexual
enhancers, various link farms, money schemes, and other spammish words
are mentioned). When Googlebot visits your site, it sees these words,
and thinks your site is spam. So it doesn’t index it.
Second, but I think less important, on your “interesting links” page
(http://www.alexchiu.com/links.cgi), you have linked to gotlinks.com,
a link farm which is notorious for its web spamming practices. When
you remove the hidden textarea element, and links to those link farms,
submit a reinclusion request to Google, and I’m almost sure Google
will include you again. If they don’t then you’ll have much more
credibility for your claims. The whole process is detailly explained
on http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/reinclusion-request-howto/.
I wish you luck in informing people about your product. It would be
very unfortunate if some trivial hidden textarea prevents you from
helping the humanity.
If you have more questions about the reinclusion, or Google’s
indexing, feel free to ask.
—
Of course, they didn’t reply. I think they _want_ to act as a victim of some big conspiracy, it actually helps their publicity (or at least they think so). Maybe they even stuffed that page in that intention: not (primarily) because they wanted to rank for many keywords, but because they wanted to get banned, so they could pull that as their biggest argument about the greatness of what they have to say.
Justin Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 4:15 am
LOL what garbage. I wonder how many people actually buy into that scam! Very creative spin on being caught for keyword stuffing though.
Shahid Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 4:39 am
Great post Matt, expose more sites like this. I like the fact that you have ensured no link juice is passed over.
Erez Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 4:42 am
Now he got the publish he always wished for…
Ray Burn Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 4:49 am
Hi Matt,
I laughed so hard at this I nearly choaked on my cornflakes
What on earth are people trying to achieve by these practices - beats me!
I figure Google has amongst the highest concentration of brain power in the world - and people want to fool you - not great odds
Jeff Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 4:54 am
Alien Cemetary? Oh that sounds likes a place I would like to go…
Nick - I think the original Nick here. Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 4:58 am
Unless you were an alien of course
Voom Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 5:32 am
“Alien Cemetary”
That is classic… Thanks for the laugh early in the morning on hump day!
Ryan Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 6:01 am
Maybe he did it to get banned on purpose? Being banned seems to make up almost 1/2 of his marketing technique.
If he got re listed in Google, what else would he have to rant about?
netmeg Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 6:51 am
I got a kick out of this, but I got an even bigger kick out of reading the patent.
netmeg Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 6:52 am
I got a kick out of this, but I got an even bigger kick out of reading the patent.
Keri Morgret Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 6:59 am
He does hold the patent all right.. http://www.google.com/patents?id=maEYAAAAEBAJ&dq=5989178. I have a feeling we won’t be seeing a nice analysis on Bill Slawski’s blog though.
Brandon Staggs Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 7:17 am
Matt, great post. But I’m left wondering if his site was banned automatically or only after review. Does Google trust its “keyword stuffing detection” to the point where sites are delisted without human review?
Joe Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 7:37 am
“SEOs know that regardless of the keywords on a page - the real power comes from the quality anchor text backlinks - so it is unlikely that the person in question would really be getting a great deal of relevant traffic.”
Apparently Google knows something that SEOs don’t.
Still, we can not understand the true power of Chiu’s immortaliy rings. Maybe Google is being a bit touchy and that immortality does have something to do with “having pregnant disruptive innovation.”
Besides, Chiu is doing nothing wrong. Clearly, battery ninjas and Napoleon Dynamite are advertising via semi-elusive plain text ads. If you haven’t heard, it’s the latest rage.
Google doesn’t have a policy against that, does it?
Brian White Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 7:46 am
Dear sir,
I like what you have to say about fibroids autism fungus diarrhea, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Rishil Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 7:47 am
ha ha ha good article Matt!!!
While working for a client, I came across another one that has gamed google really well, and does quite well for search strings:
http://www.privatepsychiatry.co.uk/
Looks normal? ofcourse - no dodgly dealings!! but highlight a selection of teh home page white area…
see the problem?
lol. I had to turn down the client because he wanted me to do the same…
Multi-Worded Adam Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 7:47 am
Hey Matt,
You got one, but you missed another two:
http://superiching.com/glassball.htm
http://www.realimmortality.com/sunmoon/
It not only uses the same trick, but has most of the same words (looks like they’ve added a few more)!
If you want to find those page, search for “Chad Isaak” and “highlights outline overview timelines leviticus” with quotes…I’m assuming that’s Chris’ long-lost identical twin brother from another mother and something to do with the Bible, respectively. Yes, I’m fully aware that no one would look for these phrases normally, but you can never guess at what people are going to do.
Ban ‘em all Matt. Hang ‘em high. Let’s get rid of this crap. I got some rope if you want it! It’s the only way you can solve this sort of thing. Get ‘em out.
SEW: crap is crap is crap, and even exposing a user to this in the first place means that Google isn’t maximizing the user experience. So anything else in your typically illogical and egomaniacal rant doesn’t matter…showing the site to ANY users is wrong.
Julie Kosbab Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 7:49 am
I can explain the celebrity names.
He can’t put them all out there as clients or testimonials, to protect them, but they are all beneficiaries of his amazing discovery so he wants their names associated.
Yeah, that’s it. Totally!
David Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 7:56 am
Cripes, I never expected Cutts to talk about this guy. One of my clients used to sell this guy’s junk (the joys of the alternative health industry)
Rob Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 8:26 am
You won’t be laughing when msn search engine users like myself are still alive in 200 years time…..
