Ethical search practices from leading agency? You be the judge...
Featured threads
Agency & supplier input needed! 0 replies- Overseas Delivery Calculation 1 reply
- Retail Home Page layout 1 reply
- Extremely difficult question... 1 reply
- Impact of social media on the future of customer service? 3 replies
Most viewed threads in last month
SharePoint MOSS vs other CMS 502 views- looking for off-the-shelf/in-a-box ecomm solution 489 views
- Impact of social media on the future of customer service? 441 views
- The LinkedIn "Action" Bar - any thoughts? 380 views
- Drop off in Forum Posts here 316 views
Most active threads in last month
SharePoint MOSS vs other CMS 8 replies- looking for off-the-shelf/in-a-box ecomm solution 8 replies
- Looking for French SEO specialist for urgent work 5 replies
- Drop off in Forum Posts here 5 replies
- How i can do online marketing for my business? 5 replies
CEO at Econsultancy
15 February 2006 19:04pm
In fact, they rank second for a search on "search engine marketing" too. Indeed, if you look at the table on Oyster Web's homepage they seem to rank top of the world for almost anything to do with search. (If you want a clue as to why then head over to http://www.abakus-internet-marketing.de/tools/topword.html and enter http://www.oyster-web.co.uk/ into the analyser tool - the results show a quite impressive (or amusing?) level of keyword density around search related terms.)
They do very well on many search related terms which is good news given they're a specialist search agency. Only bigmouthmedia, another Scottish-based search agency, seem to pip them to the top.
So maybe we should really include Oyster Web in our Search Engine Marketing - Buyers Guide?
However, we've found some strange things going on...
It would appear that Indicium Web Design UK and Oyster Web are the same company. Their physical addresses are the same and apparently Oyster Web do Indicium's search engine optimisation.
Indicium has a resources section on its site with helpful links to, among others, a site providing "Royalty-Free Music tracks, loops and sounds". Mmm.. not entirely relavent but hardly a sin.
Things warmed up a little when we found this page though - http://www.indicium-web-design.com/web_industry_news/articles/index.php?art=9221. Apart from the "Girls Date for Free" Google Adword (Google still need to tweak their contextual adserving technology it would seem) we were more dismayed to see an article taken, in its entirety from our site without permission. Actually it was originally a Netimperative article. The publication date given is 23/10/2005 when actually the original was published on 8 April 2004.
When you click to see the full article on their site (http://www.indicium-web-design.com/web_industry_news/articles/full/index.php?art=9221) you get our complete site framed by Indicium (aka Oyster Web).
But does this really matter?
Well the clever guys over at Google seem to have things quite well sorted out. A search on KLM Royal Dutch Airlines picks online agency for example returns Netimperative top and Indicium are nowhere to be seen.
However, try searching KLM Royal Dutch Airlines picks online agency on Yahoo! and who comes top? Our friends at Indicium.
Surely they have been tempted by the dark side of the force...?
Ashley Friedlein
CEO, E-consultancy.com
-- at --
15 February 2006 22:07pm
I can see some pretty 'wierd' links between the sites though
For instance this is at the footer of the Oyster web home page
© 2005 Indicium Web Design UK : info@oyster-web.co.ukIndicium Web Design (Scotland) | Oyster Web support the work of The Assisi Animal Charities Foundation
Bad Credit Mortages and Remortgages from Mortgages-Refinance.co.uk
Wedding Services by County Wedding
For the record I dont agree with his assesment of the 'miserable failure' phenomenon.
I have seen/worked for a site that was completely and utterly non-indexable, but had a page rank of 7 and still ranked highly for the key brands it carried.
As the site was completely inaccessible by the google-bot, the only way it would have received such a high page rank and ranking for its 'content', was via its inbound linking.
Unless an SEO can tell me otherwise?
jon
SEO at I've gone in-house
17 February 2006 14:40pm
Yes, and it seems to be working for them.
Begs the question, why is Yahoo ranking that copied page higher than the original?
SEO at I've gone in-house
17 February 2006 14:50pm
On 22:07:19 15 February 2006 jonbovard wrote:
Hi Jon
Just read the miserable failure write up, and it seems reasonably balanced to me.
There are always exceptions, but I think the main point being pushed is that link building is most effective when supported by on-page optimisation.
A quick point of pedanticism: PageRank is completely down to linking and has nothing to do with copy.
Cheers
Adam
CEO at Econsultancy
20 February 2006 13:34pm
Blimey, the plot thickens...
It would appear from those I've talked to that Oyster Web don't actually do any SEO consultancy - they just sell leads for cash and (backward) links. Which would explain their high rankings and lack of apparent clients. I guess that's fair enough - they're a lead generation business rather than a consultancy. They do talk about their tender system on the site - http://www.oyster-web.co.uk/contact.htm
In the meantime, it appears that Bigmouthmedia have disappeared out of Google completely: no rankings, no back links showing, no pages indexed on a ‘site:’ search, even a search for bigmouthmedia doesn’t show them.
Never a dull day in search...
Ashley Friedlein
CEO, E-consultancy.com
eTail Optimisation Specialist at Click Funnel Ltd
20 February 2006 15:27pm
They may have used a few dodgy techniques, although i couldn't say, but I'm sure they've helped many clients as well. Do they really deserve the ultimate sanction of being banned?
I'd be interested to hear what anyone else thinks.
Andrew Allfrey
www.e-prominence.co.uk
On 13:34:29 20 February 2006 Ashley wrote:
CEO at Econsultancy
20 February 2006 16:53pm
Who knows the reason. As far as I'm aware Bigmouthmedia are a highly reputable and ethical agency. I guess it will come out in the wash. It's quite easy to make mistakes accidentally (e.g. duplicate content) or bear the brunt of something that someone else has done.
It is indeed quite worrying the degree of power that Google currently holds. it wouldn't be so bad if you knew mistakes on their part would be corrected within a certain timeframe or, if you'd done something wrong (inadvertently) and been banned, that you would be reconsidered within a certain time frame. But you have no idea, no guarantees and, indeed, Google own their index so you have no right to be there in the first place.
Ashley
eTail Optimisation Specialist at Click Funnel Ltd
20 February 2006 17:08pm
On 16:53:58 20 February 2006 Ashley wrote:
Consultant at NA
20 February 2006 21:19pm
For consultants like me, trying to get my site listed in Google's natural listings by using purely white hat seo, this is very difficult to compete with so I understand the viewpoint that big mouth media has been spamming Google.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.internet.search-engines/browse_thread/thread/95a5237a2b370b8/e3e61f314c9ac55c?lnk=st&q=bigmouthmedia&rnum=2&hl=en#e3e61f314c9ac55c
It would be good if someone from bigmouth posted here to help clarify what they think has happened and why.
KK.
-- at --
21 February 2006 10:26am
I have emailed Steve Leach (MD) directly and asked him to respond to this
jon
On 13:34:29 20 February 2006 Ashley wrote: