It's been suggested to me that a site will only be banned from the normal
Google listings (as a result of breaking the Google rules as outlined at
http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html), If that site is not already
using Adwords. In other words, if you already have an Adwords account, you
won't get banned.

Can anyone shed light on this assertion please?

Thanks,

Jeremy

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeremy Clulow,
Webs Wonder Design
www.webswonder.co.uk
jeremy@websNOSPAMwonder.co.uk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jeremy Clulow schreef:
> It's been suggested to me that a site will only be banned from the normal
> Google listings (as a result of breaking the Google rules as outlined at
> http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html), If that site is not already
> using Adwords. In other words, if you already have an Adwords account, you
> won't get banned.
>
> Can anyone shed light on this assertion please?

Flashlight >>>>>>> * no adword account will save your website from
being banned* !!!!!

--
Website Design: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/
Being found: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/being-found.html
Css templates: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/css-templates.html

Jeremy Clulow <jeremy@websNOSPAMwonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
> It's been suggested to me that a site will only be banned from the
> normal Google listings (as a result of breaking the Google rules as
> outlined at http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html), If that
> site is not already using Adwords. In other words, if you already have
> an Adwords account, you won't get banned.

Doubtful. There are sites that get away with breaking the rules though.
webmasterworld to name one mega cloaker.

> Jeremy
>
> --

^ you're missing a space here

> jeremy@websNOSPAMwonder.co.uk

^ this is not your domain. Use .invalid instead of .co.uk
and explain that .invalid has to be replaced by .co.uk

--
John Need with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-.html

On 22 Nov 2006 20:59:43 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:

|| Jeremy Clulow <jeremy@websNOSPAMwonder.co.uk> wrote:
||
|| >
|| > It's been suggested to me that a site will only be banned from the
|| > normal Google listings (as a result of breaking the Google rules as
|| > outlined at http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html), If that
|| > site is not already using Adwords. In other words, if you already
have
|| > an Adwords account, you won't get banned.
||
|| Doubtful. There are sites that get away with breaking the rules though.
|| webmasterworld to name one mega cloaker.

You don't seem very certain, so I'm assuming you don't have any hard
evidence one way or another?

Jeremy


--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeremy Clulow,
Webs Wonder Design
www.webswonder.co.uk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jeremy Clulow <jeremy@websNOSPAMwonder.co.uk> wrote:

> On 22 Nov 2006 20:59:43 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>|| Jeremy Clulow <jeremy@websNOSPAMwonder.co.uk> wrote:
>||
>|| >
>|| > It's been suggested to me that a site will only be banned from
>|| > the normal Google listings (as a result of breaking the Google
>|| > rules as outlined at
>|| > http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html), If that site is
>|| > not already using Adwords. In other words, if you already
> have
>|| > an Adwords account, you won't get banned.
>||
>|| Doubtful. There are sites that get away with breaking the rules
>|| though. webmasterworld to name one mega cloaker.
>
> You don't seem very certain, so I'm assuming you don't have any hard
> evidence one way or another?

Jeremy, I strongly suggest that you stop abusing websNOSPAMwonder.co.uk if
it's not yours. Also the sig sep (--space) was a strong suggestion.

As for cloaking:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=site%...ld.com%20perl%
20file/script%20in%20%27www%27%20folder>

Read the snippet for "How to test a perl script"
Click on the link and you get here:

<http://www.webmasterworld.com/login.cgi?status=google.
&url=http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum13/3099327.htm>

What's even more misleading, is that it gives the impression one has to
pay, but as far as I know, clicking on "need to register?" goes to a sign
up form for free but limited registration.

So, I have no problems at all using Bug me not on sites like this.

No idea why Google allows them cloaking.

--
John Need with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-.html

"Jeremy Clulow" wrote ...
> It's been suggested to me that a site will only be banned from the normal
> Google listings (as a result of breaking the Google rules as outlined at
> http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html), If that site is not
> already
> using Adwords. In other words, if you already have an Adwords account, you
> won't get banned.

It's rubbish.

Spammers get penalized, adwords or not.
(1) You can't buy Google that cheaply
(2) While there may well be overlap, separate systems are involved.
--

Andrew
Editor
http://www.seo2seo.com/

On 23 Nov 2006 01:02:35 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:

Hi John,

||
|| Jeremy, I strongly suggest that you stop abusing websNOSPAMwonder.co.uk
if
|| it's not yours. Also the sig sep (--space) was a strong suggestion.

Is it ok now?

||
|| What's even more misleading, is that it gives the impression one has to
|| pay, but as far as I know, clicking on "need to register?" goes to a
sign
|| up form for free but limited registration.
||
|| So, I have no problems at all using Bug me not on sites like this.
||
|| No idea why Google allows them cloaking.

So perhaps if you are a big site you can get away with it, but the little
guys can't ?