SEO Honolulu Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 8:34 am
SCHWEET! I have always wanted to live forever in an alien cemetery. Gotta avoid that tupac kazaa hospital however, they might take away my plasma tv advanced chart though…
ya know it’s mindless dribble like this that makes me just wonder who is writing the software to randomize jibberish keyword strings like this, and how much money they make off of idiots like this guy.
MSG Quixo Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 9:00 am
SEO Honolulu, that is a nice twist. In my outrage it didn’t occur to me that these assholes who are taking advantage of the gullible masses are also gullible idiots. I’ve got to go sell this guy some number 1 placement on Google.
serrookie Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 9:07 am
aliencemetery.com is available for registration in case anyone was interested
Ken Chan Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 9:09 am
I saw the ad and thought surely the patent must be bogus. But, amazingly, the guy does have a patent–for a magnetic ring, that is. Not an immortality device. Darn! Who doesn’t want to live forever for 3 easy monthly payments of $9.99. Operators standing by. And that’s not all…
Grant Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 9:28 am
How do these people get these sites reviewed? I’ve sent numerous reinclusion requests for one of my sites in the past and never got anything from Google. It’s completely complaint with the Webmaster Guidelines.
Danny B Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 9:30 am
Fortunately, Alex Chiu will have all of eternity to fix this problem.
SEOish Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 9:40 am
Dude, I gotta get those rings.
Who needs SEO when you can have eternal life rings. Shame on oogle for suppressing this.
Patrick Havens Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 9:45 am
Matt thanks for posting about this site. You had mentioned it this weekend, but all the pretty graphics and such I didn’t have. I’ll be linking your presentation to this article so people really get an idea what you where talking about.
Doug Heil Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 9:50 am
It’s sad, but owners and webmasters actually “learn” this type of stuff at other discussion forums and SEO blogs. They do. It’s true.
The even sadder part is that our industry allows this type of teaching to go on without saying one word to the owners of such forums and blogs. Free speech is certainly alive and well, no matter how destructive it is for the industry. This guy had to learn about this kind of spam somewhere, right? He learned it from OUR industry.
Grant; every site I’ve ever reviewed all say they are compliant with the webmaster guidelines.
Tom Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 9:51 am
SearchEnginesWeb,
A different prospective - Is not the search engines just creating a website with links to the pages for you based on the key phrase or command you use? Why shouldn’t they get to choose who they will link to on their site? I bet your standards for who you link to are higher than all the search engines.
Watches Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 10:06 am
I have to agree that is pretty funny however he is using a cheap way to “syuff keywords” onto his site however you have better people that are very good at what they do and can fool the SE’s thats the people you have to go after (as if you don’t already know that!)
Michael VanDeMar Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 10:22 am
How ironic that you would post such a statement.
So “our industry” should be censored, correct? With no knowledge being put forth that is not approved? So who would be the Grand Inquisitor of All That Is Holy And White Hattish, doling out wisdom about what is right or wrong, determining what can and cannot be discussed? You? And should anyone disagree with this censorship, let them be excommunicated from the search engines, or perhaps banished to Supplemental Hell?
SEO Pirate Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Why does he keep talking about himself in the “third person?”
“Ale Chiu” this! And “Alex Chiu” that!
Michael VanDeMar Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 10:47 am
Maybe part of immortality is transcending the grammar of “self”.
SEMSpot Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 10:59 am
This is about the dumbest form of keyword spamming I have seen in a long time. I mean at least try and hide it better by pushing it off page with CSS or something. Most of the time when I see a site that is stuffing keywords, they are literally stuffing them in there visible text for everyone to read. In some occasions the image alt tags would be stuffed full of keywords, or they try and hide a bunch of text at the bottom of the site. Sad thing is I wonder how many people believe this guy about google not listing his site and end up buying the product.
Brandon Adcock Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 11:34 am
What is classic is that websense at work blocks that site as “tasteless”
Ben Murphy Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Aww Matt - can’t there be an exception for Alex? Gosh I think I had seen and laughed at his site when I still thought Excite! was awesome, dogpile was pretty neat and that new “Google” looked interesting, but nowhere near as cool as Napster.
This guy is a historic gem! He’s got a fantastic backlink count and a nicely aged domain.
How about a new advanced search parameter?
spam: immortality magnets
The spam: parameter should present a totally arbitrary & capricious version of the index with extra positive weight given to hidden text, stuffed keywords, redirects, link farms and paid links.
It could create a whole new type of seo contest and all the blackhatters would vie for top spam: spot for viagra etc.
jeff Hall Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 11:52 am
The site links to 1for1Link.com which has very similar styling and employs exactly the same small text area in the bottom left hand corner.
I am surprised that 1for1link.com is still indexed in Google given its nefarious linking activities.
Aaron Pratt Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Great “extreme case” Matt but what about those of us who play by “the Google guidelines” rules and still lose 95% of our pages to supplementals?
There is more to “showing up in Google” these days Matt and you know it, THAT is what would be more helpful to discuss.
Doug Heil Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Michael wrote:
“So who would be the Grand Inquisitor of All That Is Holy And White Hattish, doling out wisdom about what is right or wrong, determining what can and cannot be discussed? You?”
Well, maybe not me Michael, but I can guarantee it will “not” be you either. Sorry bud. I’m not surprised you took offense by my post…. and most people reading are not surprised either.
Most know there our places within our industry that are very bad stuff.
Jason Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
I cant stop laughing at his comments…
Put it this way: Even Kevin Trudeau’s website ‘naturalcures.com’ can be found on Google. Kevin Trudeau, the famous author of the #1 selling book ‘Natural Cures’ was not even banned by Google. Why is a small website like AlexChiu.com banned from Google? Ask yourself this question. Isn’t it strange? Why would a big guy like Google tease a small guy like Chiu? It’s because the smart people at the top know that one day Chiu’s technology will destroy their trillion dollars industry. If Chiu’s technology is not threatening, why would they ban his site? They are not afraid of Kevin Trudeau at all. But they are so afraid of Chiu. This means Chiu’s technology is truly threatening.
