May 2004 Archives

I personally do not see the new design but some are reporting that Yahoo is testing out a new home page design for its portal. Over at HighRankings there is a thread that discusses this topic, someone uploaded a preview of the new design.

It looks something like this:

View Large Image

It has been a long time since the last backlink and pagerank update.

It is finally happening.

Check out your backlinks at these servers:
http://216.239.41.104/
http://216.239.41.99/

Forum coverage at:

• SEO Chat Forums
  
• WebmasterWorld
  
• Webmaster Forum
  
• IHelpYou Forums
  

I am sure the other popular forums will start threads on this update soon.

Good luck all!

You think people are going to die if they don't get a Gmail invite! Take a look at some of the email requests for Gmail invites that I have seen.

Subject: Need help please thanks Body: Hi Im currently deploy in Iraq need help. Hi work in the military and currently deploy in Iraq and my email its getting too full with email from frieds and family I can't really check my email just about every 2 or 3 days or when I have a chance some times it can be about month so when I do its full or about can you help me with a Gmail account so i can have all my email and not worry about loosing any email. Thanks for looking and if you could help me please email me at ozz0006@yahoo.com Thank you very much.

If you have any? please email me Im with these Unit
5th Special Forces Group
out of Fort Cambell Ky Thaks.

I have a healthy child that I’m prepared to put up for a G-mail invite. & I’ll throw in a goat too.

I visit John Battelle's Searchblog daily and it hurts me to see the amount of spam that is submitted through his commenting system. This blog uses several tactics to block comment spam but I often find myself using the spam at John Battelle's blog as a method of proactively preventing spam here.

I visit his blog, look at the recent spam he gets and copy and paste those URLs into the MT-Blacklist. It really helps but each time I do that, I feel a little guilty. The guilt comes from me benefiting in a little way from the comment spam at his blog. Just needed to get that off my chest.

I guess Memorial Day does not warrant a special Google logo or Ask Jeeves logo.

Anyway, I thought it would be appropriate to point out the top 3 results from the major search engines. Most of the results overlap between Google, Yahoo, Ask, and MSN.

Google on Memorial Day:
US Memorial Day
Memorial Day at David's Virtual Market
jeannepasero.com's Memorial Day page

Yahoo on Memorial Day:
US Memorial Day
jeannepasero.com's Memorial Day page
History Channel on Memorial Day

Ask Jeeves on Memorial Day:
US Memorial Day
jeannepasero.com's Memorial Day page
Roots Web on Memorial Day

MSN on Memorial Day:
US Memorial Day
jeannepasero.com's Memorial Day page
American Experience on Memorial Day

A post by Bernard, a moderator at IHelpYou Forums, at DigitalPoint's Forum, which lead to a thread at IHelpYou Forums discussed Yahoo!'s troubles with handling 301 redirects. Here is the story...

Normally when you take down a page at one URL and then put it back up at an other URL, you use a 301 redirect to tell the search engines that the page has been permanently moved to a new address. A 301 redirect as defined by the W3.org is just that, a permanent redirect. Google and other popular search engines tell all Webmasters to use this technique when moving pages.

Yahoo! on the other hand tells people to create a page that says, this page has been moved here. What Yahoo is telling you to do is create a "doorway" page. Most of us know that doorway pages are SEO No Nos. So for Yahoo! to tell its SiteMatch customer to generate doorway pages instead of using a 301 redirect, is just not right. Those doorway pages can run the site owner the risk of getting penalized by Google and other search engines.

This leaves the Webmaster in a tight position. If they stick with the 301 redirect, Yahoo will treat it as duplicate content. If they switch to the doorway page all the other engines will treat it as a doorway page.

The standard for page relocation notification has been 301 redirects. Yahoo!, like all other search engines, need to support this standard.

Cloaking is out there and is practiced by thousands of Web sites out there. Where does Google and the other engines draw the line between acceptable cloaking or non acceptable cloaking?

A few weeks ago, Ben Edelman released information on WhenU and how they are using cloaking to beat the engines. Soon after, Google and Yahoo manually did something about it.

Today, Danny Sullivan reports on NPR is using cloaking. Will Google and Yahoo do something about this case? How does it differ?

Well NPR is using cloaking to provide contextual information to the search engines on audio files. The audio files, that otherwise would not be indexable by the search engines, are transformed into text transcripts and served to Google only. Google reads the text version of the audio files and when someone does a search on a related topic to the audio file, NPR comes up in the results. The results look like the following, notice "And with us now to discuss Google's financial standing is ..."

