Spammer Make Fools of Google

The author of the following article wish to remain anonymous.

We have all heard the myths and the current rhetoric about Google being able to determine a websites theme, catch duplicate content easily, set a quality on links, etc. This doesn’t mean Google can’t be fooled.

Mark Moore, President of, wanted to hit the number one spot for “metal buildings” in Google and rank for thousands of other industry terms such as “steel buildings”, metal garages, etc. What did Mark do to achieve this? He (or someone he hired) “spamdex” his site to the top by using an estimated 6000 plus domains all with an identical, duplicated, replicated web site template and exact same content in all of them.

How do I get the count of 6000 plus? By doing a very simple linkdomain request in Yahoo, and checking how many of the 1000 results I can see are these sites. Of the 1000, 642 were. This web site has 9600 or so links, so it is safe to estimate 6000 of them are this same thing.

Why didn’t Google’s vaunted algorithm catch this blatant attempt to spam their index? I have no idea. However, if Google haven’t noticed before, I’m sure they’ll notice real soon.

The website spamming is they currently rank number one for “metal buildings” and hold decent rankings for thousands of other keywords and phrases. The list of sites they own and replicate include:

117 thoughts on “Spammer Make Fools of Google”

  1. Marc says:

    Awesome. Simply awesome. ๐Ÿ˜ˆ

    1. Kumiko says:

      Awesome’s the right word! It’s a really smart idea for someone involved in an offline business such as construction.

      Getting to the top of Google may have cost a few thousand dollars in domains and hiring someone to make the sites, but he’d only need one or two sales from the website to get his money back.

      One of the buildings sells for $40,000 so the profit he’d make from one sale would probably be in the $10,000 region. Definitely a good ROI!

      If all those sites had just a touch of pagerank, he could make a fortune selling links to MFA pharmaceutical sites too!

      –new domain coming soon–

      1. i think he is teaching us What not to do with seo

        Don’t you ever throw your money away like that

        he won’t make it in a million years

        1. not likely, anyway

          1. ricdes says:

            You still may not know how much people invested with them… lots of people want to build a new home atm.

        2. Marc says:

          Are you nuts? Didn’t you read Kumiko’s post? He doesn’t need to stay at the top of the SERPs forever. He just needs to pull in a few sales and he’s laughing.

          If you think SEO is all about following the rules, then you’re missing out on a significant part of the game.

      2. John Hok says:

        There’s a big difference between regular SEO and black hat SEO. Is it really worth the risk for those few sales that it *might* generate? Only to get your company’s site banned forever from Google’s search index and never be able to reap the benefits of one of the best sources of traffic on the Internet?

        Also PR will mean nothing once his site gets detected for the black hat SEO. Google will immediately suspend the PR on the domain and there goes the other source of revenue. ๐Ÿ˜‰

        1. it’s obvious that they’re duplicate contents that google hates

        2. Marc says:

          No, there isn’t a big difference. Anyone who even knows what the acronym SEO stands for is already in the grey. If you’ve ever tweaked anything on your website you’re in darker grey territory. The only difference between a “black hat” SEO and a regular SEO is a few shades of colour.

      3. looking forward to it

      4. thats a lot of money 6000*10 just for domains/yr

        well if he can afford it..its a risk i will not take:)

    2. well, why doesn’t he register .info domain names which will only cost him $0.99 each

      that’s how much it costs me anyway!

      1. Mubin says:

        heheheh, I can get you them for $.60 a piece ๐Ÿ™‚

    3. UberDan says:

      Thanks for posting all the domains ๐Ÿ™„

  2. my, that must’ve cost the webmaster a few thousand dollars to chieve that

    1. blogcrowds says:

      Exactly my thought, not worth it, especially now its on John Chow. We’ll see how long till Google notices.

      What is your take on this John?

      1. Yeah, I would have paid an expert SEO wiz less to get the same if not better results.

    2. Yes too much money, John did it by free ๐Ÿ™‚

      1. ricdes says:

        he did it with a nice idea ;).

  3. actally 6000 .com domain names would cost you at least 36000 dollars

    doesn’t that cost too much?

    1. Entrepreneur says:

      Probably would be cheaper to become an accredited registrar! ๐Ÿ™‚

      1. They just might have the money to throw away…

        1. not like that though

          he could’ve just bought a few 3 letter .com domain name instead

          i’m sure the effect would be a lot better

          or he could “throw away his money” on John

          buy text link ads, get a few reviewme….