Go to Google and type in ‘alexchiu.com’, and this clickable domain will not appear. More than 1 million people visited alexchiu.com since 1996. Yet it won’t appear on Google.
Even Google is afraid of Alex Chiu. You can imagine how much the medical industry fears Alex Chiu.
You can help Alex Chiu spread the word by adding a link to AlexChiu.com from your website. Or tell others about Alex Chiu in chat rooms or on bulletin boards. Call your friends and relatives and tell them that such a website does exist.
Don’t let people forget this website!!
Don’t let a big guy like Google cover your ears and eyes.
The Dog Clothing Company Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
Just because of this post Alexchiu.com may have been hit 5,000 more times today. He definitely should thank you.
I also wonder if “keyword stuffing” is the ONLY reason that this site is banned from Google.
Mike Garde Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
This guy is a nut but people apparently want to live forever and buy his crap
check out Martin Sargent’s Web Drifter for a good laugh at Alex’s expense
http://revision3.com/webdrifter/foreveryoung
Matt Ellsworth Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
a 50k raw text keyword list is impressive. I mean I’ve seen some stuffed content in my lifetime - but never that much.
Aaron Pratt Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Again, this is a extreme example, I want to learn about those who play by the rules and get all their pages thrown into the supplemental trash bin. That is as close to Google turning off the switch (a ban) on a webmaster as it gets.
Spammers do not make me laugh anymore, they get in the way of useful conversation about compliant webmastering.
ars111 Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
I read whole post and I can understand why Chiu put whole keywords on his pages if he really believes that he has something new. I don’t think that Google is scared him because if he do not put all those keywords and even with little keyword stuffing ( Chiu this Chiu that) google will not ban his site from their search engine but he was unfair to whole of us that not put whole keywords on our site and try to break through on google search engine. I think that if google make crawler that can see almost whole scams that people put on their sites (and I know that they will but when…) then all fair publishers and people will have chance to break through as they deserve. How many sites even more violate rules like Chiu-s and google doesn’t have clue about it?
Harith Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Aaron Pratt
But I don’t see many supplementals on your site http://www.seobuzzbox.com/. Are talking about another site of yours?
Stefson Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Great post.
Now seriously, where can I get those rings? Look great and be young forever? Feng Shui Tamagotchi, here I come!
JLH Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
It surely isn’t completely ineffective, these 8 other domains still have the text box on them, and rank for terms in the box:
realimmortality . com
incrediblecures . com
eternallifedevices . com
superiching . com
liveforevernow . com
achieveimmortality . com
curecancerpill . com
immortaldevice . com
Screen shots and search used to find them saved on my blog:
http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/07/getting-caught-keyword-stuffing/
Michael VanDeMar Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
That’s because Google doesn’t detect for keyword stuffing algorithmically. While it is actually a violation of terms to attempt to get better rankings that way, it doesn’t actually work, so there’s no need for Google to waste processor resources looking for them. If someone gets banned and has stuffed keywords, then either they were banned for something else, or someone reported them and they were manually reviewed.
There are plenty of examples of sites ranking well that have similar or worse cases of misappropriate content, it’s just not the content that makes them rank well.
Simon Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Encouraging people to click on pay per click advertisement for snake oil products they don’t intend to buy, would also be against Google guidelines… but hey everyone needs a hobby.
Andrew Heenan Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
Most of AC’s sites are using 1998 spam methods; having found one, manually or algorithmically, surelly the other eight, with almost identical text and spam, should be found too?
AC says “My goal is to reach 10,000 hits a day to my site. Google banned AlexChiu.com. So what you can do is add a link to liveforevernow.com on your site, which Google did not ban yet. (That comes to alexchiu.com too.) By linking to liveforevernow.com, you helped my site go up in Google’s search rank. Soon liveforevernow.com will become popular in Google. ”
Makes finding one site a bit of a joke, really.
Matt, I bet you regret picking on the Eternal Guy, now
Aaron Pratt Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Harith - Of course my seobuzzbox.com is not in the bin, it is a bitchy SEO blog, it gets stupid links.
Yes, I am talking about another site.
Now we are on the subject, is this keyword stuffing in my book review? I do use the book title a few times to let the search engines know what I am writing about. Do search engines like Google no longer require this? I know humans still do!
Let’s hear the rules Matt and go beyond showing extreme examples!
Nacho Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
I just searched “Internal vaginal aphrodisia doping hardware” on Google and Alex Chiu appears in third position.
So, for a while, it works
Macally Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
finding hidden text sites is easy, i could easily name a bunch of them. most of them are poorly designed and look straight from 1998, but none of them are a real threat on rankings for big key terms.
now how about finding out the big time “deep linking to key page” via “keyword related anchor text” paid link buyers. the site looks modern, the site often has a brand name. so they must be legit right? not when the stakes are this high.
google hasnt done so well on that one have they?
Wave Shoppe Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Pretty funny stuff Matt, oddly he chose to blame Google over the amazing Randi Hmm http://www.randi.org/jr/053003.html
Okinawa Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Matt, did you find that site on accident, or were you a customer? Be honest!
Dave Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
I can only imagine how many sites are not included in google due to irrational sites like this one.
Dave (original) Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
More like they know a LOT that SEOs don’t.
