[KNOX]

I don't think "suspecting" Greg for doing ANYTHING is fair. He served his client, your site was above the radar. Though he COULD have left YOUR site out of it completemly, it doesn't mean your site was free of spam.

Being above the radar means you are a target and should not have become complacent in your seo goals. If ANY of us honestly thought that a page of 50 links directing us to pages of realtor links outsite the market we serve was NOT ONLY to inflate link populatiry - then we are making a mistake.

No one but the site owners are to "blame" -not Greg, Not REW, but us. REW saw this comong, why do you think they created the blog system!? Once a site hits the top of the serps, we can't slide by on what worked yesterday. SEO changes and evolves, REW evolved too - Boser was serving his client - any of us could have hired him, but MOST of us also knew what this particular link strategy, regardless of how it hurts us now was purley a link building strategy - a word synonymous with "scheme"

I had to blog about this stuff myself (no shameless link here) becasue headlines suggesting that Greg has something to do with deindexed sites is not fair. He visited your site, he DIDN'T perform the seo.

I watch a few REW clients on a regular basis, use it as a guage as well as to virtually pick the mind of Morgan and his team. I saw this situation coming - started paying attention when Greb spoke about it and his frustration in the real estate space on April 20 on webmasterradio and KNEW things had to change.

I think this really came to a head at that point, but it was "in the air" for a long time.

THIS FORUM discusses at length the need to migrate AWAY from recip pages - and has for a long time prior to this situation.

I TRULY AM SORRY your site was hit - but hitting back on Matt Cutts blog, active Rain, here and your REW blog doesn't help anyone. We learn. That's all that can be done.

[MarcinSarasota]

Originally Posted by EBA

I don't think "suspecting" Greg for doing ANYTHING is fair.

Why isn't it fair to suspect him?

Isn't the web guerilla some kind of SEO god? Couldn't he have done his job with AA without ratting out other websites? Regardless, if we were compliant with Google guidelines or not.

I don't know why this thread started anyways. I had forgotten that I traded emails with him shortly after the penalty. He wrote, "I am aware of what happen to you, but I didn't have any direct involvement in any decisions Google may have made."

So, I guess this is no longer an issue.

[Memphis]

If ANY of us honestly thought that a page of 50 links directing us to pages of Realtor links outside the market we serve was NOT ONLY to inflate link popularity - then we are making a mistake.

I received referrals from that list and gave referrals from that list. I still have several that are being worked, such as our clients that our moving to Nashville and we have their listing here in Memphis. Sorry, that statement, in and of itself is a crock of manure. Hundreds of useless links, yes I agree; but 5 or so per page of relative links that help our clients and return favors to agents that have sent us referrals --- sorry, once again - your statement is wrong.

I turned down 5-10 link exchanges for everyone I took, maybe more. If I refer a client to Nashville to another agent and can't put their link on my page with out being accused of SPAM or vise versa; that's BULLSHUCKS!

I love how everyone is now the crystal ball reading, Monday night quarterback that NEW this was coming and new this was absolutely, with out question black hat regardless of how it was done. Amazing how hind sight has such perfect vision for so many folks.

I TRULY AM SORRY your site was hit - but hitting back on Matt Cutts blog, active Rain, here and your REW blog doesn't help anyone.

Then why are you speaking? If communicating and discussing doesn't help, then why are we doing it here? I don't agree with the method it was handled (ie, a hand job instead of an across the board algo) and I will voice my opinion where ever I dang on please; just like you just voiced your opinion.

started paying attention when Greg spoke about it and his frustration in the real estate space on April 20 on webmasterradio and KNEW things had to change.

So this is the magical date as to when the entire real estate industry was given notice that state pages were black hat regardless of how they were executed? and that it was going to be across the board, equal hit to everyone in the industry? And April 20th was enough time for everyone who didn't realize what was going on to figure it out on their own because they don't have the funds to pay a professional SEO company?

(Major point #1)
It was not clear black hat SEO, it was a whisper as you put it that it might be gray hat and only for a few weeks or months before everyone got hit.

(Major point #2) It was not equal for all and across the board.

I'm sick of hearing these arguments that EVERYONE should have known because of these "whispers" in the industry and that the ones hit deserved it because because they broke the "rules". Then speak up and stop whispering to a select few and punish all violators with in reason or give a fair warning.Period. In all the forums I have read, NO one has said anything to make me believe that bold statement is not an accurate, fair statement.

[Homesurfer]

Originally Posted by Memphis

I love how everyone is now the crystal ball reading, Monday night quarterback that NEW this was coming and new this was absolutely, with out question black hat regardless of how it was done. Amazing how hind sight has such perfect vision for so many folks. .

There are lots of quotes on this forum (and I included a few in my last post) that discuss how peer-to-peer linking is considered "link spam" by Google. Here's another one from Morgan on November 2006.

