Jump to content
Fear

I've found the source of 5000 ALN ban

Recommended Posts

So all of you are wondering how they did it?

All those funny posts about google schmoogle grammar and quality checking of articles?

LOL - even Maulana believed that ALN was hit because of content.

The truth is - those posts about content quality are bullshit.

I've seen that those turd pushing google ass lickers at seomoz

Please login or register to see this link.

Well it turned out that if you analyse backlinks of this domain - almost every single ALN blog that was linking to it was banned.

This is the rat. They did not target ALN specifically, they just went to his backlinks and banned every spammy blog they've found.

All because of those snake oil sellers seomoz wankers.

Changing ALN submission rules, rates, checking grammar won't change a ***** so maulana should not listen to those little screamers with 3 PR2 domains that demand content control - doing that won't help in this case! It will only make ALN less efficient.

There will be occasional slaps like this - they do not have an algo for networks yet.

PS: Matt Cutts I know you are reading this, I love you:

sexy-matt-cutts.png

Edited by Fear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixed.

They may target other networks, who knows. The thing is that 80-90% of ALN blogs which linked to that site are now banned compared to ~20% of other ALN blogs(maybe less if you count blogs which not linked to this domain).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for one alot of other networks got his as well and for two your link goes to another thread on this forum. You might want to fix that so it points to the article you are talking about.

Could be possible that insurance site was also on the networks?

Either way, if this is how they found 5k (will check personally soon) reverse engineering a couple more sites like that could cause ALN to be wiped out within a few days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to express this in another thread but fluidity of the network is weapon that they are unable to counter.....at least right now.

It is always the same story, Google plays wack-a-mole and then bangs the drums of victory. Their cronies stand up to their followers and tell them to spread the word of the great success and the war on spam is over and white hat is victorious.

This same scenario has been played out consistently over a decade now. There has never been any real victory, they are fighting their battles with propaganda spread by their followers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for one alot of other networks got his as well and for two your link goes to another thread on this forum. You might want to fix that so it points to the article you are talking about.

As far as I know for co-op type network ALN was the only one hit. Yeah some people had their ALN blogs in multiple networks, but their doesnt seem to be targeting of any other ones specifically. That says a lot right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who 'out' sites like this in a public forum, especially knowing it can gain traction and get people to notice, are just idiots.... The truth is 8/10 they are outing them because of their own jealousy, and probably dont have the balls to go and build their own links. Faggots.

Edited by adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This site got penalized but i know at least other 10 sites that went from 0 to 50k visits more unders 3 months only with home page backlincks.

Just dont go in a too competitive niche or a seo targeted niche you obviously will be reported/exposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds very feasible. Site gets flagged for human review, backlink profile checked and wallop, bye bye 5k ALN blogs. If the author of the article can create some half ***** script to group backlink types then Google engineers would have no problem doing so.

The cynic in me might also say that the author of the article wrote the article, dobbed the site in, waited until the rankings dropped and then published the article stating he would never had published the article while the site was still ranking!?

Edited by neil_patmore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I unfortunately have been burnt by these turds before, and kept quiet. I also happen to know that One the the M***** F****** b****** has ulterior motives, regarding that article. All I will say is that these ***** poor seo guys gets jealous when they can not rank for these kind of terms and others do, and HOLD the ranks for a VERY long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the article and I do not see the smoking gun you are seeing. It does not say that the site in question was using ALN and the site in question was hit by Google before the article came out. Google has been hitting networks for months now so I really do not see how this article could be responsible.

Now the methodology they used could be important but if you think the math boys at Google needed seomozz to figure that out for them I am pretty sure you are mistaken.

Now it does tend to lend more weight to the thought that the link patterns may be the best way to find networks, especially if you work back from the money sites. The key to fighting this would be to make sure you have a large diversity of links both in types and anchor text.

Does give us something to think about though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^SEOmoz is just a PR puppet of Google - they try to brainwash as much of SEO people as they can.

I've seen a picture of Matt Cutts standing next to the Rand Fishkins white table. Doesn't that seem suspicious to you?

They could have banned all the network sites linking to that given insurance website and then spin their propaganda machine ( including this article at SEOmoz ).

The fact that 80-90% of ALN domains linking to this insurance website were banned is not a coincidence.

Edited by Fear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does Google ban websites manually? Do they really have the human power to do this?

