It looks like I posted the previous post without reading the entire thread. There very well may be more going on here than a dup content/links issue.
On occasion I will look through posts on different forums when I have been asked to and this thread and a couple of others are what brought me here yesterday. With that said let me set the record straight as it pertains to this thread. The decision made regarding the category change for greatlasvegashomes.com was made by the editor for that category and I had nothing to do with it. On the other hand, and although I very rarely find reason to post on this forum, when I read about a listing being dropped it piqued my curiosity since it can affect placement in the Google Directory. So I had it researched, got the answer, and made my post as it pertains to DMOZ. Don't read anything else into it. As for the hidden span text, has anyone considered there just might be a filter in place? Do keyword and comment tags come to mind?
It has been said more than a few times that search engines and directories have people that monitor these forums. I can't speak for all but for the most part that is a true statement. The post that was made in 2004 was not meant to be directed at Wayne but to get a consensus and it also provided road maps.
JustTheFacts, are you saying you don't know Diann? You seemed to know quite a bit about her personal history - how is that? Hidden text is hidden text and is a clear violation of Google's Guidelines: Google Information for Webmasters
You lost me with this statement. Every post you have made on this forum has been directed to me. Yuu have not posted on this forum in other other threads other than the ones that were about me and or me and Diann. Its more than just hidden text, its hidden links, dupilcate content and other violations which I have not disclosed, but I have been accused of by Diann and her other friends. Could you expand on this? As I believe that creating the same page in a frame and non framed version is against Googles guidelines. I come to this conclusion because each page is identical, each has different meta tags, each promotes her links farm, which on the framed pages increases the relevancy of the site unnaturally with the meta tags, title tags, keyword tags and content description and the non framed and framed version of her site map is stuffed with keywords on every page within her site. I would like some opinions please, if you believe this would be considered spam the way Diann has created the framed and non framed pages. This will maybe shed some light to Diann and myself.
I meet a lot of people at different conferences that I maintain contact with and I do have more than a casual knowledge of the guidelines.
JustTheFacts, you seem to have more than just a casual knowledge of Diann though. I am sure you can understand why this is being questioned. Also can you not see how we come to ask why all your post on this forum have been in defense of Diann or making negative comments related to me.
More evasion and dissimulation -- suppose you just cut the crap and tell us what your relationship with Diann actually is. That's not necessarily correct. First, spiders aren't good at reading frames and some browsers don't support frames very well. For that reason, it is customary and even good practice for sites using frames to include a non-frame version. Where the content of the two versions (or indeed any other two pages) is identical, Google will apply the "duplicate content filter", where one of the pages will be indexed and the other will not be (it will be ignored). The only exception that comes to mind would be if the two versions are substantially identical but not exactly identical - a shady webmaster might do that as an attempt to circumvent the duplicate content filter.
Are we to believe that since joining this forum in 2004, your only post were to threads involving Wayne is a coincidence? Where does this “road map†lead us? ~VegasMack
This is not the case however, Diann's site has both pages indexed by Google, the framed and non framed versions of the pages. Also why would there be a need for link partners, site map and other keyword rich anchor text in the non framed protion of the framed pages, if it wasnt meant to manipulate serps?
Can you provide links as examples? See above. The usual practice would be to create IDENTICAL pages for the framed and unframed versions, other than possibly the addition of navigation links in the unframed version as required.
This is the last thing I'm going to add to this thread of conspiracy theories and other ridiculous accusations and deliberate distortions of the facts. www. w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#noframes Wayne, scroll down to #10 and read about frames. Read the part about inserting content into the no frame tag. Then do yourself a favor and have somebody physically SHOW you what a framed site is, since you obviously don't understand the concept and therefore will never accept an answer about it. If you don't accept the WC3 explanation, then I can't help you any further. One more time...whatever was in her top frame was not supposed to be there, was not in our knowledge that it WAS there, and is now gone. End of subject. You can go on and on through eternity screaming spam, but it was nothing more than an unintentional oversite that is now gone. Her noframe content is quite acceptable and is no violation. Period. End of discussion from our end, anyway. This is a waste of time for everyone involved. Jan
Jan I understand frames and I also understand how frames could be used to manipulate the serps. As for the hidden links, have you not been reading there is more than just hidden links. No Jan and to coin your phrase...One More Time, it is not gone, there is more there but you either refuse to see it or you dont want to lose it. There is more there that has been mentioned here in this thread. Just to add, Google has over 17,000 pages indexed for my site, if I was to add a framed version of those pages with different title tags, meta tags, content descriptions and so on I wonder how much more relevant my site would become for those keywords?