Originally Posted by webmaster

The experts: Matt Cutts etc, have said that peer to peer linking is not effective and is not a good way (Especially in the future) to rank highly in search engines. THIS IS NOT NEW! They have been saying this for years, and it is a fact that they have been aware of SE manipulation via peer to peer linking and trying to combat it for years. They will continue to discourage it, and continue to tout their efforts to squash it.

If you had quit peer-to-peer linking when all the crystal ball experts said it "could be bad" in the future, think of all the business you would have missed. Consider the business you got by ignoring what prognosticators talked about. Heck, there's even a 1998 quote in the book, The Google Story, where Segei and Larry are talking about how they know they will need to combat these practices in the future. Barely anyone had even heard of Google in 1998.

The reason that some of us know that agent-to-agent linking is "unnatural" is because we've been on the web a long time. Before Google became popular and PageRank became widely known, agents didn't link to one another. In fact, agents were so stingy about linking that I wrote an article in Realty Times in June 1999 encouraging agents to link more because they would need to do so in order to perform well in the "next generation search engines" that were becoming popular.

Of course, I thought Clever would be the biggest search engine instead of Google -- so I was wrong about that.

Matt never said all reciprocal links between agents are "bad." In November 2006 at PubCon he was specifically asked about what would be an acceptable link from one Realtor to another. He said that he expected the agents to know one another personally, have genuine respect for one another, and preferably to have physically met. If that wasn't discussed here, it was discussed on the Advanced Access forum and on at least one search-savvy Realtor's blog that I know of (perhaps two). But I'm pretty sure it was discussed here, too.

Originally Posted by Memphis

(Major point #1) It was not clear black hat SEO, it was a whisper as you put it that it might be gray hat and only for a few weeks or months before everyone got hit.

That the information about linkspam gets drowned out amongst all the agents wanting "link exchanges" to increase their search engine performance --- is natural.

Site owners look for a competitive edge to increase performance. Those that talk about "potential" bad effects certain strategies could lead to in a "potential future" -- get drowned out. But peer-to-peer linking has been discussed for years in various real estate forums -- not just a couple of months. The topic wasn't "hammered to death" because it's a negative message and sales professionals want more positive messages, not to hear about the dangers of linkspam.

Originally Posted by Memphis

(Major point #2) It was not equal for all and across the board.

Google doesn't have the ability to algorithmically implement what you are asking for. They got a tailor-made opportunity to send a message and an individual at Google who will remain unnamed (but not Matt Cutts) must have decided to send that message instead of just letting Matt talk himself to death.

About 180 agents got caught up in the mess. If I was one of the 180, I would be be upset, too. But going to Matt's blog makes the real estate industry a bigger target, not a smaller one.

At SMX in Seattle in May 2007, a member of this board who only occasionally posts talked to Matt on the patio outside a bar called the Garage (with some others present), and told Matt that he should have put an announcement in his blog directed specifically toward the real estate industry about agent-to-agent linking. Matt's response was that he thought that was what he had been doing in recent years at all those conferences that he attends as a panel member. He thought the industry would have gotten the message.

Oops.

Everyone who knows what is going on doesn't go around saying, "Matt Cutts said..." all the time. People who follow him around at conferences and hang on his every word at conventions and blogs are sometimes referred to as "Cuttlets."

It isn't meant as a postive term, though some have turned it into a great really cool Matt Cutts joke.

If agents had listened to Matt years ago they would have missed out on lots of opportunity and business. The fact that you and many agents ignored him and and others for so long makes you a fortunate real estate site owner, indeed.

Originally Posted by Memphis

I love how everyone is now the crystal ball reading, Monday night quarterback that NEW this was coming and new this was absolutely, with out question black hat regardless of how it was done. Amazing how hind sight has such perfect vision for so many folks.

I'm a professional contrarian (see my official REW title up in the header?) and a search engine idiot, so please feel free to ignore everything I say.

[KNOX]

Correct, is was not CLEAR black hat. BUT it was suspect - a page of pure links is a page of pure links.

I've had real estate sites under my control and changed the strategy when the buzz started about these state directories.

Seriousely though, a hypothetical "resource" page on a Dallas real estate site suggesting "if you're looking for a home in memphis, try this" is NOT a real estate referral - it's a link popularity method. Guess what - if you have a Utah page with a list of links just like another realtor has a Utah page with a list of links (mostly all derived from one portal source THIS ONE) - your page content will look much like theirs!

You're "sick of hearing" arguments. Ok, fine. You just chimed in. Really, I comment about once a month.

If I got caught cruisin' 100 mph on the freeway becasue someone called the troopers on me, I blame myself for speeding, NOT the guy that made the call.