View Large Image

But when you click on the result, it takes you to a page with the ability to download the audio file and contains no such text version of the transcript.

Danny gets into the pros and cons of this method of cloaking. I won't tell you exactly what he said, but if you are a paid subscriber to SearchEngineWatch, it makes for a nice read.

Andy Beal also spoke on this matter, "He [Danny Sullivan] comes to the conclusion that NPR is effectively using the spam technique, cloaking. But, I [Andy Beal] would argue that perhaps NPR converting its audio into text is no different that including ALT tags on images or tagging Flash content."

Either way, we need the search engines to come up with a clear acceptable cloaking policy. There is no doubt that cloaking can benefit the end user, the legendary SEO named fantomaster was a huge advocate for the use of cloaking to benefit the searcher. This is my call out to the search engines to make a stand and come out with a clear, defined policy. This does not have to be a war between the Search Engine Marketer and the Search Engine Provider, we can work together. Can't we?

Back around mid March, it was reported that Big sites were suffering from no title / no snippet in SERPS, was it true that big sites were being penalized? Basically, sites with lots of pages in Google were beginning to lose them.

Recently in a newer thread at WebmasterWorld a site owner reports his experience with his Amazon affiliate site, Google has lost almost 70% of his site, that is 55,000 pages.

A senior member responds with:

I've been tracking this for a while with the G Query: "bbc site:bbc.co.uk" (*)

- Oct 12, 2003: 3,100,000 pages (msg #6)
- Apr 09, 2004: 1,350,000 pages (msg #5)
- May 26, 2004: 660,000 pages

- so, basically, you're not the only one, and it's not something new. Not commercial either, just plain size.

Can it be that the duplicate content filter is working much harder these days?

I can't believe no one has posted on this yet. Its absolutely hilarious, and at the same time quite interesting that someone could hack, or engineer a link to captialize on some PR 10 links. In any case its worth checking out for a laugh or to figure out how they did it. Basically some smart fellow found a way to include a link for about 11 months in a spot on the Google Default Browser Options page. The result the linked page gained a PR9 and started selling advertising to various drug related sites. Ekk!

Forum coverage over at SEOchat - Googles Secret Directory

Stock Quotes in Google!! I got asked how to get a stock ticker symbol included in the google results of a website today and while I knew the answer I didn't know the exact email to contact Google. In any case if you company is publicly traded openly and has a ticker symbol then you might be wise to check this out if Google automatically doesn't display the symbol like the following Microsoft example:

www.microsoft.com/ - 39k - May 25, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages - Stock quotes: MSFT

"Google's financial information providers have been selected and ordered solely on the basis of their quality, based on factors including download speed, user interface, and functionality. Please note that Google is not affiliated with the financial information providers that are used. If you have a provider that you'd like to suggest we include, please email us at suggestions@google.com."

For more information on this please visit the Google page here about getting your symbol included.

http://forums.seochat.com/t11104/s.html yet another when will the update happen, thread yawn! With it becoming common knowlege that a PR update is absolutley useless as far as ranking benefit goes and those rank credit being given on a per site basis based on when backlinks acquired are let out of the sandbox, isnt it time we all put the PR/IBL thread to bed, its hurting my head hehe I rhymed.

I guess there are a lot of anxious PR dealers out there who can't wait to see how many more artificial PR 7's their efforts have created to sell on this month but really guys, PR doesnt help your rankings, its the credit from the backlink, stop watching that green bar!

It's bad enough that I never understood why the US Department of Health and Human Resources produces such a useful site about user centered design, but now I've discovered that the Australian Government has gone and done the same thing.

For usable web design, the US site, Usability.gov is a fantastic resource. They cover accessibility, traffic log analysis, market research, usability guidelines, web design checklists, and more.

In Australia, you can find the same in the Australian Government Information Management Office's Best Practices section.

Their Better Practice #15 Information Architecture for Websites is a real gem. They offer checklists on navigation, user testing, implementing website search and information architecture.

Though offered by government entities, any Webmaster can find valuable help at these web sites. If you're learning the basics, or refining web site guidelines and standards, these two web sites offer a wealth of knowledge, and are easy to use as well.

I will not be posting this Wednesday or Thursday here. I have asked the other authors to step up these two days. Please expect posts from our other authors these two days.