Jeremy


--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeremy Clulow,
Webs Wonder Design
www.webswonder.co.uk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:46:51 GMT, "AndrewHeenan" <andrew3@heenan.net>
wrote:

|| > using Adwords. In other words, if you already have an Adwords
account, you
|| > won't get banned.
||
|| It's rubbish.
||
|| Spammers get penalized, adwords or not.
|| (1) You can't buy Google that cheaply
|| (2) While there may well be overlap, separate systems are involved.

Any evidence, or just a touching faith in big brother ?

Jeremy

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeremy Clulow,
Webs Wonder Design
www.webswonder.co.uk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jeremy Clulow <jeremy@webswonder.co.uk> wrote:

>|| it's not yours. Also the sig sep (--space) was a strong suggestion.
>
> Is it ok now?

Yes, thanks! Most Usenet clients remove the signature automatically when
replying, and hence it saves time.


>|| So, I have no problems at all using Bug me not on sites like this.
>||
>|| No idea why Google allows them cloaking.
>
> So perhaps if you are a big site you can get away with it, but the
> little guys can't ?

I have no idea what the deal between webmasterworld and Google is. Their
pages are not cached (otherwise you could get to the stuff easier). I have
reported them several times for cloaking.

On the other hand, Google also has no problems with their services ing
spammers to the max. If girls are told not to trust guys who say "I am a
nice guy", why should we trust a company that constantly suggest that
"they are not evil"?

--
John Need with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-.html

On 23 Nov 2006 21:10:14 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:

||
|| >|| So, I have no problems at all using Bug me not on sites like this.
|| >||
|| >|| No idea why Google allows them cloaking.
|| >
|| > So perhaps if you are a big site you can get away with it, but the
|| > little guys can't ?
||
|| I have no idea what the deal between webmasterworld and Google is.
Their
|| pages are not cached (otherwise you could get to the stuff easier). I
have
|| reported them several times for cloaking.
||
|| On the other hand, Google also has no problems with their services
ing
|| spammers to the max. If girls are told not to trust guys who say "I am
a
|| nice guy", why should we trust a company that constantly suggest that
|| "they are not evil"?

I quite agree.

The person who put to me the idea that forms the subject of my post, has
shown me how he has reported four competitor sites on behalf of a client
(not trivially, they were clearly breaking the rules to gain unfair
advantage). The two which already used Adwords were not banned, the two
which didn't use Adwords, were. One site is now back after removing the
offending code (and after starting to use Adwords). The other maybe hasn't
noticed, but it is still banned and it doesn't use Adwords.

What I would really like is to see some figures from Google which would
convince me that companies who are paying through Adwords, aren't also
paying to have Google turn a blind eye to their cheating.

For instance:

1. Number of sites reported for breaking Googles AUP
2. Number of those site which use Adwords
3. Number of sites which used Adwords which were banned
4. Number of sites which did not use Adwords which were banned.

I realise this is simplistic, but you get the idea....

Cheers,

Jeremy

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeremy Clulow,
Webs Wonder Design
www.webswonder.co.uk
jeremy@websNOSPAMwonder.co.uk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 20:24:07 +0100, Jeremy Clulow <jeremy@webswonder.c
o.uk> wrote:

> ||
> || Jeremy, I strongly suggest that you stop abusing
> websNOSPAMwonder.co.uk
> if
> || it's not yours. Also the sig sep (--space) was a strong suggestion.
>
> Is it ok now?

Yes, although you were right to hide your address. Use domain name like
webswonder.co.ukNOSPAM or something - such domain will most likely never
exist, so there is no abuse possible.

Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl

Borek <m.borkowski@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 20:24:07 +0100, Jeremy Clulow <jeremy@webswonder.c
> o.uk> wrote:
>
>> ||
>> || Jeremy, I strongly suggest that you stop abusing
>> websNOSPAMwonder.co.uk
>> if
>> || it's not yours. Also the sig sep (--space) was a strong
>> || suggestion.
>>
>> Is it ok now?
>
> Yes, although you were right to hide your address. Use domain name
> like webswonder.co.ukNOSPAM or something - such domain will most
> likely never exist, so there is no abuse possible.

The only valid TLD for non existing domain names is .invalid. Some routers
drop .invalid early, so you don't waste resources.

So: good: webswonder.invalid
bad: webswonder.co.ukNOSPAM

The latter has another major disadvantage, spammers can just start to
remove NOSPAM, and presto.

Finally, right is to use a valid contact address. By using an invalid one,
you give in to spammers.

--
John Need with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-.html

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 03:07:08 +0100, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com>
wrote:

>> Yes, although you were right to hide your address. Use domain name
>> like webswonder.co.ukNOSPAM or something - such domain will most
>> likely never exist, so there is no abuse possible.
>
> The only valid TLD for non existing domain names is .invalid. Some
> routers drop .invalid early, so you don't waste resources.

