Fernando,

I sincerely doubt that you will get banned from Google. There is more fear implemented in the field of SEO then it really should... I personally work with many SEO companies including Jajja. So far, delivery has been with the best quality and upmost professionalism. As long as your website has the right amount of content I recommend you to work with them. My experience with Swedish companies is that they are to be trusted and serve as reliable sources. Keep in mind Sweden (Scandinavia) is considered the number 1 IT country in the world.

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.

I believe you don’t have to be wary or worried at all. This technique was presented and found to be quite innovative according to the last Search Engine marketing conferences held in the USA and England. It is consider as an innovative way of realizing optimization with quite complex and advanced software implementation from the outsource provider. The few companies which do something similar, extract a replica with the purpose of optimizing the content, not the website. The technique, I believe, is done through spidering the website and extracting the relevant text and content. Once the content is fetched and optimized some companies redirected to the original site. It reduces the cost of “hard work” optimization techniques with the original domain to an extremely cost effective optimization technique implementation.

Regarding the sandbox… I’m sure every SEO expert is aware according to all discussions, speculations and rumours related to the concept regarding the implementation of the sandbox; I’ll refrain from giving a lengthy account of the topic. It should be noted, though, that the sandbox is unofficial, that no specs has been published and that no statement regarding it has been made by Google even though 70% of webmasters worldwide believe is real.

In short, what is thought to be known about the sandbox is basically that new sites – while perhaps properly indexed – won’t rank very well on common search terms. However, that’s heavily simplified as the filter in question is suspected to take notice of factors such as the page rank, the page content of the incoming links, the link text and even more. Not anyone – nor any other respectable SEO – can promise that websites will be able to avoid the assumed sandbox. However many SEO companies do a great job to avoid it – taking every possible measure known to affect the sandboxing. Also note that with in -numerous productions being released every day, it is more common to experiment “sandboxing” in different countries mostly USA and UK. Since the supposed introduction of the sandbox in March 2004, many SEO companies are yet to notice a consistent negative trend – suggesting that the sandbox issue is in many cases heavily exaggerated.

As Search Engine Expert I believe all SEO companies are quite aware by now of what to do and not  do. This subject is as old as internet forums.
With 10 years of experience and a PhD in E-Business Marketing, I am convinced that even though "in house optimizers" are a basic and known way of implementing optimization, it is a clear reality that under the right SEO company ,results are more than significantly excellent as well as a great cost reduction for companies.
I've met innumerous so called "in house experts" which I can regard more as spammers than anything else. Many of them survive with forums like this one as a way to earn a piece of the industry. Many companies don't know this and they end up asking their own technicians (which are NOT experts in the SEO field) and webmasters about what should be the correct SEO practice to implement for the company. As a simple and logic advice: "Let specialists deal with their own specialty". Webmasters and company technicians are not necesarily SEO experts or SEO marketing specialists. The same way you trust your dentist to deal with your teeth... Let SEO companies deal with SEO issues!
Search Engine marketing is a fast paced, constantly changing industry. My experience and that of many consultants in the United States is that to guarantee the best results... keep it basic! Outsource your SEO solutions and let SEO companies deal with SEO work.

Logic falls under it's own weight...Many SEO companies have a team of experts, consultants and technicians whose work is to study, analyze, research and deliver relevant results to each individual company. With this, I am trying to say...As much as I would like to let my 19 year old university technical web students deal with SEO work, I believe search engine marketing should be dealt by SEO companies.

In terms of ethical or unethical...as Search Engines are neutral to SEO companies, make sure search engine guidelines compliances are deliver in separate sheets, whereby stating that they comply with the rules and regulations of each individual search engine. Ask for technical specifications and clear patterns of communications.

On 16:05:13 23 August 2005 Internationalseo wrote:

I do believe there is a huge difference between sandbox and google dance.

u might have confused the terms.

innovative: it is an old word:

everyone has all ressources nowadays to move into success.

few will fail and each will find his niche market.

www.iprosjajjasoultobealwaysfoolbysmartcoolguys.com

On 13:52:55 23 August 2005 PaulSimon wrote:

I believe you don’t have to be wary or worried at all. This technique was presented and found to be quite innovative according to the last Search Engine marketing conferences held in the USA and England. It is consider as an innovative way of realizing optimization with quite complex and advanced software implementation from the outsource provider. The few companies which do something similar, extract a replica with the purpose of optimizing the content, not the website. The technique, I believe, is done through spidering the website and extracting the relevant text and content. Once the content is fetched and optimized some companies redirected to the original site. It reduces the cost of “hard work” optimization techniques with the original domain to an extremely cost effective optimization technique implementation.