Well, I'll tell you what then. Report it to Google to your heart's content. I'm through with trying to explain to a brick wall. You've already made a nuisance of yourself on Matt's blog. Go ahead and give him some more examples of your vast knowledge and cosmic good deeds to cleanse the internet of evil spammers and successful realtors. I'll be sure to forward this entire thread to him for a good chuckle on a boring Monday. Jan
Jan I understand your frustration, but if being a nuisance is considered reporting those who spam after being called a spammer by those same people than I am guilty. I hope you wouldnt kid me about sending this to Matt. I would adise though since he will just be getting back from a funeral, allow the poor guy and his family to recover.
You are hilarious. Completely hilarious. I've sent him everything else you've sent me. He knows your gallant intentions quite well, I'm sure. And I'm sure he will pick a time when his heart is less heavy to review your handiwork. Keep that good karma coming, Wayne. You're a real winner. Jan
Oh, but I forgot...YOU have his email...you said so yourself. So why don't YOU send him the information. It will save me the trouble and I can take a nap instead of reading more of this foolishness for the rest of the day. We're both blessed that we have a way of communicating with him, don't you think? Jan
Googles indexed Pages for Diann's Site Here are a few examples of the frames and non framed pages. As the site is large not super large but large enough that I dont have the time to show all pages, here is a starting point. http://www.greatlasvegashomes.com/viva_las_vegas_index.htm framed http://www.greatlasvegashomes.com/viva_las_vegas.htm non framed Notice the source code at the bottom of the page referrenced as </td></tr><!--msnavigation--></table></body> </noframes> </frameset> </html> First this source code is in the wrong place and indicates to me to tell the spiders to indexed the content within the frame but is a framed page. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also you will see a site map stuffed with keyword rich anchor text on both the framed and non framed pages. If I am correct about this noframes tag then all those links that are keyword stuffed will add to the Seo value of the site and is used to manipulate the serps. http://www.greatlasvegashomes.com/las_vegas_investments_index.htm Framed http://www.greatlasvegashomes.com/las_vegas_real_estate_investments.htm Non Framed Same applies to those pages. Now for the homepage which I find interesting. http://www.greatlasvegashomes.com/original_home_page.html almost duplicate of homepage. http://www.greatlasvegashomes.com and http://www.greatlasvegashomes.com/las_vegas_main_index.htm Look at these pages and make your own judgement. Pay close attention to the source code at the bottom of the page on each of the framed sites, which shows </td></tr><!--msnavigation--></table></body> </noframes> </frameset> </html> I also found this page which is indexed by Google to be very interesting. http://www.greatlasvegashomes.com/toc3.htm This page has no content, it has live links with keyword rich anchor text. The funny thing about this page is, this is for a template of her navigation and background, yet it contains different title tags, meta tags, content description all different from her homepage. What do you make of this? Make your own judgements as to the use of this type of Noframe tag. I know for one it is in the wrong place. I have my opinions but I am no expert. If this is not clear ask and I will try to explain it better.
The entire purpose of the noframes tag is to provide the site to browsers which do not support frames by providing a place in the top frame to write non frames version of the page.
It all looks pretty normal to me. A frame site uses multiple windows to place content on the page. Usually one page for the header another for the menu, main content, footer and so on. These pages exist separately as well if the individual urls are typed in. So it is only natural to utilize the meta tags and titles etc... This is not at all extreme and should not be considered spam. Could it be that this being your direct competitor you have motivation for finding something wrong? Maybe you should experiment on your site and see if these techniques help you out. The term SPAM should be utilized to denote blantant abuse not optimization. Having the main keyword phrase in the page the same color as the background a thgousand times is SPAM. Sending out a million emails is SPAM. Not utilizing your title and alt tags or providing the WebTV users a noframe version.