Live.com Don't Like Crappy Links

7 comments

Their results may say otherwise, but MSN are reputedly removing sites for actively chasing any-old-link. A poster in this SEW thread posts what he claims is an excerpt from an email they sent him:

Your site is acquiring links through posting to or exchanging links with sites unrelated to your site content. Techniques which attempt to acquire unrelated spam links in order to increase ranking are considered spam and your site has been excluded from our index as results. Please contact us once you've removed these links and we will reevaluate.

Barry points out the seeming difference in approach - MSN remove you, Google ignore the links. Allegedly.

Comments

Huh?

ok... so in essance MSN is saying that someone takes their viagra website network.. and then points links from all 200 sites in that to someone they don't like.. that person will get banned?

Google Bowling is what this term was coined a few years ago.. now I am guessing it's a MSN adoption?

thats right

The thing is and it's quite funny .. you can have a spam network and just redirect it #1 when it's burnt move to #2 and just keeping doing it till your site reaches #1 :)

DaveN

To Bad being #1 in MSN is like

To Bad being #1 in MSN is like being #75 in Google.

Completely retarded if this

Completely retarded if this is happening. No wonder I cant get websites ranked as I high as I think I should on MSN no matter what I do right.

ROFL...The thing is and

ROFL...

Quote:
The thing is and it's quite funny .. you can have a spam network and just redirect it #1 when it's burnt move to #2 and just keeping doing it till your site reaches #1 :)

Does this mean that if you get to yourself you're in danger of committing harakiri? Got to be careful when you push those buttons. ;-)

Given that one can

Given that one can automagically create a spam network in minutes, this is a very bad joke.

was also reported last month

by dazzling donna

My slight issue with this repetition is that there's a glaring grammatical error in there. As a one off that would be OK but the exact same text appearing twice with the same error implies that they have a standard text with an error in it and, given what a big deal this is, I can't imagine they haven't reviewed and reviewed it plus more people should have received it in the month in between.

So is it the same guy, is the second one a copy of the first report for some reason or has anyone else seen this? I'm puzzled as to why the November report would be a fake but more puzzled as to the things in my para above. There's something wierd but I don't know what.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.