[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Anyone familiar with SEO (Search Engine Optimization) techniques? I have a mystery.

From: Juan <[email protected]>
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 03:18:08 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <[email protected]> wrote:

>> For those who can help, please do a Google search for 'Bell further
>> alleged in his 2003'You will notice that there are MANY results that
>> contain that phrase, but have something close to gibberish, before
>> and after it.  


 >Weird. The search results I'm seeing (first page)
>    1) book titled "crypto anarchy"
    
  >  2)
 >   http://www.snowcitycafe.com/assets/28115041/service/ridgefield-connecticut-public-records.html

 >   3)
 >   http://www.snowcitycafe.com/assets/28115041/service/jail-records-vine.html

 >   4)
 >   http://www.snowcitycafe.com/assets/28115041/service/do-you-have-to-get-a-background-check-to-buy-.html

>    5) Jim's wikipedia article

 >   6)
>   http://buriedwithoutceremony.com/wp-includes/service/indiana-state-police-records-division.html

 >   7)
>    http://buriedwithoutceremony.com/wp-includes/service/arizona-public-records-wills.html

>    8)
 >   http://www.vinnatur.org/wp-includes/service/free-website-to-view-criminal-records.html

 >   9) 

>    http://www.vinnatur.org/wp-includes/service/free-criminal-records-bureau-uk.html

 >   10) 

 >   http://culturesource.net/data/records/criminal-background-guidelines.html


 >   results 2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10 all go to the same spam page. 
I think you're wrong about that.  It isn't "the same spam page".  Rather, it is multiple copies of what amounts to (looks like, to the human eye) the same spam page, but located at different URLs.


 >   In other words, google is such an incredible piece of shit that
>    they can't even run a search engine?
Again, I think you're wrong about that.  I don't think Google has done anything wrong, here.  Rather, I think that someone else has manufactured many pages which look alike to the human eye, but apparently contain hidden text that can be searched for and found.  Google-search has simply catalogued the search results, including the otherwise-invisible text.  (White characters on a white background can't be read by eye, but they can be read by Google-search.)


>> Some results are genuine, but most are apparently not.
>>  I suspect that I am the victim of some sort of SEO-techniques,


>    ...that work against an IT company that rules the universe and
 >   has a 'market cap' of 428 000 million dollars...
Again, I think you're wrong.  What I believe I have seen does not "work against" anybody, except possibly me.  Google is simply cataloguing the web pages it sees, as the person (or organization) that produced those pages intends.  The only negative consequence, to Google-search, is that they have to catalog a few hundred kilobytes more of web-pages.  That's no skin off Google-search's nose.  And as far as I understand, the only tricky thing here is that text is present on these pages which cannot be read by a human.  If I knew more about the Web than I do, I would probably understand how to adjust my web browser to display visibly what would otherwise be invisible text.  The next question is, "what does this mean, and who produced this, and why?".   I posted this query to find somebody who had experience in SEO techniques.



             Jim Bell


> attempting to cover up the fact of the fake, forged appeal case
> 99-30210.  I suspect that the following company had something to do
> with it:   http://www.icmconsulting.com/seo.html ; See, for
> instance, http://www.simcoehall.com/service/background-check-expunged.html
>       Jim Bell


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20150912/a0b68914/attachment.html>