Showing posts 11 - 20 of 33
Recommended reports
SEO Best Practice: Index Inclusion
The SEO Best Practice: Index Inclusion Guide is part of Econsultancy's renowned SEO Best Practice Guide and is has been created with the help and frontline insight of globally-esteemed SEO practitioners, in order to give you the edge in your natural search marketing activity.
SEMPO State of Search Marketing Report 2012
The State of Search Marketing Report 2012, published by Econsultancy in association with SEMPO, looks in-depth at how companies are using paid search, search engine optimization (natural search) and social media marketing. The report looks closely at current practices and emerging trends across paid search and SEO, as well as their relationship with social media.
Communications Manager at STAPLES
10 June 2005 17:13pm
Thanks Daniel.
Yes I've spoken to the Head of B2B at Google about this and he sees no problems.
I don't expect any seeing as it is an optimised exact replica of our main site using a URL that we already own. It will run alongside our Adwords campaign.
Believe me, I'm sceptical too! But given my situation, the risk management in place and the potential rewards I've decided to be the guinea pig. I'll post updates on progress.
Cheers
Jason
On 16:42:50 10 June 2005 DanielPhillips wrote:
>That's fair enough if you want to take the risk.
>
>But if Google decides you are cloaking, you run the risk
>of being blacklisted and none of your pages will appear in
>the search results.
>
>The only way you can gurantee a presence in the short-term
>on google is via adwords. Do you know for certain that
>you are going to get a decent ranking for the correct
>search phrases? Are you confident that Google is happy
>with what you're doing and there is no chance that you'll
>be penalised?
>
>It's your site, and your choice. Personally, I would
>steer well clear.
>
>It will be interesting to see how you get on. Hope that
>whatever you choose to do works for you.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Daniel
CEO at Econsultancy
10 June 2005 17:49pm
I think you should be absolutely fine. You're not trying to cheat the users so the search engines shoudln't have a problem.
Think of it from the search engine's point of view - they actively compete to index more pages than each other to ensure that they can deliver the most relevant results to users. So they want your content in their indexes.
In fact, have you seen my post about Google Sitemaps? See http://www.e-consultancy.com/forum/102348-google-sitemaps-announced-an-seo-frenzy-to-ensue.html
That's Google helping site owners get their content into Google where they are having problems.
Come to think of it, does that do away with the need for JAJJA....?
Ashley
Principal Consultant and Managing Director at ivantage Limited
12 June 2005 21:02pm
I've never posted here but I thought this post was interesting. JaJa recently approached one of our clients and I looked into what they were offering. They said Staples were already a customer. Basically they will duplicate your entire site for Google to crawl it.
Whilst, having a readable copy of your site for Google can be a legimate SEO tatic, you really need to stop the dynamic one from being read otherwise you willl have duplicate websites. Duplicate content on large scale can result is a spam penalty. Which one Google acts on is interesting question?
You'd really need to stop your website from being indexed to prevent this. Once you do this, then your SEO results are then managed and controled by a third party - you should be aware of this.
You can't compare this technlogy to Your Amigo Spider Linker which we resell - it simply is the not the same.
internet manager at proffesional
20 July 2005 01:23am
I have been recently approached by Jajja and we all in our team have only a single doubt. Would we be banned from Google? That would be a true disaster as our company has a very large site.
We know Google´s rules as expressed in http://www.google.es/intl/es/webmasters/seo.html by we would like to have more opinions or information about how Jajja complies with all the requirements covered in that document. Does anyone have more information?
Thanks
Fernando
On 15:09:18 10 June 2005 JasonPoulter wrote:
>Good point Paul. I put this to Jajja who's response was as
>follows:
>
>"Hi Jason,
>
>Our solution is absolutely and categorically not cloaking.
>
>Google issues guidelines for SEO and we fully comply at
>all times with these
>guidelines.
>
>We are using true and genuine data from your own site, if
>a searcher
>searches for "4 hole paper punch" for example,
>they will be sent to the page
>on the Staples site that has "4 hole paper
>punches", or the nearest possible
>match.
>
>This is not fooling the searcher nor misleading them about
>the final
>destination.