Change is good right?

See you all Friday.

A post at SEO Chat lead me to this hilarious cartoon. It depicts a slick guy in a "I got Gmail" shirt, with two girls wrapped around both his arms. A fellow guy asks this slick fellow, "What's your secret with the babes? Money? Power? Some kind of pheromone?" His response, "Nope, something even more enticing then those...I have an invitation to a Gmail account to give out."

How funny!

Why not? Why shouldn't the AdSense publisher who serves up PSAs involuntarily be rewarded with a tax benefit.

That is what this post at DigitalPoint Forum gets into.

- You have 1000 visitors to my site per day.

- You make $10 per day on Adsense.

- $10/$1000 = Each visitor is worth .01 to your bottom line.

- On a given day, you show 100 public service ads. This means that I should be able to write $1.00 on my taxes due to my charitable contributions that I have made by allowing the public service ads of the non-profits be shown. It is similar to donating services.

This tax benefit could ad up on a site that show hundreds of thousands or millions of ad impressions per year.

A member over at WebmasterWorld conducted a very interesting test on the channeling of PageRank to domain names and URLs that do not exist yet. What he did, in short, was find domain names that were available, he did not buy the domain names. Then he pointed one of his pages, that was already indexed by Google, towards these new domain names. He then waited six weeks and for a PR update to take place, then purchased the domain names and presto, instant PageRank. All of the domain names had a PR3 to a PR5.

The member base then discusses how this test can be applied in real life.

1. If you regularly add new content to predefined URLs (i.e. page1.html, page2.html, etc.) then you can send links to pages before they have been created. Then the chances of these pages being indexed and rank well will occur at a more rapid pace then if the page did not have PageRank.
   
2. Fighting back against the SandBox Theory, you have a client that purchased domain name X. You begin the work on his site, but at the same time, send a link to his site. Then 6 weeks later when the site is ready to be deployed you go live with it. And presto, instant PageRank with a great shot at ranking well quickly.
   
3. Possibly send keyword rich anchor text links to nonexistent sites, so when they go live, they rank well.
   

A thread in the private forums at WebmasterWorld discusses how to get a company's press release into Google News.

As mention in this thread, the trick is to give the release to a source that is syndicated by Google News. For example, if you get your press release into PR Newswire, then you can expect your press release to be found in Google News, since Google syndicates PR Newswire. The thread goes into the various sites to submit to and the costs involved. I won't give all the details away, it is a private forum for a reason. But costs can range from $5 to $600 for a single press release.

But how does one get their news site in Google News? Basically all you need to do is email Google News at source-suggestions@google.com with the suggested site and they will review it. As long as the site has an RSS feed of some type, Google can (if they choose to) syndicate your content. I tried this with this site, but I was rejected. They said:

Thank you for your note. We reviewed this site, but cannot add it to Google News because we currently only include sites that report on recent events. We appreciate your suggestion and will log the site for consideration should our guidelines change in the future.

Regards,
The Google Team

I have argued this claim, stating that this site is in fact "recent news." There are actually several news related sites that use this site as a resource to build articles on and those are syndicated by Google News. So I am hoping for a response shortly, that says something to the affect of, "we have accepted your site into Google News".

We will see.

I am not making this up!

The last time I checked, there were three (3) Adwords listings on the "nigritude ultramarine" SERP:

• One peddling home mortgages
  
• One with some jibba-jabba about Hilltop and a form allowing you to burn another email address on the "trust me we don't need a privacy policy" plan.
  
• One doorway page generator, no doubt guaranteed to give you #1 rankings for every keyword on every search engine instantly, then somehow give the same result to the next chump who buys it.
  

Still, since the contest will still be going on when our new site launches 6/1, it's awfully tempting to toss a few more nickels on the branding fire.

I found a very interesting thread at HighRankings named The Q-factor where a new member said "I recently got a reply from a search engine, after having submitted my page. Amongst other info it stated a Q of 5 for my site."

Now what the heck is a "Q factor"? No one in the forum seems to know. I do not know. Some guesses were made, such as "More than likely the SE that reported a Q Factor was refering to their *quality rating* and terming it the *Q Factor*."

But this makes no sense to most. Does the search engine optimization industry have a new phrase? "Q Factor" sounds like something cool to tell a client.

Anyone know?

The META REVISIT-AFTER Tag is worthless based on a thread over at HighRankings.