Is 4/20 the magic date? Heck if I know - but Greg did give a heads up there (Matt has also) - check the radio archive and listen at about the 35 minute mark. There was another earlier than that.

If your job relies on web presense then you should monitor it and what could affect it - NOT rely on others to inform you of anything. It's your job to safeguard your web property! - not mine, not Greg's, REW's or anyone else.

So why does one get hit and not another? BAD LUCK.

My post is not to talk about whispering, it's not to complain. The "warning" you are/were wishing for was out there - the forums have been abuzz and you could just watch the trends. Anyone that sits high on the serps seem to just.... SIT and think it's going to be that way forever. Maybe "not everyone has the funds to pay for a pro seo" but does that obligate every pro seo to divulge their trade? NO. It's YOUR site, read the best practices and take accountability. If you read "link scheme" then consider what that MAY mean if your livlihood depends on it. If you think it's "Grey hat" it should cause us to be cautious. If someone wants to buy a home in Decatur, finds a Decatur real estate site - then that site has 50 pages (or 80% of the site's total pages) about real estate in OTHER AREAS - that isn't beneficial to the user. "build pages for users, not the search engines" comes to mind.

Maybe I should have "spoken up" like others - but what has happened is becasue of the site owners - NOT other seo's.

As for MAJOR POINT #2 - again -BAD LUCK. Not every drunk gets caught, not all sites do either. That does NOT excuse the drunk or the spammer.

You asked "why am I speaking" - becasue I AM ALSO sick of hearing the complaining. Instead of blaming, complaining and claiming "it's not fair" - how 'bout owening up to our OWN responsibility - not pointing at others and saying "it wasn't clear", "they did it too" or suggesting that SOMEONE ELSE is the casue of their sites having problems.

Call it "Bullshucks" - google calls it spam. Instead of agruin' (i'm not here for that) just read the guidelines again and see where the directory model can be construed as a "link scheme" to artificially inflate popularity.

Greg was serving his client, and if, in his judgement, thought pointing out some sites was needed, then that was his choice. In the end, it's his business and if a rew member had a site hurt, it's ultimately becasue of the site owner (not the guy that called the 'troopers')

If Web Guerilla doesn't come back to address this, it shouldn't mean anything. You expect him to welcome the complaints? The accusations? He did his job and served his client.

[KNOX]

You quoted me and asked a question, then said "no longer an issue.

This thread started becasue you started it with the headline:

"Was Greg Boser responsible for REW penalties?"

The answer to the headline is no.

Greg didn't seo your site, you did. Ratting? Well, he did say he mentioned your site, but he is NOT google and did not assess the penalty. I am sincere - I feel bad for you but you can't blame anyone, just learn from it.

[MarcinSarasota]

Originally Posted by EBA

You quoted me and asked a question, then said "no longer an issue.

This thread started becasue you started it with the headline:

"Was Greg Boser responsible for REW penalties?"

The answer to the headline is no..

No. Your answer to the headline is no. Not everyone agrees with you.

Originally Posted by EBA

Greg didn't seo your site, you did. Ratting? Well, he did say he mentioned your site, but he is NOT google and did not assess the penalty. I am sincere - I feel bad for you but you can't blame anyone, just learn from it.

Trust me, I have learned from it. I know Greg is not Google. He just pointed them in the direction of a bunch of REW sites. Plain and simple. I really don't see the need to beat a dead horse.

[Jay Griffin]

Originally Posted by EBA

I am sincere - I feel bad for you but you can't blame anyone, just learn from it.

What has been learned from this experience is this:

1) Google does not have an algorithm to detect what they consider excessive reciprocal linking. Instead they rely on others to point out their inadequacies.

2) Virtually every major market area is still dominated in SERP's by real estate agent sites that have as many, if not more, reciprocal links than those sites that were penalized.

3) Some spam reports and reinclusion requests obviously carry more weight than others.

4) Google enforces rules as they see fit. For example, almost 2 months ago Matt Cutts gave an example of excessive reciprocal linking on his blog:

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-hell/

Today that site still maintains a #1 ranking for "engagement rings," yet still has a massive directory of reciprocal links:

mysolitaire.com/resources/

5) You can't fight this battle for reinclusion the way it has been fought.

[kyle422]

4) Google enforces rules as they see fit. For example, almost 2 months ago Matt Cutts gave an example of excessive reciprocal linking on his blog:
mattcutts.com/blog/google-hell/
Today that site still maintains a #1 ranking for "engagement rings," yet still has a massive directory of reciprocal links:

Now that is crazy. I guess no one did a spam report since Matt blogged about.

[Morristown]

I guess the answer it to spam report every site you see doing excessive recp linking. If you have the time to do that. I don't have the time for it and figure it is not in my best interests to do it anyway. I think the Carma way of thinking is correct, you get what you give.

Jim