Agree with Doug, this guys likely learnt this and a bunch of other tricks from a so-called SEO forum and/or one these SEO conferences. I would say DigitalPointless is not the forum as it’s not link spam
SEW, I think Matt was very clear that any site owner retains the right to do as they see fit to their own site. By the same token, Google retains the SAME right. Like it, or lump it!
Michael VanDeMar Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
Aaron, Supplementals aren’t really a penalty, they are due to a lack of PageRank getting to those pages. I just did a link: search on that site in Yahoo, and despite the initial semi-impressive numbers you might see, it only shows a total of 242 links when you page through them. This means that the rest of them are sitewides or near sitewides from the same domains that show in the initial 242. Except in certain instances, those extra links really won’t be worth much.
I randomly checked 15 of those links that did show, and of those, not one was cached in Google. Pages that are not cached, or are cached but are themselves in the Supplemental index, do not pass PageRank.
I ran a similar check on the deep links you have, and although the stats look better, with 734 results showing in the serps, I still only found 2 out of the 15 links that I checked as being cached in Google.
See, one of the things going on here, that apparently Matt and the rest of the team don’t grasp, is that:
a) Pages require a certain amount of PageRank to stay out of the supps
b) PageRank is a relative quantity… the more pages there are, the more links it takes to get PageRank
c) Therefore, the more pages factored into the equation, the harder it is to stay out of the supplementals
d) Currently, Google is completely inundated with millions and millions of pages of non-supplemental spam, making it almost impossible for honest websites to stay out of the supps.
Think I’m exaggerating? Here is what a quick search turned up (again, less than 5 minutes to find these examples):
[site:thisfunds.com] 5,150 results
[site:findlinks.eu] 7,540 results
[site:myblogvoice.com] 39,800 results
[site:quotaless.com] 54,000 results
In and of themselves, each only represents a few thousand pages… but they add up. Quick.
This issue necessitates buying links just to stay indexed in many cases… and the fact that Google chooses to focus on penalizing those who are buying links, instead of once and for all eliminating the root problem, shows just how out of whack their priorities are these days.
Btw, I am duplicating this portion of the conversation over on Smackdown, along with cached versions of those serps, just in case they disappear.
all lift forklift Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
I have checked eBay and Chiu’s Immortality Rings are listed there!
Google has webmaster guidelines but almost anythngs goes on eBay.
Mr Blonde Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
haha god that list of keywords is massive! would’ve taken him at least a day to pump all that out…although i am now curious how targeting the term “danger from hidden protecting yourself” could seem like a good idea?
anyways im sold… 10 rings for each finger for me please!
Battery Ninja [couldn't resist, it makes a cool nick] Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
>> I think they _want_ to act as a victim of some big conspiracy, it actually helps their publicity (or at least they think so).
Veky, that’s exactly what they want, as it will in the New Age and Alternative Health circles. Alternative health believers, practioners, etc, etc have a huge persecution complex, and they seriously belief that Big Pharma (in league with the FCC or any other big, related organisation) is out to crush them to protect their profits. They’re all rather paranoid and most are idiots, and I’m glad I stopped doing SEO for that industry.
Maximum Persuasion Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
I used to promote Alex Chius rings back in 1999 to 2000 thinking they had something to it.
Yes- they had something to it. I found myself having a great mood and stronger endurance using the thing… but I stopped because all the other claims on the site looked like hogwash and damaged my credibility
Jeremy Chatfield Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 12:02 am
Typical Google. Missed the most important thing. It isn’t the page rank or banning. It’s the definite discovery of the magnetic monopole. This will revolutionise cosmology, and make Google’s search business look like a broken toy, compared with the business potential of snazzy new spaceships, power systems and so on… If the magnificent Mr Chui hasn’t got magnetic monopoles, then how is he getting “positive” and “negative” magnets, for each side of the body or for hands and feet, eh?
More seriously, a helpful article. Thanks. Could also do with a CSS example of hiding keyword stuffing. I still talk to people who insist this is just fine and undetectable (e.g. using microsized fonts, or same colour foreground and background). The difference between this and Fahrner Image Replacement (and other IR techniques) could also be usefully described?
Related, tangentially, could do with some guidance on handling typographic variations. e.g. What’s the right way to handle people searching for Gogle, Googgle, Googke, giigke, etc. I’ve seen some site admins use meta-keywords, some using keyword stuffed areas, some with pages containing links with the variants, etc. I don’t remember seeing advice about that in your blog, or the webmaster guidelines.
Cheers, JeremyC.
Harith Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 1:47 am
Just wish to mention how Google look at keword stuffing.
Keyword stuffing
“Keyword stuffing” refers to the practice of loading a webpage with keywords in an attempt to manipulate a site’s ranking in Google’s search results. Filling pages with keywords results in a negative user experience, and can harm your site’s ranking. Focus on creating useful, information-rich content that uses keywords appropriately and in context.
Massimiliano Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 3:50 am
How much time will have been in order to write 53.000 and more characters?
Lever Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 4:24 am
I think everybody’s missing the point… Chiu’s obviously failing here because he’s forgotten to use the terms “tiger penis” or “rhinoceros horn”…
Matthew Anderson Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 6:28 am
Absolutely - If people want to tout their crap then that’s up to them, however Google and other search engines have the right to penalise for manipulation of results. Cheaters never win…….. Tour de France anyone?
btw.. I miss Igor :(… I actually visited this blog that little bit more just to see how many messages he had posted since my last visit!
Matthew Anderson Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 6:29 am
Oh - forgot to say.
Matt…. I wonder if Igor has replaceable parts??? As TP says, everyone needs an Igor.