Sorry, busy day. Will try to get a few more posts in this afternoon.

The problem I have with some forums is that they don't give specific examples, but one such forum has enough of a member base to take "hear say" as almost factual. I personally hate reporting on threads that I can not verify or do not verify with my own tests but here is one of those times that I will.

A thread named How can cloaked sites be ranking well at Google? over at WebmasterWorld discusses how recently people have been seeing cloaked sites 'polluting' the Google results.

The thread begins as follows:

What I don't understand is, that if their algorithm is so brilliant how come cloaked sites (the pages which are fed to the crawlers) have poor inbound links, low quality content, almost non-existent internal linking structure and yet they rank at the top? In my opinion, the pages that the cloaks feed to crawlers shouldn't rank highly even if they WERE the actual pages users were seeing!

To me it sounds like either these sites are ranking for non-competitive keywords, or they have inbound links with rich keyword anchor text from other cloaked backs, or Google doesn't care about anchor text. Which one sounds best to you?

Google's recently published a set of "software principles" under the title of "a proposal to help fight deceptive Internet software".

Not only is this a great statement of the problem and a very clear outline of how software should behave, it's also a clear shot at the questionable partnerships (Claria/Gator, etc.) of other pay-per-click providers like Yahoo/Overture.

I love it! Discussion starts here at the Best Practices Forum, home of the world's foremost Gator haters.

A thread at Cre8asite asks Which SEO Ebook Would You Buy? Respected SEO professionals such as Peter Da Vanzo and Ammon Jones suggested two books but explained the differences between the two.

The first book is named Winning the Search Engine Wars by Planet Ocean. Ammon Jones said this book is great "if you simply intend to tinker with your rankings as a webmaster, then "Winning the Search Engine War" is a good book with many instantly applicable ideas."

However Ammon strongly recommends Mike Grehen's Books Search Engine Marketing: The Essential Best Practice Guide. He recommends it because "Mike Grehan went and actually interviewed the people who researched and wrote the actual search algorithms. As the quote goes: they didn't tell him the algorithm, but they talked happily, and in detail, about the ingredients. You'll be very unlikely to find this info anywhere else." He continues to say, "Mike Grehan's book takes the other approach, and the one I myself work to. It doesn't just look at what works, it looks at why. It tracks the trajectory of the search algorithms so that you can predict its probable position in a month, or three, or six."

A thread over at HighRankings discusses a possible bug with Yahoo! Search and MSN Search in the way they handle the 301 redirect.

The issue is as follows:

Conducting a search on Google for hyatt regency dearborn brings back the URL "dearborn.hyatt.com".

However, conducting a search on the same keyword phrase at Yahoo! Search and MSN Search both bring up the wrong version of the site, "highlands-inn.com".

One member says "I believe I heard something about this issue on Yahoo where they haven't implemented (bug?) the 301 properly, meaning they don't take the original out of the listings like they should. I'd imagine you'll just have to wait until they fix that or contact them and pester them to make it happen faster." And a moderator and frequent SES conference goer states "Yahoo admitted that was a bug they were working on at SES. I'd wait it out if possible."

Have you ever noticed that the number of posts about a "Google Dance" or "Google Update" start to increase as we get closer to the time period of about 30 days after the last "Google Update"? Well, yea, I guess you noticed because most forums are flooded with posts about this topic.

Post such as... "When do you think the next dance will take place?" "I think Google is dancing, I see changes in the SERPS." "Is Google Dancing?" "When will Google update again?" "I saw the PageRank value in the Google Toolbar fluctuate, there must be a PR update going on!" "When will the next back link update occur?"

We have all seen them, in fact, we see them too often. I am sorry if I offend anyone, that is not my intention. The purpose of this post is to plead with the forum goer to please be calm about the updates. I know everyone wants to be the first to spot the update and post about it in their respective forums but to venture a guess when the update will occur is simply that, a guess.

I have been involved with SEO/SEM forums for a long time, so maybe I am burned out. So please be more careful before posting about the Google Updates and Dances. We all love when they happen but let them happen before posting on them.

There is a Gmail community at Orkut with currently 899 members. Over there I found a way to check if a Gmail account username was in use or if it was available.

You simply went to a URL and it would tell you.

The URL was: https://www.google.com/accounts/CheckAvailability?Email=YourUserName

You simply replace "YourUserName" with the name you want to check the availability of.

