Comments on: Negative SEO - Duplicate content

By: thequack

thequack — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:53:41 +0000

Ya, I believe I’ve noticed that as well. Of course my first reaction is always, “OK idiot, what did you screw up this time?”. Stupid pinheads trying to make my life more difficult. Although, at some sadistic level, I do enjoy the challenge. Later foo.

-quack

By: admin

admin — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:21:20 +0000

Hiya Quack

It was a collection of lists (scraped from other sites) and from searches/scrapes on google. I did run them through to make sure they accepted the right parameters but it’s easy enough to change what is required and a lot of webmasters seem to swap it around now and then but overall the list should be okay

By: thequack

thequack — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:53:06 +0000

Ok, so it looks like I’m a bit late to this party, but I’ll post a comment anyway…

Hey Esrun. Hugh, and here I am thinking that I was the only one who came up with the idea of exploiting web proxies (can you tell I’m new to this?). Although I’m experimenting with using them for the complete opposite reason. I do have a question about your proxy list though, if you don’t mind. I’m assuming you didn’t just sit there and manually find/screen these? (don’t ask, and yes, my programming kung fu is pretty weak at the moment) So did you use some regex to scrape the urls from a proxy listing site(s) then screen for the ones that would accept the ?q=base64_encode()? I’m just trying to get a sense of a roadmap here before I go driving off a cliff. Oh, and did you know that, currently, not all of the proxies in your file take the “index.php?q=”? For example, bebo-bypasser.li expects “browse.php?u=”?

-quack

By: Hot Trends for Black Hat SEO at busin3ss’s black hat seo blog

Hot Trends for Black Hat SEO at busin3ss’s black hat seo blog — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:48:20 +0000

[…] so new, but I’ve seen this technique being used more and more each day. Read more about it here and here. Basically you use proxy sites to generate duplicated content of a site… And Google […]

By: admin

admin — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:46:38 +0000

Yep thats true Moro, although a bit limited with just one domain being used

By: MORO

MORO — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:43:14 +0000

Here’s another way of outranking duplicate content…

http://www.TinyURL.com/syy8q

By: admin

admin — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:48:31 +0000

lol you dumb fuck. Yes you can protect against it, yes you can protect against nearly everything.. if you have thought about it or discovered it in the first place. The majority of site owners don’t even know about this so don’t think to implement protection. By the time they do, it’s too late. Who says I want to destroy something? I gave two examples of usage and I don’t mind if people use it to get phishing sites knocked out of the serps

Big corps buy links to beat you in the search engines, the little guy tries things like this to beat you in the serps.. there’s a difference?

By: keniki

keniki — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:34:17 +0000

It takes a moron like ersun to destroy something it takes a artist to create it and takes a nutcase like me to protect it.

Keniki

By: keniki

keniki — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:26:55 +0000

As most black hats are thick as shit there some nice javascript you can use to prevent lotts of these dumb fucks from copying your content and once they tripped over a few spam traps you can only allow access through ajax which of course needs them to enable javascript.

By: keniki

keniki — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:14:12 +0000

Proxies are fucked off of matt cutts reverse dns on search engines and doublefucked when you bring in frame or ajax protection as awaiting green light on open source release. this is old skool stuff ersun already been dealt with you cunt.