Didn't know or forgot. Thanks.

> So: good: webswonder.invalid
> bad: webswonder.co.ukNOSPAM
>
> The latter has another major disadvantage, spammers can just start to
> remove NOSPAM, and presto.

That was an example based on his original idea rather then final
proposition. Plus it have an advantage that the address can be retrieved
if someone wants to contact you, yet it is inaccesible for a (stupid)
harvester. webswonder.invalid doesn't give this opportunity.
webswonder.co.uk.invalid gives a chance of address recovery but can be
harvested even more easily. No good solution here.

> Finally, right is to use a valid contact address. By using an invalid
> one, you give in to spammers.

I don't get it - if you use valid contact address you give it to spammers
as well. Not to mention the fact that such address gets spammed and
unusable as such so it stops to be contact address.

Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl

Oops!

Noticed that old sig was in use again. I work from two machines and forgot
tochange the one on the laptop!

Now fixed

JC


On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:05:17 +0000, Jeremy Clulow
<jeremy@websNOSPAMwonder.co.uk> wrote:

|| On 23 Nov 2006 21:10:14 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
||
|| ||
|| || >|| So, I have no problems at all using Bug me not on sites like
this.
|| || >||
|| || >|| No idea why Google allows them cloaking.
|| || >
|| || > So perhaps if you are a big site you can get away with it, but
the
|| || > little guys can't ?
|| ||
|| || I have no idea what the deal between webmasterworld and Google is.
|| Their
|| || pages are not cached (otherwise you could get to the stuff easier).
I
|| have
|| || reported them several times for cloaking.
|| ||
|| || On the other hand, Google also has no problems with their services
|| ing
|| || spammers to the max. If girls are told not to trust guys who say "I
am
|| a
|| || nice guy", why should we trust a company that constantly suggest
that
|| || "they are not evil"?
||
|| I quite agree.
||
|| The person who put to me the idea that forms the subject of my post,
has
|| shown me how he has reported four competitor sites on behalf of a
client
|| (not trivially, they were clearly breaking the rules to gain unfair
|| advantage). The two which already used Adwords were not banned, the two
|| which didn't use Adwords, were. One site is now back after removing the
|| offending code (and after starting to use Adwords). The other maybe
hasn't
|| noticed, but it is still banned and it doesn't use Adwords.
||
|| What I would really like is to see some figures from Google which would
|| convince me that companies who are paying through Adwords, aren't also
|| paying to have Google turn a blind eye to their cheating.
||
|| For instance:
||
|| 1. Number of sites reported for breaking Googles AUP
|| 2. Number of those site which use Adwords
|| 3. Number of sites which used Adwords which were banned
|| 4. Number of sites which did not use Adwords which were banned.
||
|| I realise this is simplistic, but you get the idea....
||
|| Cheers,
||
|| Jeremy
--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeremy Clulow,
Webs Wonder Design
www.webswonder.co.uk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Borek <m.borkowski@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:

> That was an example based on his original idea rather then final
> proposition. Plus it have an advantage that the address can be
> retrieved if someone wants to contact you, yet it is inaccesible for
> a (stupid) harvester. webswonder.invalid doesn't give this
> opportunity. webswonder.co.uk.invalid gives a chance of address
> recovery but can be harvested even more easily. No good solution
> here.

Put in the sig: replace the obvious with dot co dot uk

>> Finally, right is to use a valid contact address. By using an invalid
>> one, you give in to spammers.
>
> I don't get it - if you use valid contact address you give it to
> spammers as well. Not to mention the fact that such address gets
> spammed and unusable as such so it stops to be contact address.

Spammers have no right to use that address in the first place. With
munging you somewhat agree that they have, and close your eyes.

--
John Need with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-.html

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:52:47 +0100, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com>
wrote:

>>> Finally, right is to use a valid contact address. By using an invalid
>>> one, you give in to spammers.
>>
>> I don't get it - if you use valid contact address you give it to
>> spammers as well. Not to mention the fact that such address gets
>> spammed and unusable as such so it stops to be contact address.
>
> Spammers have no right to use that address in the first place. With
> munging you somewhat agree that they have, and close your eyes.

It is like saying that robbers have not right to take your money. Does it
matter?

Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl

Borek <m.borkowski@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:52:47 +0100, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Finally, right is to use a valid contact address. By using an
>>>> invalid
>>>> one, you give in to spammers.
>>>
>>> I don't get it - if you use valid contact address you give it to
>>> spammers as well. Not to mention the fact that such address gets
>>> spammed and unusable as such so it stops to be contact address.
>>
>> Spammers have no right to use that address in the first place. With
>> munging you somewhat agree that they have, and close your eyes.
>
> It is like saying that robbers have not right to take your money. Does
> it matter?

Explain what's wrong with my statement without using analogies.

OTOH, I see where you coming from, 'delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts', so
NVM.

--
John Need with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-.html