Regarding the sandbox… I’m sure every SEO expert is aware according to all discussions, speculations and rumours related to the concept regarding the implementation of the sandbox; I’ll refrain from giving a lengthy account of the topic. It should be noted, though, that the sandbox is unofficial, that no specs has been published and that no statement regarding it has been made by Google even though 70% of webmasters worldwide believe is real.

In short, what is thought to be known about the sandbox is basically that new sites – while perhaps properly indexed – won’t rank very well on common search terms. However, that’s heavily simplified as the filter in question is suspected to take notice of factors such as the page rank, the page content of the incoming links, the link text and even more. Not anyone – nor any other respectable SEO – can promise that websites will be able to avoid the assumed sandbox. However many SEO companies do a great job to avoid it – taking every possible measure known to affect the sandboxing. Also note that with in -numerous productions being released every day, it is more common to experiment “sandboxing” in different countries mostly USA and UK. Since the supposed introduction of the sandbox in March 2004, many SEO companies are yet to notice a consistent negative trend – suggesting that the sandbox issue is in many cases heavily exaggerated.

I am a technician with great SEO knowledge. I've been trying to get a job at a respected well known company like I-Prospect or Jajja. If someone has some internal contacts. Please email me at: I will more than glad to forward my CV.

On 19:44:37 24 August 2005 DavidSmith wrote:

As Search Engine Expert I believe all SEO companies are quite aware by now of what to do and not  do. This subject is as old as internet forums.
With 10 years of experience and a PhD in E-Business Marketing, I am convinced that even though "in house optimizers" are a basic and known way of implementing optimization, it is a clear reality that under the right SEO company ,results are more than significantly excellent as well as a great cost reduction for companies.
I've met innumerous so called "in house experts" which I can regard more as spammers than anything else. Many of them survive with forums like this one as a way to earn a piece of the industry. Many companies don't know this and they end up asking their own technicians (which are NOT experts in the SEO field) and webmasters about what should be the correct SEO practice to implement for the company. As a simple and logic advice: "Let specialists deal with their own specialty". Webmasters and company technicians are not necesarily SEO experts or SEO marketing specialists. The same way you trust your dentist to deal with your teeth... Let SEO companies deal with SEO issues!
Search Engine marketing is a fast paced, constantly changing industry. My experience and that of many consultants in the United States is that to guarantee the best results... keep it basic! Outsource your SEO solutions and let SEO companies deal with SEO work.

Logic falls under it's own weight...Many SEO companies have a team of experts, consultants and technicians whose work is to study, analyze, research and deliver relevant results to each individual company. With this, I am trying to say...As much as I would like to let my 19 year old university technical web students deal with SEO work, I believe search engine marketing should be dealt by SEO companies.

In terms of ethical or unethical...as Search Engines are neutral to SEO companies, make sure search engine guidelines compliances are deliver in separate sheets, whereby stating that they comply with the rules and regulations of each individual search engine. Ask for technical specifications and clear patterns of communications.

On 16:05:13 23 August 2005 Internationalseo wrote:

I do believe there is a huge difference between sandbox and google dance.

u might have confused the terms.

innovative: it is an old word:

everyone has all ressources nowadays to move into success.

few will fail and each will find his niche market.

www.iprosjajjasoultobealwaysfoolbysmartcoolguys.com

On 13:52:55 23 August 2005 PaulSimon wrote:

I believe you don’t have to be wary or worried at all. This technique was presented and found to be quite innovative according to the last Search Engine marketing conferences held in the USA and England. It is consider as an innovative way of realizing optimization with quite complex and advanced software implementation from the outsource provider. The few companies which do something similar, extract a replica with the purpose of optimizing the content, not the website. The technique, I believe, is done through spidering the website and extracting the relevant text and content. Once the content is fetched and optimized some companies redirected to the original site. It reduces the cost of “hard work” optimization techniques with the original domain to an extremely cost effective optimization technique implementation.

Regarding the sandbox… I’m sure every SEO expert is aware according to all discussions, speculations and rumours related to the concept regarding the implementation of the sandbox; I’ll refrain from giving a lengthy account of the topic. It should be noted, though, that the sandbox is unofficial, that no specs has been published and that no statement regarding it has been made by Google even though 70% of webmasters worldwide believe is real.