>
>Many companies have been banned by Google, but none of our
>sites have ever
>had any problems, and Google is fully aware of us.
>
>Daniel Ek, our CTO, ex Yahoo, is currently providing
>consultancy to Yahoo
>and other search engines, although not Google.
>
>Daniel is very well known and very well respected in this
>field by all
>search engine companies.
>
>I hope this re-assures you, but as always I welcome all
>feedback and
>questions."
>
>On 13:34:20 10 June 2005 PaulEvans wrote:
>>Further update after I had another call and copy of a
>>presentation from them, they have not yet convinced me
>>enough that their product would not be deemed as
>>'Cloaking' by the search engines, particularly as what
>I
>>understand of their solution fits Googles description
>of
>>Cloaking:
>>
>>From google: http://www.google.co.uk/webmasters/faq.ht-
>ml
>>1. What is cloaking?
>>
>>The term "cloaking" is used to describe a
>>website that returns altered webpages to search
>engines
>>crawling the site. In other words, the webserver is
>>programmed to return different content to Google than
>it
>>returns to regular users, usually in an attempt to
>distort
>>search engine rankings. This can mislead users about
>what
>>they'll find when they click on a search result. To
>>preserve the accuracy and quality of our search
>results,
>>Google may permanently ban from our index any sites or
>>site authors that engage in cloaking to distort their
>>search rankings.
>>
>>The example they have given me is from another of
>their
>>clients, Jamster:
>>using 'dancing spike ringtune' which to me is quite an
>>obscure search term anyway:
>>http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dancing+spike+ringtun-
>e
>>Which takes you to this page on jajja's server:
>>http://jamster-ringtune.com/Trium/Eclipse/Jamster_Star-
>s_Da-
>>ncing_Spike/multijpeg/Spike_dancing/Spike_dancing.html
>>Which redirects to:
>>http://www.jamster.co.uk/jiw/go?search=&zanpid=209-
>5119-
>>C463242443
>>Where I can't find any instances of 'dancing', 'spike'
>or
>>'ringtune'
>>
>>Interestingly, I couldn't find them anywhere in the
>top
>>100 natural listings for what I would regard as a
>popular
>>generic term...'mobile ringtone'
>>http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mobile+ringtone
>>
>>It would be good to get others understanding if they
>think
>>this solution would be regarded as Cloaking...i.e.
>>unethical.
Marketing Manager at Logismarket
12 August 2005 12:04pm
Hi Fernando,
I'm from Spain too. Jajja has contacted me as well, saying they are launching jajja in our market.
As everyone in this forum, I think the product seems too good to be true. They say ebay.es has signed with them. Any idea how to contact them? Or other spanish clients?
Fell free to contact me at 932609000.
Thanks.
Gonzalo
On 01:23:11 20 July 2005 fsolercampo wrote:
>I have been recently approached by Jajja and we all in our
>team have only a single doubt. Would we be banned from
>Google? That would be a true disaster as our company has a
> very large site.
>
>We know Google´s rules as expressed in
>http://www.google.es/intl/es/webmasters/seo.html by we
>would like to have more opinions or information about how
>Jajja complies with all the requirements covered in that
>document. Does anyone have more information?
>
>Thanks
>
>Fernando
>
>
>On 15:09:18 10 June 2005 JasonPoulter wrote:
>>Good point Paul. I put this to Jajja who's response
>was as
>>follows:
>>
>>"Hi Jason,
>>
>>Our solution is absolutely and categorically not
>cloaking.
>>
>>Google issues guidelines for SEO and we fully comply
>at
>>all times with these
>>guidelines.
>>
>>We are using true and genuine data from your own site,
>if
>>a searcher
>>searches for "4 hole paper punch" for
>example,
>>they will be sent to the page
>>on the Staples site that has "4 hole paper
>>punches", or the nearest possible
>>match.
>>
>>This is not fooling the searcher nor misleading them
>about
>>the final
>>destination.
>>
>>Many companies have been banned by Google, but none of
>our
>>sites have ever
>>had any problems, and Google is fully aware of us.
>>
>>Daniel Ek, our CTO, ex Yahoo, is currently providing
>>consultancy to Yahoo
>>and other search engines, although not Google.