A couple of days ago this URL was no longer reporting back the availability of the Gmail usernames. There is belief that Google added an "encryption key to the checker now so people can't take advantage of their system."

Back in March at the NYC SES conference, Yahoo! announced their new SiteMatch program. The program was a hot topic and angered many site owners. Now a few months later we have pretty much all accepted SiteMatch for what it is. However, this paid for inclusion and pay for click plan is not all what it lives up to be. A thread over at WebmasterWorld named SiteMatch Approval Won't Remove Penalty... Don't Waste Your Money discusses people's dissatisfaction with Yahoo!'s customer service.

It seems as if sites received a penalty a while back when Inktomi was running the program. Then Yahoo! said that if you sign up again, this time with Yahoo!'s program then the penalty will be reviewed and removed. This was not the case, Yahoo! did not yet review these penalized sites and they are still ranking extremely poorly in the Yahoo! search engine.

Read the thread for more details, but it seems as if Yahoo! is not handling this program too well.

About a week before the Florida update (November 2003) I began conducting tests to determine the weight given to sites hosted in a specific country and the likelihood of that specific site coming up higher in the results when conducting a search from within that country. What sprung my interest in this topic was the complaints I was getting from overseas (outside the US) SEO Count customers. This tool is US centric because the results are driven by the Google API, so if you conduct a search with it, it will bring back US centric results. Those who used this application from outside the US (including most of Canada) received different results then what was listed in the Google API.

So I began gathering data by coming up with several keyword phrases, both very competitive and not so competitive, and looked up the site's server geographic location. After determining the site's physical location, I asked colleagues around the world to send me the top 30 results for those searches. What I found was that based on what country your searching from, you will more likely see site's that rank higher based on the location of the server the site is on.

For example, if Site A is located in Germany and I am conducting a search on a keyword related to Site A in a pub in Germany, then Site A is likely to rank higher then sites with a physical location in America. There are obviously other considerations but the results I have found were really revealing.

Unfortunately, I stopped the data gathering process due to the Florida update. At that time the results were all over the place. I have not continued the research but I hope to soon.

Two days ago I posted a teaser on this topic where I said "So what does one do to prevent ones "network of sites" from being stripped of its link passing rights? Well, be smart about how you link and why you link. Think about how most sites naturally obtain links and go from it from that angle. ". (I wonder if it is appropriate to quote myself?...) Unfortunately I won't be able to disclose the name person I met with this past Monday, the individual seems to be a little worried that Google is reading this site and will devalue his linking methods manually. Having said that, this person's daily focus and energy goes towards link building strategies.

During our conversation we discussed how he goes about building links for his clients. He tends not to go the paid route, but he said he had done so many times in the past and will do so in the future. His real reason for meeting me, I think, was to exchange links (please dont email me to exchange links, I do not participate in any link exchanges).

We then got into how he has been developing a network of portals of which contain links to many quality sites and his clients sites. None of these sites directly link to each other, they all link in a triangular fashion. For example, one might create Site A, B and C. Site A will link to Site B, Site B will link to Site C and site C will link to site A. You will never find Site A link to Site B AND Site B link to Site A.

To effectively implement such a strategy, this person has created and is creating "portal sites." The portal sites will be on specific topics and contain links to high-level ODP and Yahoo! directory sites, you won't normally find deep-level sites listed in the portal sites. He then adds links from the portal to his clients sites that relate to that topic. So a portal on computers will have links to the top computer sites in ODP and Yahoo! directories and also to his client's sites.

He then tries to get free and paid links to the portal sites that are on-topic to those sites. As you can imagine, it is much easier getting links to a portal site then it would be to an e-commerce type of site.

Now he has these portal sites with quality links from on topic sites. He then links out to his on-topic client sites from the portal. He might link a portal to an other portal but never link a client site back to the same portal. This way he starts to build this complex pyramid linking structure.

The only complaint I have about the way he is doing this is that it is currently not all managed in some type of unified linking database application. As the portals and linking schemes grow, it will continue to become more complex. He is managing now but I wonder for how long. I tend to be bias, because anything I do, is done with efficiency in mind through the use of Web technologies.

I came across a message board named http://www.googlegmails.com/. A whole message board dedicated to Google's Gmail service! Are people going mad! What do we need a single message board dedicated to Gmail for? Most of the message board is about "general discussion". I just do not see the point.

