Response to Sam's Email

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
Received an email from Spammy Sammy today-

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 15:20:30 -0700

I'd be willing to share my secret with you provided that you agree to
certain terms:

1. Don't post the secret to the ng, keep it to yourself

2. Use it only for yourself at your own personal serps not seo work
other's sites (and especially not at my serps).

3. Tell the ng who the better SEO is.

Agree to all of that and I'll share it with you. Just so you know I
on deleting both those sites in a week or two as soon as they both
page one above yours. I'm not trying to mess up the serps there, just
trying to make a point to you. It's not personal, it's business.

Just in case anyone thinks I shouldn't be posting private emails here,
I've warned Sam anything he sends by email might end up here or on a
web site.

Here is my response.

Unlike you I don't run to others for help, 200+ emails from you back
in November, recall those Sam, begging me to help you because all your
SERPs had gone (can post a few if you like?).

Since you don't want others to know what you are doing I thought I'd
post it here ;-)

Sam thinks he can get any SERP using the following technique, he's
wrong, but I'll get to that later.

We know Google relies partially on the content of a page to rank it's
SERPs, it also uses the anchor text of links to the site high higher
PR links counting more than lower PR links.

What Sam has realised is if the only content on the page is the main
phrase Google can only rank it highly for that phrase. I tested this
concept ages ago and it does work, but it has problems.

You build a very small page with very high keyword density for that
one phrase.

Take this page  

Title = <title>Classic Literature Forum</title>

The content-
Classic Literature Forum
Feel free to post your CLASSIC LITERATURE messages to this forum
Classic Literature Posted by literature (no replies, 13 views)

Post a New Message

Pages: 1

This Free Service is Provided by
BBS.WS - Free BBS and Guestbook Service.

classic literature, classic literature, classic literature, classic
literature, classic literature
classic literature

Out of 54 words-

literature- 10 times
classic- 9 times
Classic Literature - 9 times.

Very, very high keyword density.

The problem with this is when you try to do this with a real page (one
with content) you can't get the density anywhere near high enough and
if you do it looks very, very spammy and probably enough to get a
penalty (the page above is spammy).

If Sam tried to add real content to the page the SERP will drop.

I suspect that Google will allow this sort of very high density page
for small pages, but not large pages. Think about it, if you have a 50
word page it's not unusual for one phrase to be used a lot, but a 500+
word page shouldn't have one phrase a lot and so could easily be

Now to why he is wrong about getting any SERP using this technique.

He isn't relying solely on this technique for the two pages he has
made, he has added a lot of very high PR pages using Classic
Literature as the anchor text. Do some checking and you will find
links from PR7 pages.

Ask yourself this, what would happen if google linked to your site
from a PR10 page. Do you think your page would get an automatic boost
or have to wait for the PR to update?? Although these links won't give
full benefit right away, Google will give a page a boost when it gets
a new high PR link (I've seen it many times).

So what we have is a page with very high density for one phrase and
some very high PR links. If it was only the page and say a few PR4
links I'd be very surprised to see the page in the top 100, the reason
they are in the top 20 is around 90% due to the links.

Sam if you want to prove me wrong build a new 'site' and add no more
than 6 PR4 links to it. Almost anyone can do this since getting half a
dozen PR4 links isn't hard to arrange, but for even mildly competitive
SERPs it will fail (you need higher PR links).

So Sam stop saying you can get a PR0 page to the top, it's far from

-- /

Re: Response to Sam's Email

SEO Dave wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

strewth - you two still doing the handbags thing?

Be sure to invite me to the wedding.
William Tasso

Re: Response to Sam's Email

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Pathetic. Given up the day job yet sam ?

Re: Response to Sam's Email

Me wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't have a day job, it's an evening job for a few hours a night. If
I gave up my day job I wouldn't be writing this to you right now.