>>
>>Daniel is very well known and very well respected in
>this
>>field by all
>>search engine companies.
>>
>>I hope this re-assures you, but as always I welcome
>all
>>feedback and
>>questions."
>>
>>On 13:34:20 10 June 2005 PaulEvans wrote:
>>>Further update after I had another call and copy
>of a
>>>presentation from them, they have not yet
>convinced me
>>>enough that their product would not be deemed as
>>>'Cloaking' by the search engines, particularly as
>what
>>I
>>>understand of their solution fits Googles
>description
>>of
>>>Cloaking:
>>>
>>>From google: http://www.google.co.uk/webmasters/fa-
>q.ht-
>>ml
>>>1. What is cloaking?
>>>
>>>The term "cloaking" is used to describe
>a
>>>website that returns altered webpages to search
>>engines
>>>crawling the site. In other words, the webserver
>is
>>>programmed to return different content to Google
>than
>>it
>>>returns to regular users, usually in an attempt to
>>distort
>>>search engine rankings. This can mislead users
>about
>>what
>>>they'll find when they click on a search result.
>To
>>>preserve the accuracy and quality of our search
>>results,
>>>Google may permanently ban from our index any
>sites or
>>>site authors that engage in cloaking to distort
>their
>>>search rankings.
>>>
>>>The example they have given me is from another of
>>their
>>>clients, Jamster:
>>>using 'dancing spike ringtune' which to me is
>quite an
>>>obscure search term anyway:
>>>http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dancing+spike+rin-
>gtun-
>>e
>>>Which takes you to this page on jajja's server:
>>>http://jamster-ringtune.com/Trium/Eclipse/Jamster_-
>Star-
>>s_Da-
>>>ncing_Spike/multijpeg/Spike_dancing/Spike_dancing.-
>html
>>>Which redirects to:
>>>http://www.jamster.co.uk/jiw/go?search=&zanpid-
>=209-
>>5119-
>>>C463242443
>>>Where I can't find any instances of 'dancing',
>'spike'
>>or
>>>'ringtune'
>>>
>>>Interestingly, I couldn't find them anywhere in
>the
>>top
>>>100 natural listings for what I would regard as a
>>popular
>>>generic term...'mobile ringtone'
>>>http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mobile+ringtone
>>>
>>>It would be good to get others understanding if
>they
>>think
>>>this solution would be regarded as Cloaking...i.e.
>>>unethical.
seo phd at seo seo
13 August 2005 20:31pm
Dear Mr POULTER,
IT IS as simple as it can be.
Well you can email me and i can follow you with any suggestion.
All you need to do in checking their techniques is to see their customers and ranking....
Try this with High performed keyword.
As you know, just test them on the best searched keyword in your market.
I can show you some bad techniques some SEO companies have been using.
Google notice some of them and not all.
Just be carefull....and as we say the most secure way is to hire your own SEO tech guy in-house, isn't it ?
Take care and all the best.
On 01:23:11 20 July 2005 fsolercampo wrote:
>I have been recently approached by Jajja and we all in our
>team have only a single doubt. Would we be banned from
>Google? That would be a true disaster as our company has a
> very large site.
>
>We know Google´s rules as expressed in
>http://www.google.es/intl/es/webmasters/seo.html by we
>would like to have more opinions or information about how
>Jajja complies with all the requirements covered in that
>document. Does anyone have more information?
>
>Thanks
>
>Fernando
>
>
>On 15:09:18 10 June 2005 JasonPoulter wrote:
>>Good point Paul. I put this to Jajja who's response
>was as
>>follows:
>>
>>"Hi Jason,
>>
>>Our solution is absolutely and categorically not
>cloaking.
>>
>>Google issues guidelines for SEO and we fully comply
>at
>>all times with these
>>guidelines.
>>
>>We are using true and genuine data from your own site,
>if
>>a searcher
>>searches for "4 hole paper punch" for
>example,
>>they will be sent to the page
>>on the Staples site that has "4 hole paper
>>punches", or the nearest possible
>>match.
>>
>>This is not fooling the searcher nor misleading them
>about
>>the final
>>destination.
