BigMouthMedia banned?, Is Google getting more aggressive? Options

[Black_Knight]

I got a tip earlier that BigMouthMedia, a very well known UK Search Engine Optimisation company with some very large clients, had mysteriously vanished from Google results.

http://www.google.com/search?q=bigmouthmedia

Lots of mentions of BigMouthMedia for sure, but their own domain - bigmouthmedia.com - is very noticably missing from the SERPs, and presumably from the index itself since they don't even show for their own domain in a search.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bigmouthmedia%2Ecom

Sorry, no information is available for the URL bigmouthmedia.com

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:bigmouthmedia.com

Your search - site:bigmouthmedia.com - did not match any documents.

I have been seeing this happening to a lot of SEO companies recently here in the UK. Even WebObjective, which certainly claims to use only the whitest of white techniques went missing from the SERPs as if banned a few weeks ago, although they were reincluded last week.

So, the question arises is this a new sign of aggressive defence of its algorithms by Google?

Has anyone else noticed a lot more SEO companies sites disappearing from the SERPs mysteriously?

[kensplace]

Can anyone who knows any sites that have been banned for certain, try a little test out..

Search google for them

ie

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=b...com&btnG=Search

Just wondering if the banned sites all look similar to this...

[QUOTE]Sorry, no information is available for the URL bigmouthmedia.com

* Find web pages from the site bigmouthmedia.com
* Find web pages that contain the term "bigmouthmedia.com"[/QUOTE]

Whereas sites not listed, that are not banned, but have valid urls, or even invalid urls seem to look like this...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=s...com&btnG=Search[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE]
Sorry, no information is available for the URL someothersite.com

* If the URL is valid, try visiting that web page by clicking on the following link: someothersite.com
* Find web pages from the site someothersite.com
* Find web pages that contain the term "someothersite.com"
[/QUOTE]

Note that the first example, for bigmouthmedia does not show the "if the url is valid line" which makes me think that google must have applied some filter to stop the results being shown, as it knows the url is valid.....

Is this a way of finding out if a site has been banned? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

This post has been edited by kensplace: Feb 20 2006, 02:17 PM

[bragadocchio]

I haven't been keeping an eye too much on SEO sites, but I remember looking at the bigmouthmedia one a while back because they had released a nice whitepaper on accessibility and SEO.

They have an odd bit of scrolling text on the botton left of their site that cycles through a bunch of statements about search engine optimisation and search engine marketing, one at a time. It is, however, in the same light gray as the rest of the text in the navigation column, and it's not really invisible text. But I wouldn't want a search engineer making a judgment call on something like that if I were them.

Of course, sometimes sites fall out of the search engines (My webpages used to be listed and now they aren't.), but I would expect some level of scrutiny from the search engines if I were an SEO company, and perhaps they are being watched more carefully than other sites.

Ken,

You may be right about the distinction between what Google shows, but we just don't know.

[FP_Guy]

Maybe it is another case like 'Traffic Power' where they were caught using black hat seo.

The article about Traffic Power's ban from bad seo is here.

[Nadir]

It seems like a ban to me, the 6000 words text inserted in the tiny box might be one of the reasons for that. Google doesn't like it when you try to hide stuff... I don't know why such a big company needs to do that kind of stuff and take real risks.

[projectphp]

Worrying times though, when visible text could be the cause of a ban. Are we sure it isn't something else altogether?

I would hate for this to set a crazy precedent. What about dropdown menus? What about other "hidden" "visible" text? Scarey stuff if that truly is the cause!

[Nadir]

Well, I'm not saying that this 'hidden text' only caused a ban, but if they used that kind of trick, they probably used others...

What about dropdown menus? What about other "hidden" text? Scarey stuff if that truly is the cause!

Well, most of the people still don't realize that search engine robots are smarter than they think. How do you think robots detect spam? Because they have been 'trained' to detect what a fraudulent page/site is. The papers that Bill linked to the other day are worth being read.
Basically, the engineers set a limit for one certain criteria, i.e. keywords. Once the robot detects a site whose number of keywords (certainly with a tool that measures keyword density) is over the limit, they flag it as spam.

So, yes, you do have hidden links in drop down menus, and all kind of normal hidden text, but if it doesn't seem spammy to your users, it's probably not for the robots.

This post has been edited by Nadir: Feb 21 2006, 12:13 AM

[projectphp]

How do you think robots detect spam?

