The moral of of the story is - be carefull if you employ an 'SEO
company', ensure they remain within Google webmaster guidlines or the
said SEO may affect your business!
Related post below on this forum - learn
'Hi, new to this, hope someone can help me.
I run a small company (about 1yr old). In spring some idiot SEO firm,
without my knowledge, got me thousands of spammy inbound links by
sponsoring blog templates. Result? Three months in the Google
sandbox,
which we're now out of.
I've sacked the black hat buffoon (and may take legal action against
him).
Meanwhile, I've emailed about 1,000 blog owners asking them to remove
the link to me, with about a 50-60% success rate.
However, one "mother-ship" site distributing these blog templates
says
it will remove my links from its site - if I pay US $2,500. Otherwise
it has threatened to flood the internet with them.
It's extortion but what can I do? I'm wary of informing Google in
case the the links I haven't been able to get rid of land me another
penalty. And that will put me out of business (and probably a home)
for good.
Jeepster'
> The moral of of the story is - be carefull if you employ an 'SEO
> company', ensure they remain within Google webmaster guidlines or the
> said SEO may affect your business!
> Related post below on this forum - learn
> 'Hi, new to this, hope someone can help me.
> I run a small company (about 1yr old). In spring some idiot SEO firm,
> without my knowledge, got me thousands of spammy inbound links by
> sponsoring blog templates. Result? Three months in the Google
> sandbox,
> which we're now out of.
> I've sacked the black hat buffoon (and may take legal action against
> him).
> Meanwhile, I've emailed about 1,000 blog owners asking them to remove
> the link to me, with about a 50-60% success rate.
> However, one "mother-ship" site distributing these blog templates
> says
> it will remove my links from its site - if I pay US $2,500. Otherwise
> it has threatened to flood the internet with them.
> It's extortion but what can I do? I'm wary of informing Google in
> case the the links I haven't been able to get rid of land me another
> penalty. And that will put me out of business (and probably a home)
> for good.
> Jeepster'
Your site has more than a little bit of an incomplete feeling about
it, what with the Latin & all. It also has a lot of words but seems to
say very little.
It's copyright notice [2006 - 2008] is somewhat misleading,
considering that you only registered the thing on October 8th.
Furthermore, you advertise yourself as an SEO teacher, yet you
employed a 'Blackhat bufoon' without realising it?
I'm a little unclear about the whole thing so far.
Cheers
Sasch
P.S. Tim & OneOhOne are right in what they say about inbound links...
> The moral of of the story is - be carefull if you employ an 'SEO
> company', ensure they remain within Google webmaster guidlines or the
> said SEO may affect your business!
> Related post below on this forum - learn
> 'Hi, new to this, hope someone can help me.
> I run a small company (about 1yr old). In spring some idiot SEO firm,
> without my knowledge, got me thousands of spammy inbound links by
> sponsoring blog templates. Result? Three months in the Google
> sandbox,
> which we're now out of.
> I've sacked the black hat buffoon (and may take legal action against
> him).
> Meanwhile, I've emailed about 1,000 blog owners asking them to remove
> the link to me, with about a 50-60% success rate.
> However, one "mother-ship" site distributing these blog templates
> says
> it will remove my links from its site - if I pay US $2,500. Otherwise
> it has threatened to flood the internet with them.
> It's extortion but what can I do? I'm wary of informing Google in
> case the the links I haven't been able to get rid of land me another
> penalty. And that will put me out of business (and probably a home)
> for good.
> Jeepster'
> Your site has more than a little bit of an incomplete feeling about
> it, what with the Latin & all. It also has a lot of words but seems to
> say very little.
> It's copyright notice [2006 - 2008] is somewhat misleading,
> considering that you only registered the thing on October 8th.
> Furthermore, you advertise yourself as an SEO teacher, yet you
> employed a 'Blackhat bufoon' without realising it?
> I'm a little unclear about the whole thing so far.
> Cheers
> Sasch
> P.S. Tim & OneOhOne are right in what they say about inbound links...
> > The moral of of the story is - be carefull if you employ an 'SEO
> > company', ensure they remain within Google webmaster guidlines or the
> > said SEO may affect your business!
> > Related post below on this forum - learn
> > 'Hi, new to this, hope someone can help me.
> > I run a small company (about 1yr old). In spring some idiot SEO firm,
> > without my knowledge, got me thousands of spammy inbound links by
> > sponsoring blog templates. Result? Three months in the Google
> > sandbox,
> > which we're now out of.
> > I've sacked the black hat buffoon (and may take legal action against
> > him).
> > Meanwhile, I've emailed about 1,000 blog owners asking them to remove
> > the link to me, with about a 50-60% success rate.
> > However, one "mother-ship" site distributing these blog templates
> > says
> > it will remove my links from its site - if I pay US $2,500. Otherwise
> > it has threatened to flood the internet with them.
> > It's extortion but what can I do? I'm wary of informing Google in
> > case the the links I haven't been able to get rid of land me another
> > penalty. And that will put me out of business (and probably a home)
> > for good.
> > Jeepster'
interweb wrote:
> plus multiple h1's so called "seo companies" like these are what get
> the industry a bad name!
Any tag can be abused. But I know of nothing either in official
standards, recommendations or Googlebod posts that says multiple <h1>
tags is inevitably a "bad thing".
It's actually logical to use multiple <h1> tags, since the <title> tag
has already entitled the page. Think of <title> as <h0> - that you
really _can_ only have one of.
The W3 validator (and some other, for all I know) has a neat feature -
see the foot of this report:
> Any tag can be abused. But I know of nothing either in official
> standards, recommendations or Googlebod posts that says multiple <h1>
> tags is inevitably a "bad thing".
I'd agree, but boy have I heard this thing argued from both sides. The
thing is that nobody seems to have any qualms about using multiple
instances of <h2>, yet most people suffer from paranoid fits when
multiple <h1> tags are mentioned. You're right though, that is a neat
little feature at the bottom of the validator, hadn't noticed it
before.
> interweb wrote:
> > plus multiple h1's so called "seo companies" like these are what get
> > the industry a bad name!
> Any tag can be abused. But I know of nothing either in official
> standards, recommendations or Googlebod posts that says multiple <h1>
> tags is inevitably a "bad thing".
> It's actually logical to use multiple <h1> tags, since the <title> tag
> has already entitled the page. Think of <title> as <h0> - that you
> really _can_ only have one of.
> The W3 validator (and some other, for all I know) has a neat feature -
> see the foot of this report:
|