Re: Response to Sam's Email

SEO Dave wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
It was a lovely email wasn't it? I thought so.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Has nothing to do with why the site is there and I'll also add content
soon in the next few weeks and reduce those keywords down to bare
minimum to proove that to you. But let's for the sake of argument say
you right that adding content would drop the site. That can easily be
remedied by using those pages as entrance pages and having the content
on the main page you go to when you click on the enter link. Remember
the good old days of 1995 when the normal thing sites did was to have a
nice small simple entrance page for their sites with nothing more than a
meta title, header title, a photo and an enter link with maybe a few
text keywords added on the page? Google loves simple and google loves
retro and they have been in the retro mood for quite awhile now. Think
retro, think marshmellow shoes, satin shirts, discos, Gordon Lightfoot,
the 70's and you'll succeed in google.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
The anchor text is the key not the pr but the pr does make a big
difference too where you post those links at. But I suppose you're right
about them counting the links even though they don't show up for a a
month to three months at a sites backlinks. But unlike you I consider
posting a vital part of SEO. True it's a pain in the ass part but vital
all the same and the best way to SEO is still to get your own sites that
have high pr so you don't need to be dependent on posting.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Response to Sam's Email

Quoted text here. Click to load it

At least you aren't denying sending them this time.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If it's not the content why not remove it now or add a lot of real
content now? Why weeks?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, but unlike you most people are interested in multiple sites and
so unless you plan to fill your site with hundreds of doorway pages
you could only do a few.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The rubbish you come up with!!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What!! The anchor text is the key (already knew that), it's not the
PR, but it is the PR??

Is it the PR or isn't it the PR?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Which is why you wouldn't get a real PR0 page to the top of any mildly
competitive SERP. Basically you were trying to make it sound better
than it was. Reality is anyone can take some mildly competitive SERPs
with excessive link spamming (especially with PR7 links), big deal
been there, done that, got the t-shirt and have moved on.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You mean link spamming.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

So you'll be copying me again then. Nothing new with that then.

Imagine if I wasn't here Sam, you'd have to think for yourself instead
of looking at what I've been doing!!

-- /

Re: Response to Sam's Email

I just took a look at the number one site at classic literature: and how dare you accuse me of copying
your idea of classic literature with my quotation sites when it's
painfully obvious your classic literature site is a total rip off of the
number 1&2 classic literature site at google which was done in 1999. you
even had the audacity to copy their design of the site as well. All I
can say is you are one black pot that likes call all the others black.
(oh what a wicked web we weave Dave!)

Re: Response to Sam's Email

Since the argument is whether Sam's site is spam or not and whether it will
get banned by google soon, I think the fair action is Dave submits a spam
report to google about Sam's site, and Sam submits a spam report about
Dave's site.

This would happen in real life too. If I use any techniques which looks
remotely spammy, I am sure my competitor would file a spam report and hope
my site is banned for life.

So, after each of you file the spam report, we wait for a reasonable time
(three or four weeks?), and see what happens. There is no point to argue
about each other's techniques, since the only thing matter is sustained high
ranking in google. Sorry, Sam, temporary high ranking is not going to make
you a better SEO'er, especially if the site gets banned (which is extremely
difficult to get back).


Re: Response to Sam's Email

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Just to clarify, I meant that each of you report the other one's "classic
literature" competition site.


Re: Response to Sam's Email

John Huang wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Better idea, John -- YOU report both of 'em!

Third party spam and plagiarism reports happen in real life, too.


cat yronwode

Re: Response to Sam's Email

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:00:30 -0700, "John Huang"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Just to clarify, I don't own a "classic literature" competition site.

I own a classic literature site that Sam has taken it upon himself to
beat for one SERP, approx. 4 months after I created my site.

BTW I don't waste my time submitting spam reports. Though whenever Sam
posts my URLs to blogs etc... I contact Google to let them know and
point out all the sites I know Sam owns.

If anyone feels my sites are spammy and shouldn't be listed in a
particular search engine feel free to make a spam report.

-- /

Re: Response to Sam's Email

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Then, forget about the spam report idea. Since your site is a real site,
although I have no doubt that it wouldn't be penalized by google, I think it
puts unfair risk upon you.

John Huang
River Past

Site Timeline