          1. Yeah, the reviewme would have been a better call for immediate results

          2. Marc says:

            You think? I don’t think there are many readers here looking for metal buildings…

        2. The owner of these sites could’ve had that much to throw away. Maybe they’re eccentric, too; wanting all the drama that come along with sneaky SEO.

          1. well, with 40000 dollars?
            hmmm…i’m not so sure about that

        3. agree money to throw away

  4. Phishie Diaz says:

    Oh my… I think somebody is going to be angry…

    1. With the amount of people that visit chow, i wonder if any are from Google and if so, will they care this is going on…hmmmmmm

      1. Google has probably picked it up by now. If they consider this manipulation as a threat (especially when other people who have money can do just the exact same thing), I’m pretty sure they’re doing something to control the situation…or at least rectify it.

        1. Marc says:

          I’m sure they’re trying, but so long as their search engine is algorithm based, they are subjects to the pitfalls of computer systems. That means the algorithm will always have ways of gaming it until they develop a way for it to get hunches.

  5. well, he might succeed, but it’s a stupid way of doing it..

    1. Marc says:

      Stupid is in the eye of the beholder. I think it’s brilliant in its own way.

  6. egon says:

    Man that must have cost a pretty penny. Should have just used $2 .info domains.

    1. Vijay says:

      6000 Domains, as egon and Monetize Your Blog mentioned above that really a big invetment.

      I recently read that some domain registrars are allowing domain names on trail basis, may these people are using or abusing it.

  7. Vijay says:

    This totally fits with this quote, which I use in my email signature.

    Donโ€™t ever let anyone tell you that something is too competitive. Once you subtract the people who donโ€™t work very hard, or the people who arenโ€™t as good as you, your competition shrinks dramatically.

    Employee To Entreprenuer

    1. Austin Luna says:

      That’s awesome.

      Thanks for sharing.

  8. Ed Lau says:

    WTF…that’s a pretty big list.

    1. That was my first reaction ๐Ÿ˜†

    2. LOL I didn’t have time to go through them all — and I’ve got PLENTY of time…that’s how many they were LOL.

  9. Hahahah, ROFL :mrgreen: ๐Ÿ˜› :mrgreen:

    They basically did some keyword research–I mean lots of it–to come up with every possible domain name that ‘match’ the search phrases ๐Ÿ˜ˆ . What a waste–dont’ know who’s the SEO consultant but I would give the give a smack because it’s just stupid to have the same content on all of those sites, when you can build up an ‘authority’ site and spread the PR loves to the other ‘pages’ with the same keyword phrases as the domain…LOL…

    1. Well, i dunno what they were thinking, but the do rank at number one for atleast one search…maybe that made it worth it for them

    2. Entrepreneur says:

      Yeah, not very smart ultimately.

      Realistically Google will catch on sooner or later, and for how much they probably paid (I’d estimate close to $50 000 at least) they probably could have had a legitimate authority site built up with solid rankings that won’t go anywhere.

      1. That would be interesting to see…how much they actually spent for all those domains.

  10. That’s amazing. I’ll be curious to see how long it takes Google to act on this.

  11. I think we might have gotten the idea after, oh, i dunno, maybe 20 domains listed with an etc. or + sign ๐Ÿ˜›

    1. You know what though…after all this is sorted out, I’d really want to know who the anonymous writer is — that’s top-grade Sherlock Homes content right there (pretty extensive, too)! ๐Ÿ˜Ž

  12. Paul. says:

    He should have spent a little extra and got a better looking site.

    1. Come to think of it…how much would it cost for a decent “proper” TV/radio/newspaper ad?

  13. ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

    John I think you perpetuated his popularity of his websites by posting all those links on your highly ranked site!

  14. ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

    John I think you perpetuated his popularity of his websites by posting all those links on your highly ranked site!

    He could have just paid you $400 and gotten some reviewme love.

    1. whoever did it is stupid, and he wouldn’t even know advertising with is a better way out

      as far as the links go, they’re not clickable, so he wouldn’t get that much traffic anyway

      1. Matt Huggins says:

        Good point about the domains being listed not being links. No (or little) extra SEO help there I suppose.