Multi-Worded Adam Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 7:17 am
Watch it, Matthew. Some of us still believe the human body can produce natural synthetic testosterone.
jake Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 7:52 am
Error establishing a database connection
This either means that the username and password information in your wp-config.php file is incorrect or we can’t contact the database server at just_in_case_im_the_only_one_getting_this_error_I_hid_the_domain_name.com. This could mean your host’s database server is down.
Are you sure you have the correct username and password?
Are you sure that you have typed the correct hostname?
Are you sure that the database server is running?
If you’re unsure what these terms mean you should probably contact your host. If you still need help you can always visit the WordPress Support Forums.
Matt, been getting this ever since the Troll saga.
jake Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 8:04 am
Matt, on a side note, why cant i find one of my favorite bands in Google?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_The.
Can an exception be placed in googles index for when the search [the the] appears, we get links about the band The The?
dockarl Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 8:32 am
jake - I second that - I keep getting the same error whenever I drop by Matt’s blog.
M
AussieWebmaster Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 9:57 am
Funny he is not on the front page of Yahoo for his title tag but what looks like one of the spawned sites is:
http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/washington/disweb/chiu/foo2.html
Chris Kameir Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 10:10 am
Well, the stuff MUST work .. they guy is probably a hundred years old and back then this kind of keyword stuffing still worked
wahooey Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 10:11 am
I well understand “vitality water” if say a man placed that ring on a certain appendage and went about his business. Clearly this is not a case of keyword stuffing but a matter of creative language which all of us who aspire to eternal life regularly engage in. Shame shame Matt…lololololololol
Toby Adams Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 10:53 am
I got to tell you Matt, I love your blog! This is just great stuff. I love the chuckle this gave me. Thanks! And also, ‘thanks’ for letting SEW comment. I skip all the other comments and look for what he has to say first. This stuff just makes my day. Keep up the good work!
Has anyone ever met SEW in person? I bet he is a charater. I’d love to take him to lunch. Not to ‘change his mind’, but just for the entertainment. Maybe some of your other commenters could come along for the banter. I’m sure the results would be youtube worthy.
Now, I’ll go read the rest of the comments.
Bob Rains Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
I just got my rings and man do I feel awesome, these things really work, at lunch all I ate was glass and I still feel like a million bucks.
Afterwork, I’m going to shoot myself in the face!!!
Bob Rains Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
Last one to join is a rotten egg…
http://alexchiu.com/appreciation.htm
Swinger Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
Key word placement and the amount to use is a Bitch from the dark lord himself and can be hell to try and get right. When will these clowns quit trying to fool the search engines and stop screwing it up for the rest of us honest web site owners? I know the anwser to that, “When there is no money to be made doing it”. Like that will ever happen LOL.
Unfortunately, there will always be these buttheads trying to get the easy way what the rest of us work hard for, Unique Hits.
I just wonder how many times the search term “Internal vaginal aphrodisia doping hardware” is ever used LMAO
Thanks for the outlet
J. Kelly
Bob Rains Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
This site is really awesome if you read the whole thing, I haven’t had this much fun since http://www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com
From the page “ATTENTION: Gorgeouspil cannot function without the rings. So if you want to take Gorgeouspil, you need the rings.
This pill was named ‘Gorgeous Pill’ because it turns a user prettier every time the pill was taken. The user will gradually look PERFECT, even more gorgeous than super models. You will one day reach PHYSICAL PERFECTION!!”
Thank god for Alex Chiu…
Marc Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
So I felt compelled to look a little further into this matter, and I found this website with a video interview with Alex. I almost peed my pants laughing, especially the part where he sings karaoke to “Forever Young” by Alphaville. I encourage you all to check it out. http://revision3.com/webdrifter/foreveryoung
photos Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
I find this amusing a few real alterations could make all the different for far more possible visitors… this is lame lol.
Random words just dont work… researched phrases do… oh well
Peter (IMC) Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Very Cool Matt,
You managed to detect a rediculously keyword stuffed site that even a 5 year old could detect.
But what about keyword stuffed sites that do stay on topic? Or worse, the types that put some keywords, and a huge i-frame that takes up 85% of the page to show another website, that on its own, doesn’t show up the Google SERP’s?
Sorry for being a bit sarcastic here, but if that´s all Google can do in relation to spam detection, then I’m not impressed.
Forever Young Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
You guys have Chiu all wrong, This is really legit.
In fact he’s a nice guy, we met about 3000 years ago when I bought my set from him. Nice to see he’s still wearing his (mine is getting a little rusty though, I might have to invest in another set)
Leslie Gilmour Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
I don’t understand why some people do this. They always seems to get caught then spend too much time talking/ complaining about it on boards.
What I really want to know is why they do it? There must be a payoff from somewhere even if it is not Google - do you know if this is the case?
Michael VanDeMar Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Peter, he never said he detected it in the first place. I’m guessing he looked at it because someone emailed him the fact that good ole Alex was claiming to be banned due to a conspiracy by Google to keep people from staying young forever.
-Michael
Rick Vidallon Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
If I were you (before the Google-shine) wears off and goes the way of Micosoft, you should manufacture and sell ‘Google Rings’. Wear one all day and night and achieve eternal SEO.
Beven Henry Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Cool Matt,
Google has has banned this guys site for keyword stuffing. I agree its only fair that you should use the right keywords for your site, but I like many that do the right thing, spammers still manage to outrank us for our relevant keywords what is google going to do to fix this problem?????
Sam I Am Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
I’m with Aaron Pratt. We’ve all seen the extreme examples, it would be good if some thought and attention is given to those cases where perfectly fine sites in any book still get the boot. There’s more and more popping up of late so something is definitely happening here!