>>
>>Many companies have been banned by Google, but none of
>our
>>sites have ever
>>had any problems, and Google is fully aware of us.
>>
>>Daniel Ek, our CTO, ex Yahoo, is currently providing
>>consultancy to Yahoo
>>and other search engines, although not Google.
>>
>>Daniel is very well known and very well respected in
>this
>>field by all
>>search engine companies.
>>
>>I hope this re-assures you, but as always I welcome
>all
>>feedback and
>>questions."
>>
>>On 13:34:20 10 June 2005 PaulEvans wrote:
>>>Further update after I had another call and copy
>of a
>>>presentation from them, they have not yet
>convinced me
>>>enough that their product would not be deemed as
>>>'Cloaking' by the search engines, particularly as
>what
>>I
>>>understand of their solution fits Googles
>description
>>of
>>>Cloaking:
>>>
>>>From google: http://www.google.co.uk/webmasters/fa-
>q.ht-
>>ml
>>>1. What is cloaking?
>>>
>>>The term "cloaking" is used to describe
>a
>>>website that returns altered webpages to search
>>engines
>>>crawling the site. In other words, the webserver
>is
>>>programmed to return different content to Google
>than
>>it
>>>returns to regular users, usually in an attempt to
>>distort
>>>search engine rankings. This can mislead users
>about
>>what
>>>they'll find when they click on a search result.
>To
>>>preserve the accuracy and quality of our search
>>results,
>>>Google may permanently ban from our index any
>sites or
>>>site authors that engage in cloaking to distort
>their
>>>search rankings.
>>>
>>>The example they have given me is from another of
>>their
>>>clients, Jamster:
>>>using 'dancing spike ringtune' which to me is
>quite an
>>>obscure search term anyway:
>>>http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dancing+spike+rin-
>gtun-
>>e
>>>Which takes you to this page on jajja's server:
>>>http://jamster-ringtune.com/Trium/Eclipse/Jamster_-
>Star-
>>s_Da-
>>>ncing_Spike/multijpeg/Spike_dancing/Spike_dancing.-
>html
>>>Which redirects to:
>>>http://www.jamster.co.uk/jiw/go?search=&zanpid-
>=209-
>>5119-
>>>C463242443
>>>Where I can't find any instances of 'dancing',
>'spike'
>>or
>>>'ringtune'
>>>
>>>Interestingly, I couldn't find them anywhere in
>the
>>top
>>>100 natural listings for what I would regard as a
>>popular
>>>generic term...'mobile ringtone'
>>>http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mobile+ringtone
>>>
>>>It would be good to get others understanding if
>they
>>think
>>>this solution would be regarded as Cloaking...i.e.
>>>unethical.
Marketing Director at inkClub
22 August 2005 09:44am
Not "sales converting" traffic according to our test campaign. Huge disappointment.
Henrik Nilzén
independent at independent
22 August 2005 19:46pm
I have experienced Jajja for the last 5 years with excellent conversion rates and substantially proper traffic. After carefully studying SEO companies in Europe and the U.S.A. for the last 5 years, we find Jajja to be among the most complete and competitive in Europe.
Ebusiness director at Private Tourism
22 August 2005 20:10pm
I am from Spain. Jajja also approached me 1 month ago with what I thought was an expensive package. We decided to do it anyway. In the beginning I was a bit skeptic. We own a hotel website. There is so much competition in Spain in Tourism. I am so glad I made the decision since we had no visitors before. Now we are receiving massive amount of traffic on extremely competitive search phrases. We have tried other SEO companies in the past with no success. I would recommend Jajja like we say in Spain "con los ojos cerrados" with eyes closed. It was worth every penny!
Ebusiness director at Private Tourism
22 August 2005 20:12pm
I am from Spain. Jajja also approached me 1 month ago with what I thought was an expensive package. We decided to do it anyway. In the beginning I was a bit skeptic. We own a hotel website. There is so much competition in Spain in Tourism. I am so glad I made the decision since we had no visitors before. Now we are receiving massive amount of traffic on extremely competitive search phrases. We have tried other SEO companies in the past with no success. I would recommend Jajja like we say in Spain "con los ojos cerrados" with eyes closed. It was worth every penny! You get for what you pay for!