Lots of ways, but there are some ways it isn't allowed to.

For example, a robot can't (or shouldn't be able to) detect text that is is hidden in a div with CSS where the CSS is in a disallowed directory. A human could, but a robot couldn't. That isn't what the robots.txt protocol is for, but it is an inevitable consequence.

As for your example Nadir, that sounds to me like a filter, not a tool used to search out and ban sites. If you have a specific link I am happy to read that patent specifically, but that really doesn't sound like a tool designed to find and ban sites.

And there is the rub. If the reason speculated is true, man, that sux!

A hidden div that scrolls is a step past a hidden div that is never viewable, and if (and I don't know for sure), if that is the reason for a ban, then that is an aweful precedet to set. Now we are in territory where spam is a real wide grey line, not a clearly delineated and obvious thing. "Anything done specifically for SEs" is clear. "Anything done mostly for SEs" is sure murky territory, and has wide ranging implication.

[kensplace]

They have an odd bit of scrolling text on the botton left of their site that cycles through a bunch of statements about search engine optimisation and search engine marketing, one at a time. It is, however, in the same light gray as the rest of the text in the navigation column, and it's not really invisible text. But I wouldn't want a search engineer making a judgment call on something like that if I were them.

It scrolls like that in I.E for me, but in my firefox it just shows as a small scrollable textarea.

Lots of sites have those small scrollable text areas, with lots of text in them - think of all those end user licence agreements and terms & conditions on sites. Lost count of the number I have seen that put acres of text into a small scrollable text-area.

[Nadir]

Well, yes, you can call that filter. Of course, search engines won't ban you right after they noticed that you're using keyword stuffing or any other spam techniques, they will just flag you first.

There must be plenty of patents out there presenting how to detect keyword stuffing, I just found this one from MSN for example that says:

Existing search engines attempt to prevent search engine spam by separately analyzing each spam technique to identify a pattern of a manipulated electronic document. When such search engines detect an electronic document that has the identified pattern, then the search engines label the electronic document as spam to avoid presenting the electronic document to a user in a search result or to demote the result. For example, a particular search engine may label an electronic document that is primarily built for the search engine rather than for an end-user as a search engine spam. Similarly, a search engine may detect a hidden text and/or a hidden link in an electronic document and label this electronic document as a search engine spam.

What I'm trying to say here, is that I really think search engines (especially Google) became really good in targetting spam pages, in that that robots became really clever, and can, for example, make the difference between a page that is using a lot of keywords (naturally) and a page that is just stuffing keywords in the text.

Again, I'm not saying that the little box can be the one and only reason of the possible ban, but if I was a search engine robot, I think I would have no problem deciding how to tag this page...

[Black_Knight]

Google have in the past been pretty sparing with actual bans. They preferred filters that stopped sites ranking for anything except their own name. The reason seemed to be that there was no need to punish the innocent search user who merely wanted to find that company, and expected Google to serve them in doing so.

So, in the past, outright bans were not given for link manipulation, and even in the infamous SearchKing case, where ex-employees and insiders claimed the real issue was massive cloaking, Google did not ban the site, but rather applied a penalty in the form of a Zeroed PageRank.

It therefore does seem as though what we are seeing is a big shift in attitude from Google. It does seem as though they no longer care so much to have the reputation that if anyone has indexed a site, Google will have. It now seems as though punishment of spam is more important than always serving the searcher foremost.

I think that is a rather radical, and important change to note.

Afterthought

I guess I need to point to something to scale this issue, and show how much of a shift we are seeing.

This forum has been open since 2002. In all that time, it is only in the last year that we have ever seen absolute bans more than once or twice in a year. Before that, while we had scores of occassions to witness penalties, including to infamous PR0 penalty, I can't remember a specific case where a site was actually removed from the index.

Not one was a case involving a very long-term SEO company such as BigMouthMedia, who should certainly know better than to take any stupid risks, as they have absolutely huge clients.

The essential point is this: I have seen more bans, sites completely de-indexed from Google, in the past couple of months than I'd seen in all the previous few years.

[travis]

Ban them. They are guilty as sin if they have 6000 words in a scrolling box.....

I am doing Jury Duty next month, and I dont know what the guy did, but he is guilty. Guilty, I say, guilty !

No, I dont think it is radical at all. I think we need more of it, much more.