Marc Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
Ok the site is an example for keyword stuffing, but at least we don´t have to age anymore.
But what to do with this time?
Perhaps write a whole story with the use of all the stuffed keywords ?
Would be great - just look at the assembled stars who would be in it.
“After Sintra suffered from mental disorders, an anti-aging exlixier, which also prevents seasickness and led in the revolution by using 9/11 as a funny floating mattress pad and didn´t even had a hangover, when he woke up on a alien cemantary the next day.”
Well, this doesn´t make sense but with a whole eternity, I will be successful.
Billsen Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
This was priceless! Reminded me of the old Webpagesthatsuck.com stuff from back in the day. Not just sucky design, but also sucky keyword stuffing!
Windsun Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
I bet those would go real good with my bio-magnetic toe rings. They only promised 20 years more life though, so maybe I will live forever + 20 years now.
And he is not stuffing keywords, he is merely presenting new words and phrases for people to learn. I mean.. how many people would know what vaginal doping hardware was before reading this? I sure didn’t!
One thing I noticed though.. on Yahoo search for “alex chiu”, his site comes in at #4….
Multi-Worded Adam Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
If they were smart (and they are), nothing…you’re promoting software that violates Google’s ToS and therefore puts you in the same class as the spammers you claim outrank you.
I remember you! You were at Methuselah’s christening, right? You, Alex and I played 3-handed euchre until he got all angry about being banned from Israel.
3000 later, poor Al’s still a pariah.
Bob Downs Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
maybe the guy is doing immoral stuff…Its hard to buy into his product offering
but he is getting just south of 400 visitors/day..I think that is pretty good.
Craig Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
I hope all of this is not to imply the rings don’t really work?!?!?
If it does, umm, well,
Never mind.
David Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
I think a lot of times people get so desperate to find SOME way to rank for SOMETHING they decide to start dynamically putting keywords together. In the past it has worked for many people, and even now it can have short term results, though I think google is getting better at dealing with stuff like this by hopefully locating things that don’t make sense sematically.
Aaron Shear Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Matt, very impressive you rank for Alien Cemetery instantly. What a great time to live on the crawl.
Netmeg Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
I was waiting for the iRings to come out, but decided I didn’t want to change service providers.
jake Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Sorry Netmeg, no iRings yet, but how about an iChing? Make that a Super iChing!!!
poking around, found a link to one of his other sites…
http://www.superiching.com/
I luv the web ring ad down at the bottom, above the 7,132 keywords he has listed. Now I can see why he used a text area box. At least this way though, his site managed to get a TBPR of 4. And the lesson is??? If your gonna spam, do it blatently, that why you won’t get penalized. (tongue in cheek).
MGH Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
“dockarl Said,
July 25, 2007 @ 1:04 am
Well.. OBVIOUSLY the reference to an alien cemetery is NOT nonsense - he’s trying to make the point that the very existence of Alien Cemeteries PROVES beyond doubt that the device works - if only the Alien’s had access to neodymium magnets they could have avoided their cruel fate altogether ;-)”
You’re pretty funny
~~~~~~~~
I’m also surprised people still use dumb old tricks.
Slvt Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
I am not sure what his intentions were to use this “SEO” method but even if the site is banned from Google, I am sure he will receive a lot of traffic with his “Immortality Device” SEO technique. I checked on Yahoo and his site is very well ranked for the query “immortality”.
He may not sell his magnets but the result of this scam will probably be hundreds of new incoming links and a lot of new customers searching for his other products or an alien cemetery. Congratulations Chiu!
findhelpnow Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Hilarious! But sad too… Similar unethical “SEO” techniques make it through the algorithm all too often. This is my first time commenting, although I read your blog religiously and it is without question the most important and informative blog on search in the industry. Keyword stuffing has been the bane of the search industry for as long as I’ve been optimizing (at least 6 years at this point). Unfortunately, I find that in certain industries sites seem to squeeze through the algorithm at a higher rate than others - why I don’t know - or maybe it’s just that I notice it more in certain industries because there aren’t as many good, nonspammy sites that rank because the good, honest, ethical ones aren’t lying or buying their way into enough PR to compete.
For example, lately I’ve been spending a lot of time in in the addiction field, and I’ve found hidden text, hidden links, and keyword stuffing in far too many of the top 30 results for some pretty darn big terms. One egregious example would be rel=”nofollow”>this site. WOW… I mean…well…WOW. That’s all I can really think to say. How something like this could have a pr5, count as HUGELY relevant backlinks to the site that these “almost completely” hidden links link to, and this entire hugely spammy site and it’s whole bad neighborhood can rank top 10 for major terms blows my mind. Even the hidden links themselves are keyword stuffed… Matt, I know that you and many of your colleagues at Google don’t have time to deal with things like this - it’s all too easy from the depth of your blog to think that you can just sit around and filter spam and blog all day every day, there’s just that little detail, HAVING A REAL JOB AT GOOGLE, that gets in the way I imagine - but seeing things like this, or a site with a pr7 that the hidden, keyword stuffed links link to whose entire list of backlinks come from things like this or paid links (I actually like the site that they link to, although the techniques are still mighty questionable) blows my mind. I believe there is a need for certain things to be manually removed or penalized when they harm the quality of the index as badly and their effect it as far reaching as something like this. If the algorithm can’t get things this yet, (and it’s got to be difficult to tighten it to the point that it can do things like this and not hurt the sites that are playing by the rules - what is the “magic formula” for the difference between background color and font color, what is the “magic density” of words that constitutes stuffing? I guess we just have to use our eyes for the time being.
