Comments on: Deceptive SEO Tactics – The Case of the $798 SEO Guru SEO industry Thoughts and Rants Sun, 12 Oct 2014 06:21:05 +0000 hourly 1 By: Alan Bleiweiss Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:50:06 +0000 Sarah,

I apologize for not approving your comment sooner (first comments need approval here due to the spam volume). It took so long because at first I felt it was too inflammatory, but then each time I read it, I liked it more and more. And my blog posts are so heavy that I really can’t say others are too heavy to be approved :-)

Ultimately too, I agree with you about the fact that they’re just spammers and scammers.

By: Sarah Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:38:30 +0000 Stompernet are forum spammers and the fuckwit in england who runs it (seen a youtube video) should have another lorry driven into his face until it explodes.

By: Andy Beard Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:44:49 +0000 I am just going to leave one comment, otherwise you might feel that I am one of Stompernet’s raving horde of fans coming to defend them.

I arrived following links from your most recent SEJ post, and started following you on Twitter after your first one.

The Coolest guy fun was something from 2005, Brad decided to rank for it, and then mentioned it to Mike Filsaime, who grabbed a domain name to compete about it, blasted out an email mentioning it, and it turned into a pseudo competition for years, with the only prize being bragging rights.

I even briefly took part in 2005, though I was certainly a little wet behind the ears at the time.

Ditto on the affiliate tactics, though Stompernet do tell affiliates not to use negative advertising that might hurt their brand.
(I am one of their affiliates)

The links in the current Google climate are, or should I say were a little spammy – it seems like the links are gone, and those legal papers are now linked to using javascript. Maybe Andy saw this writeup?
I didn’t go all the way back through, but certainly in Jan 2005 the links to the legal docs were using javascript

Ah, but you can go delving through the SERPs and eventually find this

As your screenshot suggests that is from 2004, an old butt ugly site which probably still sold lots of ebooks, but still seems to be on Andy’s server.

I can’t say it is best practice to still have those pages on the site, and I have never owned a Yahoo store… can you do 301 redirects?

On a positive note, in some ways that was probably better SEO practice than all the recent advice of nofollowing “overhead” pages. Andy took an overhead page that was gaining juice that he didn’t really need, and aimed that juice (I know you avoid the word) at his money pages. Effective sacrificial linking tactics.

I must admit the icon link in the header never even crossed my mind that it might actually pass juice.
I am fairly sure both sites are owned by Brad (same analytics account), and he wouldn’t be the first person to develop a static site on one domain, then move it somewhere else such as use the template on a Yahoo store.
An image link for whatever purpose would be easy to overlook.

Or maybe it is an SEO test that has been forgotten about, or Brad might well know more than me.

A $1 trial up to close to $800/month is a big jump, but look at it from the reverse and it is better than paying $800 for the first month sight unseen.

Lots of memberships drip content, so you only get part of the information when you first sign up, to prevent people signing up, downloading everything and then cancelling. I seem to remember the wording on the sales letter mentioning specifically what people would have access to in the first month.

These days they have a different approach, a $1 trial for their magazine, along with a free SEO course as a huge bribe.

The SEO course is “polished” – I have promoted it as an affiliate

Whether Stompernet itself is worth it really depends on your circumstances. You have clients who pay you to do a job, and wording on your SEJ article suggests your services aren’t cheap.
It isn’t just the training materials, there are live Q&As, support forums, 4 seminars a year that members get free, one-on-one counselling of some kind, and 30+ staff to support.

I am sure their business is profitable, but that is the point of building a scalable business.

By: Alan Bleiweiss Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:19:06 +0000 Jonathan

Thanks for that extra insight on the “scam” paid ad. Yet one more example of how to lure unsuspecting people in with a false marketing ploy.

By: Jonathan Cohen Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:55:02 +0000 The ‘Is X a scam?’ ads are paid for by affiliates of the program, I’m sure. I’ve seen that sort of thing many times before.

Affiliates know that people will be searching for reviews and contrary opinions to help them decide whether or not to buy the product – and who more unbiased than someone writing a ‘negative’ review?

Of course, when they click on the link, the landing page may start out asking ‘Is X a scam?’ but it will instantly respond “NO!” and eventually provide the visitor with the affiliate link.

By: Gennady Lager Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:57:57 +0000 Credit where credit is due: StomperNet promises to double your traffic, right? It looks like they multiplied your traffic about 16-fold overnight!

I think that’s certainly worth you cutting a check to Andy and Brad for $1.00.