Yes and no. It has been fairly clear for awhile now that that not all keywords/niches are treated the same. For the example in the article the site was at the top for 3 months before somebody from Google hammered it. There was a case on another forum last year where a site get ranked #1 for a top sex keyword and stayed there for a couple of months (not positive on exactly how long) by just spamming the hell out of the domain until Google hammered it. Yes both of those were probably manual kills but even if you only last a few weeks with one of those keywords you can make some serious bank.

Now does Google have the manpower to check every keyword manually? Not by a long shot and if it takes them months to kill spam sites on those high dollar keywords it would seem that the time would be quite a bit longer if ever for most other less competitive keywords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been looking over the links of the site in question and that site was ranking becuase of really powerful links, some of them were from really good blog networks one is on offer here on the forum the other is them doing seo work. Anyway that site made its money now and if you go after terms link this you realize you will be spending 50-60K and you will be ranking for few months after which you will drop. But you will make a killing during that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^SEOmoz is just a PR puppet of Google - they try to brainwash as much of SEO people as they can.

This. But I really don't understand why this needs to always be repeated(as in it is something that we take as a fact already). SeoMoz does nothing but publicly tow the Google company line. They are the propaganda machine Google uses to control the mass.

Edited by akula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So all of you are wondering how they did it?

All those funny posts about google schmoogle grammar and quality checking of articles?

LOL - even Maulana believed that ALN was hit because of content.

The truth is - those posts about content quality are bullshit.

I've seen that those turd pushing google ass lickers at seomoz

Please login or register to see this link.

Well it turned out that if you analyse backlinks of this domain - almost every single ALN blog that was linking to it was banned.

This is the rat. They did not target ALN specifically, they just went to his backlinks and banned every spammy blog they've found.

All because of those snake oil sellers seomoz wankers.

Changing ALN submission rules, rates, checking grammar won't change a ***** so maulana should not listen to those little screamers with 3 PR2 domains that demand content control - doing that won't help in this case! It will only make ALN less efficient.

There will be occasional slaps like this - they do not have an algo for networks yet.

At first I thought this was complete and utter codswallop. But you might be on to something.

I went to ahrefs and pulled the first 5000 (of 39,362) backlinks. I put these in scrapebox, trimmed to root and removed duplicate domains.

I was left with 1421 sites. I then ran these sites through scrapebox to see if they were indexed in google.

Of the 1421 sites - 883 (62%) sites were indexed and 538 (38%) sites were NOT indexed.

Even if we don't take into account that many of the remaining indexed sites are not ALN (they are wiki links, profiles, other genuine links) - that's still a hell of a lot more than the 25% deindexed rate of ALN.

Edited by Jammy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not quite that high but yes, high

I've only done a visual scan of the deindexed sites but they ALL look like ALN/FBLs/HPBLs.

I've also only done a visual scan of the remaining 883 indexed sites. There are wikis, profiles, link exchanges, web 2.0s, etc etc. I would say approx half are still ALN/FBL/HPBLs.

So of the original 1421 sites, approx 1000 (a little more) are ALN/FBL/HPBLs of which 538 have been deindexed.... so far...

Edited to add: Actually you are right, less than half are still ALN/FBLs/HPBLs.

I would estimate that of the 1421 sites, 900 are ALN/FBLs/HPBSs of which 538 have been deindexed.... so far...

Edited by Jammy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So does Google ban websites manually? Do they really have the human power to do this?

What? They have 32000 +- humanpower , let say 5000 of them are in search quality team deindexing 5k blog is only 1-2 day job.

Please login or register to see this link.

, they even have money so what's more?

Edited by Zellandia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a very interesting article. It proves once again that aggressive link building works. I would love to rank #2 for car insurance for a couple of days, they ranked for many months, I'm sure they made a fortune.

If you use similar techniques with less competitive keywords you can rank a lot of pages pretty easily and with less competitive keywords you won't have some dude writing a blog post about what you're doing. You can sit back and collect your commissions or sell the site for a nice lump sum and move on to the next one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it a million times: the most accurate and efficient paper trail is the OBLs. If I had to guess, I'd say that another site out there probably has an extremely similar backlink profile to this one, and Google just nuked every site that they had in common. Simple, effective, and practically zero collateral damage if done with the proper constraints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see how the math works out.

4M per month in traffic (let's just assume that number is accurate) times 3 months equals 12M.

If it cost them 100k to get there-what's the problem? Why would they care? They already bought their beach house and can retire if they want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×