In short, what is thought to be known about the sandbox is basically that new sites – while perhaps properly indexed – won’t rank very well on common search terms. However, that’s heavily simplified as the filter in question is suspected to take notice of factors such as the page rank, the page content of the incoming links, the link text and even more. Not anyone – nor any other respectable SEO – can promise that websites will be able to avoid the assumed sandbox. However many SEO companies do a great job to avoid it – taking every possible measure known to affect the sandboxing. Also note that with in -numerous productions being released every day, it is more common to experiment “sandboxing” in different countries mostly USA and UK. Since the supposed introduction of the sandbox in March 2004, many SEO companies are yet to notice a consistent negative trend – suggesting that the sandbox issue is in many cases heavily exaggerated.

Dan.  I dont I pros but I do know Jajja since the company is also from Sweden. We are very happy clients.  Just type the word  "rekrytering" (which means recruitment in english)and we are the first company you will find.  You are welcome to send your CV, perhaps it helps.

On 19:59:04 24 August 2005 DanBrown wrote:

I am a technician with great SEO knowledge. I've been trying to get a job at a respected well known company like I-Prospect or Jajja. If someone has some internal contacts. Please email me at: I will more than glad to forward my CV.

On 19:44:37 24 August 2005 DavidSmith wrote:

As Search Engine Expert I believe all SEO companies are quite aware by now of what to do and not  do. This subject is as old as internet forums.
With 10 years of experience and a PhD in E-Business Marketing, I am convinced that even though "in house optimizers" are a basic and known way of implementing optimization, it is a clear reality that under the right SEO company ,results are more than significantly excellent as well as a great cost reduction for companies.
I've met innumerous so called "in house experts" which I can regard more as spammers than anything else. Many of them survive with forums like this one as a way to earn a piece of the industry. Many companies don't know this and they end up asking their own technicians (which are NOT experts in the SEO field) and webmasters about what should be the correct SEO practice to implement for the company. As a simple and logic advice: "Let specialists deal with their own specialty". Webmasters and company technicians are not necesarily SEO experts or SEO marketing specialists. The same way you trust your dentist to deal with your teeth... Let SEO companies deal with SEO issues!
Search Engine marketing is a fast paced, constantly changing industry. My experience and that of many consultants in the United States is that to guarantee the best results... keep it basic! Outsource your SEO solutions and let SEO companies deal with SEO work.

Logic falls under it's own weight...Many SEO companies have a team of experts, consultants and technicians whose work is to study, analyze, research and deliver relevant results to each individual company. With this, I am trying to say...As much as I would like to let my 19 year old university technical web students deal with SEO work, I believe search engine marketing should be dealt by SEO companies.

In terms of ethical or unethical...as Search Engines are neutral to SEO companies, make sure search engine guidelines compliances are deliver in separate sheets, whereby stating that they comply with the rules and regulations of each individual search engine. Ask for technical specifications and clear patterns of communications.

On 16:05:13 23 August 2005 Internationalseo wrote:

I do believe there is a huge difference between sandbox and google dance.

u might have confused the terms.

innovative: it is an old word:

everyone has all ressources nowadays to move into success.

few will fail and each will find his niche market.

www.iprosjajjasoultobealwaysfoolbysmartcoolguys.com

On 13:52:55 23 August 2005 PaulSimon wrote:

I believe you don’t have to be wary or worried at all. This technique was presented and found to be quite innovative according to the last Search Engine marketing conferences held in the USA and England. It is consider as an innovative way of realizing optimization with quite complex and advanced software implementation from the outsource provider. The few companies which do something similar, extract a replica with the purpose of optimizing the content, not the website. The technique, I believe, is done through spidering the website and extracting the relevant text and content. Once the content is fetched and optimized some companies redirected to the original site. It reduces the cost of “hard work” optimization techniques with the original domain to an extremely cost effective optimization technique implementation.

Regarding the sandbox… I’m sure every SEO expert is aware according to all discussions, speculations and rumours related to the concept regarding the implementation of the sandbox; I’ll refrain from giving a lengthy account of the topic. It should be noted, though, that the sandbox is unofficial, that no specs has been published and that no statement regarding it has been made by Google even though 70% of webmasters worldwide believe is real.

In short, what is thought to be known about the sandbox is basically that new sites – while perhaps properly indexed – won’t rank very well on common search terms. However, that’s heavily simplified as the filter in question is suspected to take notice of factors such as the page rank, the page content of the incoming links, the link text and even more. Not anyone – nor any other respectable SEO – can promise that websites will be able to avoid the assumed sandbox. However many SEO companies do a great job to avoid it – taking every possible measure known to affect the sandboxing. Also note that with in -numerous productions being released every day, it is more common to experiment “sandboxing” in different countries mostly USA and UK. Since the supposed introduction of the sandbox in March 2004, many SEO companies are yet to notice a consistent negative trend – suggesting that the sandbox issue is in many cases heavily exaggerated.