I got a referrer visit from this page and while looking around to see how my link looks like (it's always fun to check the anchor text - I like programming pro:)) I bumped in this rather old WebMasterWorld thread. I read it, slapped myself several times, read it again and then again. As I said I'm not English speaker so I thought something must be lost in translation.
Do notice this thread holds some 'big' names like sugarrae and martinibuster and I am 100% sure they have woken up and understood how it works in the past 2 years or so. But their mistake is impardonable, it's like a blatant grammar mistake excused with: 'I was nervous!' You can't do that. If you're nervous you sweat, you loose your voice, you can't pronounce right as your voice trembles but you never make grammar mistakes. If you know grammar!
Read that thread and get back in here to discuss:)
Their mistake is amazing, scary and shocking! You have a link, it has a valid href pointing to you and no rel nofollow, we assume you have no meta nofollow and no cloaking and then OnClick it's rerouted through an external script. Why would people do such atrocity? Why redirect OnClick? - Because they want to count the departures and where people leave their pages to. Simple! The link presented on that thread was not a linking scheme meant to remove link juice flow … it was just a click counter FFS.
When I first learned HTML I learned the tags from a 500 page thick book holding informations about browser compatibility also. It was called HTML Bible or something. It had everything. I knew them, their task and syntax by heart. And for quite a while I created big projects involving PHP and such in notepad. Yes! I know HTML and I know CSS and PHP by heart so I can work in notepad thousands of dollars worth projects. Why? Because I learned them and understand how they work within! I didn't 'learn' the tags by learning SEO. I've moved on to DreamWeaver for UI design but only I write the PHP code. Not the IDE!
I'm curious how many of the big shot SEOs have a clue about real HTML except TITLE, META, H1-6 and B,I,U and their XHTML equivs? You would be surprised. So first thing you need to be aware is:
Don't take the experts' word for it! Think for your self. Some questions contain the answers!
Those guys may be superb in bolding elements on page or putting together a link building campaing but when it comes to the tech stuff behind SEO … learn first -> answer questions later or leave it to the pros!
The very way Javascript is built to work is extremely complex but not in complexity lies the issue but in the way it interacts with webpages. To understand this we need to be aware that JavaScript acts in two different circumstances:
So, when pages load, some JavaScript can execute instantly but other portions of JS can only become active and function when a user generates a trigger: OnClick, OnMouseOver … the events. This creates the problem for JavaScript execution. E.g.: When the robot looks at the page it notices a DIV is hidden. But how can it judge whether or not user behaviour will reveal it further on while actually using the page? To validate all JavaScript code without a doubt would require so much processing you would not imagine and no search engine could handle.
Same thing applies to CSS. If you parse a CSS file and it has a hidden section how will you know that will not be revealed by user actions on page? It's really difficult. Search engines may be able to spot blatant basic redirects but real complex algo meant to do some tricks (usually included in robots.txt blocked external files) can't be spotted.
In the morning white hat reporter scum*** wakes up and using using their advanced automatic tools (Firefox manual searches) check their rankings. Ooops. They see a new site in front of them. Snow White Hats got loads of free time and they start to disect the sites. If they notice anything remotely fishy (whether it is or isn't) they report as scum always do. And they make a lot of daily reports. They learned to 'tell on' back in their childhoods: Moooooom - he beat me!
*** sorry for the word but I only have worst feelings for the 'reporters' (those who file reports), scum who just can't step up their SEO game. Not only whitehats report but most (99.9%) of blackhats learn and duplicate. Finding a new trick used by someone that works will give you a chance too;)
This is how search engines find the offenders. They have snitches who got no game and point fingers at those who do. Automatic processing of JS and CSS might be a step in finding the 'violators' but only intermediary between reports and actual hand-jobs (manual reviews).
You just can't check all the pages for JS and CSS violations. There ain't enough firepower and it's all too complex as users may be involved in changing the aspect and functionality of elements on page.
ironically I believe BH is more ethical and honest