200 years ago in this country, you got 15 years hard labour for stealing a loaf of bread. And multiple whippings with the cat-o-nine tails across your back. A leather multi-stranded whip with metal barbs in the end.

Now that builds character.

Even though Google is the number 1 search engine, my best clients say that everytime they search in their industry group for advanced information, they get a lot of crappy and spammy websites.

Lets take lawyers. They cop it real bad. It you search for lawyers in your local area, you will find a lot of legal directories who borrow the name and contact details of each law firm, without permission, and then put a contact button next to them.

This website does no service to my client in this case.

http://www.helplinelaw.com/lawyers/australia/perth

They have taken some of our content, they provide no backlinks, and if you try and contact the lawyer, you get this form:

http://www.helplinelaw.com/login/lawfirm1....=1705&proid=118

After filling in this form thinking I was contacting my client, I received an email

Dear Travis,

Thanks for choosing http://www.helplinelaw.com

Your query has been forwarded to all our associates practicing in your area of concern. It usually takes upto one week for any one of them to get back to you if they are in a position to accept your brief or send you the relevant information.

Best Regards,

System Manager,
http://www.helplinelaw.com

Is this a bannable offence ?

Where is convict punishment when you need it ?

This post has been edited by travis: Feb 21 2006, 06:46 AM

[glengara]

*The essential point is this: I have seen more bans, sites completely de-indexed from Google, in the past couple of months than I'd seen in all the previous few years.*

Right, but in these days of ban notifications and re-inclusion requests, bans aren't what they used to be

[Black_Knight]

Right, but in these days of ban notifications and re-inclusion requests, bans aren't what they used to be

Yes, that may be true, as WebObjective.com were speedily reincluded. BigMouthMedia.com may too soon be reincluded merely for apologisin g for whatever it was, sacking a scapegoat, and promising to be good ever more. It worked for BMW after all, in just 3 days!

Or perhaps this is merely Google's return to claims that they'd gotten soft be reincluding BMW so speedily? Have a few dozen fast bans happen to show how strict they really are (unless you are a major automobile brand)?

[egain]

Yes, that may be true, as WebObjective.com were speedily reincluded.  BigMouthMedia.com may too soon be reincluded merely for apologisin g for whatever it was, sacking a scapegoat, and promising to be good ever more.  It worked for BMW after all, in just 3 days!

Or perhaps this is merely Google's return to claims that they'd gotten soft be reincluding BMW so speedily?  Have a few dozen fast bans happen to show how strict they really are (unless you are a major automobile brand)?

I would imagine BMM would be doing their upmost to get themselves back in the resultsets, by any means necessary whether it be begging or anything else, as they pride themselves on their skillset and success thus far.

[projectphp]

...or perhaps we all have it wrong! I wish there was a way to confirm in any direction. Seems to me a strange banning, stranger than many others I have seen, and i really hope massive cloaking turns out to be the root cause, as anything else worries me.

[glengara]

*.. as anything else worries me.*

Assuming you mean the CSS thing, there was a thread over at WebproWorld some time ago that claimed G was ignoring anything in visibility hidden/display none tags, but IIRC it only applied where the CSS was on-page rather than in a separate file.

Thread sort of petered out inconclusively....

[meriweather]

Off Topic

Travis,
My sentiments exactly. To me that's the only real problem with the Google search results. All these, so called, directory sites which are abviousely spammy as hell get top billing, particulary in any regional/local search and leave the real sites down past the fold and in some cases on to the next pages.

I've been stewing on this one for awhile, and would have said something sooner but have been trying to learn how they do it;-) first. What can be done about it is the question I'd like to pursue, perhaps in a new post on that particular subject. Maybe something like "What Can Be Done About All The No-Good, Worthless, Spammy &%*&^%&, ^%@%$@# Directory Sites That Google Seems To LOve So Much?" Maybe something a little shorter? Maybe ask Matt Cutts?

Doc

[Nadir]

Apparently they removed the text box.

[inbound]

As I'm an SEO from Edinburgh (where BigMouthMedia are based - but not working for BMM) I'd like to point out that BMM have historically used the .net version of their name. Upon visiting today I saw the .net now redirects to the .com

They have REALLY messed up the redirects, I wouldn't trust a company that can't sort their own site. The amazing thing is that BIG brands trust them.

If you do a 'site:' search for the .net version of their name on google today you will see pages that are about to dissapear as they have used a 204 header rather than a 301 redirect!

What a PR disaster (in two ways).