I’ve seen Google’s algorithm change over the years in ways that I like and ways that I don’t in its implementation of filters to get rid of crap in the index, however overall great progress has without question been made. Nevertheless, I still can’t understand for the life of me how a site that uses techniques like this or a site to which it links that violates the guidelines because it does link building of this sort, show in the index with relatively high PR and great rankings in the SERPS. It very well may be that I’m the first person to ever bring this to Google’s attention, but I highly doubt it. A site that is that visible, with SERP results in a highly searched industry that are as good as this site has, I believe demonstrates a significant problem with Google’s ability or choice (I don’t know which it is) to remove offending websites from the index.
JBladeus Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
Alex Chiu may have just found net immortality after this post, Matt.
Chad Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
jake,
Just so you know, the query [the the] works on Yahoo Search.
The former VP of Eng at Inktomi was a huge fan.
Chad
James Boyer Real Estate Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
Looks like that site in particular should be banned. I noticed a Real Estate Site in my area owned by a agent who does lots of business, but she has to have about 300 keywords.
CFernandes Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
Ok,
Maybe I am just stupid. But would his site be relevant to people SEARCHING for “Alex Chiu”?
findhelpnow Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Whoops, left the final quotes out (6 years of web work have sure paid off), sorry about that… let’s give it another shot… http://www.helpaddicts.com/resources.html - keyword stuffing within hidden links within a keyword stuffed spam ridden site with good pr and good rankings
regards
Chad Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Great. You showed us a ridiculous page. Now show us how pages as bad as this, as well as pages 25% as guilty as this, get reduced from your index. Make an example of this guy, and I’ll show you 3 that get away with it. I don’t feel good about this tar and feathering… Good PR I guess, but I reject it. I also don’t feel good that my completely relevant site - although only a year old, but pretty much the leader in my industry - was beat out by at least 7 pages full of amazon links, craigslist posts (really… Craigslist???), and shopping portals. People look for my material, but don’t find it, because the SEO game overshadows relevancy, and it’s going to take me BIG money and LOTS of time to help YOU be relevant.. Time for an all-knew algorithm. Hire more interns or something to do the real work. very shady. very yellowbook.com -ish.
Alex Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
Heard the story of the Man who got arrested for selling eternal youth medicine? When police checked his records they found that he was a repeat offender, arrested on same charges in 1671, 1692, 1720, 1731, 1734, 1757, 1812, 1847, 1868, 1913, 1922, 1946, 1953….
Dave (original) Said,
July 26, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
Chad, you are ass-u-ming that what YOU see in the SERPs is the whole story, when it’s likely VERY far from it. I would bet the ratio of spammy pages (like the one shown and less) penalized/banned to non-spammy ones in the SERPs is around 100:1
Just because you don’t/can’t see something, don’t ass-u-me it’s not happening.
Mick Trapman Said,
July 27, 2007 @ 1:21 am
It REEEEEKS of Terminator!
These learning search algorythms should be stopped NOW. We are all in peril. The world is about to be controlled by computers. Heaven help us all.
RUN!..RUN!..RUN from the fear of Google A.K.A. ‘Cyberdyne Systems’
Or _______learn to adapt and go with the flow.
Rules are there for us simple people who only know 11 words. and our Keywords are even more limited. ::) (foureyes)
Seo expert Thailand Said,
July 27, 2007 @ 2:48 am
hi matt,
but if i am using some keywords may be 1 or 2 lines relating to that page on the top of the page is that also comes in spamming?
like i do in my webpage .
http://www.jainsachin.com
Dave (original) Said,
July 27, 2007 @ 3:53 am
Yes, it is spam as per the guidelines.
Michael VanDeMar Said,
July 27, 2007 @ 8:03 am
Dave (original) - you need to learn to educate yourself some more before spouting off the way you do. Seriously.
Trust me, I speak from actual research here. Pick a commercial query, medium range difficulty. Set your results at 100 per page, and go through all of the serps that Google will show you. On average, on any given day, Google is returning anywhere from 8% to 15% spam results.
I’m not talking nit picky crap that “I’m going to save souls through white hat” evangelist types spew daily… I’m talking issues like I already pointed out already, and other variations. Stuff much worse than what Matt showed.
Jake Said,
July 27, 2007 @ 8:32 am
Is there a keyword density level at which google marks a page as being “keyword stuffed?” I know the advice is to write it for humans with zero consideration for search engines but I’m curious if there is a certain level, say at 30% density that a page is flagged.
Dave (original) Said,
July 27, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Michael VanDeMar, perhaps you should learn how to research properly before retorting with your factoids. Even if you spent 12hrs a day for 6 months solid, you wouldn’t get a big enough sample size to make a meaningful statement.
You obviously can’t comprehend the sheer number of possible search terms and results.
On top of that, you fail to comprehend that many spammy pages WON”T be seen as they are either banned, on page x, or have has the spam elements discounted.
Dave (original) Said,
July 27, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Jake, *only* Google knows IF there is a KWD threshold.
Michael VanDeMar Said,
July 27, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
Dave, considering any research I do is more than what your ass is willing to do, then it is infinitely more meaningful that what you come up with.
You can spout your random unsupported numbers all you want, you’re still wrong. When I said, “Pick a query…”, and explained to you how to look for yourself, I did not subliminally mean, “please come back and spew more made up crap without even bothering to look”.
What the hell are you talking about? If it’s in the serps then it’s not banned. When I say “returning results”, do you understand what that means?
Dave (original) Said,
July 27, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Michael VanDeMar, it’s quite clear you have no idea on how to research or produce meaningful statics and rely far too heavily on your emotions and factoids.