For now, I will stick with WebmasterWorld's Google Gmail Forum.

I have a business blog that we rarely update but is there for my employees to post at. I want them to post daily but I offer no incentive to do so. Anyway the blog is at http://technology.rustybrick.com/ and its about the daily life at my company.

Anyway, I posted an entry on how my office's Sunbeam Water Cooler Sprung a Leak. Since then I have been getting many visitors to the site who type in Sunbeam Water Cooler into Google. They find the blog and added comments.

Today, I see that a representative from the Sunbeam Water Cooler Customer Support Team left a comment stating:

Dear All~

We have recently discovered this wonderful website. We believe that consumer feedback is an incredible tool in helping our consumers find answers to their problems.

May we suggest a better method, that of using OUR email contact information to contact us with your problems/challenges should you have trouble getting through on the telephone lines. We may have better suggestions for resolutions.

In regards to our water dispensers, we have since added extra email addresses in order for our consumers to contact us with ease.

Please note that to order parts, please use email address: parts@elitegroupinc.ca. For any technical questions, simply use support@elitegroupinc.ca as we will not be checking this site on a regular basis.

Looking forward to resolving challenges,
Sincerely yours,

Customer Support Team

How funny. See all the comments here.

Seems like Microsoft is testing out their new MSN Search technology at http://techpreview.search.msn.com/. As DigitalPoint points out, "Of course, no one can get to it because it's restricted by IP address, but still shows they are at least at the point of being able to test it."

From the screen below you can see "HTTP 403.6 - Forbidden: IP address rejected", now can someone get through this little IP problem? :)

A new Web site was launched that facilitates the trading of goods and services in exchange for Gmail accounts. You can still buy a Gmail account at eBay if you like. But if you don't have the $200 or more dollars needed and you want the account now, try this service out.

gmail swap uses an extremely simple system for coordinating Swaps. That is, we leave it completely up to you. Click on a message to read more, and if the Swap sounds good to you, reply to their post on the Swap Board, then click on their name to send them an email and work out the details.

For more information visit http://www.gmailswap.com/.

Forum coverage at SEO Chat.

It looks like some special Gmail users received a surprise by having their Gmail account storage bumped up from 1,000MB to 1,000,000MB. Elliot Lee's blog reported this yesterday, so did this blog. C|Net reported on this later on that day, stating "That's four times the typical capacity of a new high-end PC's hard drive."

Current forum coverage at SEO Chat Forums.

Pay Per Clicks and trademark lawyers are spending a lot of time together these days. I have posted several times on the trademark topic and brought several cases in the past. The latest news is that Geico sues Google, Overture over trademarks.

The insurer charged the two companies with infringing on its trademarks when they sold them as keywords to Geico's rivals, so that the protected terms could appear in sponsored search results. According to the suit, that practice causes consumer confusion, in violation of the Lanham Act, the primary federal law covering trademark registration and protection.

But

Previously, Google had granted requests from advertisers, including 1-800 Contacts and eBay, to bar competitors from bidding on their trademarked names. Google will now only review trademark complaints that relate to text appearing in sponsored listings on its Web site and those of its partners.

According to Geico's complaint, the insurer considered Google's policy change before pursuing legal action: "Google's recent change in trademark policy constitutes a deliberate decision to use the registered trademarks of other companies, including Geico, for the financial benefit of Google and to the detriment of (others)."

Don't you just love this stuff. We need a legal ruling already. Trademarks need to be protected and I personally do not thing Google's current policy is going to cut it.

Forum coverage at:

• HighRankings Forum
  
• Cre8asite Forums
  

Thank you Doug from Aderit Internet Marketing Consulting for the tip.

Since this SEO Challenge contest began, I have been getting tons of comment spam from fellow SEOers. Come on, don't you think I have set up methods to block that type of spam?

Before you try to comment spam here note the following:
(1) All comment URLs are redirected and will not pass PageRank or link popularity
(2) If I see you added comment spam, I will ban the whole URL from adding comments in the future.
(3) If you repeat this action, I will ban your IP address from visiting this site.

Please be considerate. I do not charge for this site. This site is a resource for the SEO/SEM professional and costs nothing for you. Please do not cause unnecessary work on my side. I can use that time posting more information for you instead of deleting and blocking comment spam.

Thank you.

I found this funny, SEO Chat happens to rank in the number one spot for "Nigritude Ultramarine" in