I see you also have issues with written English. You really should calm yourself before posting, so as not to keep making a fool of yourself.
Let me spoon feed you just one of the many parts you didn’t grasp;
“many spammy pages WON”T be seen as they are either banned..”
Now tell me, IF Google’s results are so bad, why are they still THE most popular in the World?
Lokesh Said,
July 27, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
Poor fellow,he should read matts’ enough to avoid unwanted risk
Chad Said,
July 27, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
Wow. I think Chiu won the day. How much traffic must he have gotten out of this? Google can ban me any day if Matt Cutts will blog about it.
Marc Said,
July 28, 2007 @ 12:16 am
Alien cemetary eh. Hmm…
Paul H Said,
July 28, 2007 @ 12:24 am
Yeah, but check out his Alexa rating since this post has gone viral.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=http://alexchiu.com/eternallife/
Traffic Rank for Alexchiu.com:
Yesterday 12,494
1 wk. Avg. 39,780
3 mos. Avg. 532,294
3 mos. Change 43,521
Not too bad of a jump. Went from 500k to top 13k in about a week. He is probably wondering where all the traffice came from. LOL.
Vincent Said,
July 28, 2007 @ 2:58 am
Yahoo and Msn don’t seem to mind the keeword stuffing and both have Mr Chiu’s site in their index. Anyhow Alex Chiu is now so famous, he doesn’t need to be included in Google.
Zeeshan Said,
July 28, 2007 @ 7:14 am
Hahaha! That is pretty funny Matt! Nice article. If the owner of the website is an immortal then he shouldn’t worry about things. It’s not like Google will stay number 1 for ever. I mean yeah okay, G is strong, VERY strong but all it takes to come up with a Google killer is detication of Larry Page and Sergey Brin, a small garage to work at and a revolutionary idea
RC Said,
July 28, 2007 @ 8:40 am
It’s a good thing that the SE catches sites like this to ban. It would be a joke to find such a site on page 1 of my search.
MIlan Said,
July 29, 2007 @ 3:39 am
Well it seems that keyword stuffing does work: he got great exposure on a very popular SEO blog. Just imagine how much work it would take to get this exposure as a good example
Dave (The Other One) Said,
July 29, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Way to go Matt. that post had me rolling on the floor laughing. I can’t believe that guy was so blatantly obvious about keyword stuffing. Apparently he’s not so bright to stuff the page with CSS altered H1 tags turned the color of the background of the page.
martial Said,
July 29, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
I guess some people just dont stay up with whats good and bad.
seo ranter Said,
July 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
wow..this is textbook keyword stuffing….didn’t even do a decent job of hiding it
Edwin Rene Said,
July 29, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
Wow.. Plain stupidity in action, several reason why this page should not be in Google’s search result, because we have stupid people like Alex Chiu that sells things like this who can’t create a decent site, oblivious about the Google’s webmaster guidelines and because some people might actually buy that thing. But I have to admire him for having his web page stated here.. =P
Danny D Said,
July 30, 2007 @ 12:50 am
I don’t agree with google in policing the internet world, even though you are providing a great example of keyword stuffing WOW what a crime. Any publisher has complete right to his content, it is his content after all not google’s. It would be great if google can provide a spam score to its SERP and still display the content. I might be interested in looking up info about alex chiu. By delisting him from google index you are delisting a content that might be relevant to my query. Do you have the right to advise me that the content might contain spam? YES! do you have the right to totally hide that content from me? not sure about that …
Wesley Warren Said,
July 30, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
I had been wondering where I could get some “internal vaginal aphrodisia doping hardware”, that stuff is hard to come by these days.
Man the view source on that page is awesome! im suprised people are still using techniques that were pretty much deemed a waste back in 1996 - here we are 11 years later and people are still using the same old garbage…
Dave (original) Said,
July 30, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
Danny, yes site owners can do anything they like with their site(s). But, so can Google do what they like with theirs. Common sense, no?
I also don’t believe for a second that Google ban or even penalize most spammy sites as Google always puts it’s users 1st. However, if they choose to make an example of someone, or they cross a spam threshold and banned, I’m all for it.
Steffen @ ViIF Mobile Video Said,
July 31, 2007 @ 4:18 am
What a wounderful Idea but how to protect the honest webmaster?
Thai Said,
July 31, 2007 @ 6:07 am
So his website is actually banned on Google… whereas traffic to his site pertaining to this subject has probably increased 10 fold. lol. An alternative effective means indeed.
Rod Said,
July 31, 2007 @ 6:52 am
Is there a set ratio of keywords to content?
Pietro Said,
July 31, 2007 @ 7:56 am
I think the did wanted to be banned just to act as a victim. I think it’s a marketing trick..
RobertF Said,
July 31, 2007 @ 8:32 am
My favorite ‘keyword’ line: “jesus cheat doom gengis khan 2012 apocalypse destruction blvd”. That’s NOT a street I’m particularly interested in walking down after dark…
Anthony Bradley Said,
July 31, 2007 @ 9:01 am
Just for the record I believe he embedded 6906 words which took up 64 pages in Microsoft Word. It seems he likes the shotgun approach to keywords and I may just save that keyword list if I get desperate for traffic.
Barry Said,
July 31, 2007 @ 11:40 am
This website - http://www.fashion-bag.com/ is under construction, but Google ranks it #2 on keyword “fashion handbags”. Why? Is it because the domain contains keywords? If so, it seems that Google pays too much attentions to keywords in domains.
Barry Said,
July 31, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Sorry, it’s actually ranked #1 using a Chinese brows