        1. Yeah, but it is still exposure to the thousands of readers that come to this site.

    2. ricdes says:

      Maybe John just wanted to piss him off ๐Ÿ™‚ I’m pretty shure that google will notice this now.

  15. Matt Huggins says:

    Now that’s evil! No wonder this anonymous person came to John Chow with the story. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  16. Hari says:

    That’s Awesome. But it cannot last longer. Maybe in a week or month, Google may catch it.

    1. I’d go for a week, two weeks tops — if the elusive Mark Moore thinks he’s outsmarted the system, I think Google (now that they know about this) might just convince him otherwise.

  17. Sahil Gupta says:

    can you tell me how many times the word “steel”, “metal” & “building” have been used in the above post ? ๐Ÿ˜ˆ
    Who knows.. google might start showing up john chow dot com when we search for these metallic terms.. ๐Ÿ˜†

    1. I wonder if anybody else posted this article on their blog or if it’s exclusively on JC…

  18. Jin says:

    what a good idea this guy can get. i am sure his ROI is not bad. the domain name also worth a lot if he sell them

    1. After all that brouhaha, I’m not sure if anyone will be interested to buy those domain names. But who knows, they could be worth something.

  19. Tino says:

    ๐Ÿ˜› That’s brilliant, John! You help get all of the above sites banned and when they do, this post will probably rank first for all of the above URLs!

  20. Wow … I go to WalMart and I come back to this … man thats one long a$$ list!

    John … I know you don’t like the command in WP but you should have used it on this one !!! Took up some precious real estate, and man is this dude gonna be mad!



  21. true, john chow will benefit from it

  22. gaman says:

    The main website might rank well but did anybody notice the duplicate websites are nowhere to be seen in the search results?

    The trick is so obvious Google can easily snap its fingers and all that guy’s effort go down the drain.

    BTW. who says Google penalized duplicate content? They don’t.

    1. You are right, I was thinking also about duplicate content.. but the main site does not have that duplicate content.

    2. Google frowns on duplicate content — I think that’s what most people are saying.

  23. Maybe he should start to sell the domains immediately, to get some of his money back. ๐Ÿ™‚

  24. gaman says:

    Yes I agree. The duplicate content – by their sheer number – help the main site rank but they themselves are considered not important (they are not penalized) by Google.

  25. unitedcrown says:

    You are an Asshole

    1. grandpa says:


  26. All this for metal buildings SEO. This guy Moore must be filthy rich to begin with — a little short-sighted, but rich.

  27. green says:

    ๐Ÿ˜ฏ I think they have registrar company. First time i saw this method with a countless list.

  28. Whoever wrote this article is one heck of a WUSSIE! What a low life, bottom dwelling wimp!

    You can’t even put your name on it? You out some guy for marketing his company over some wanna be duplicate content crap, and you don’t even have the guts to put your name on the article? L-O-S-E-R!!!! And John Chow is just as bad for posting it.

    The guy didn’t do anything illegal. Nothing. And all of you idiots who bow down at google’s altar wish you had the money to buy that many domains. You’re all pathetic.

    Go back to finding your “free directories” to get a link from you bunch of losers. Or let me guess, you think you’re all great because you hand post to blogs like this one with your keywords as anchor text? ๐Ÿ™„

    Pathetic…Just incredibly pathetic…

  29. ๐Ÿ’ก
    Maybe he had a long-term plan to build a franchise and sell all these domains to each franchise? Yeahhhh…. that’s what it is. ๐Ÿ™„

    1. Very unlikely, but I guess it’s possible — all this trouble for a slim chance (not to mention probably short-lived) in franchising…hmmm, I don’t know about that.

  30. Koopa says:

    Mr. Chow, this is not cool. ๐Ÿ™ Google employees no doubt read search marketers blogs, and every time a webmaster doing practices outside of search engine’s guidelines is mentioned, the network of sites is banned very quickly. Why destroy another webmaster’s hard work on the engines? Unlike what Google would have you believe, “Black Hat” techniques are not against the law.

    But whatever, An seo with this ingenuity and automation will definitely be back.

    Be afraid, whitehats, bwahahahahahahaha! ๐Ÿ˜ˆ

  31. What effect does it have for the site having the addresses but not actual hyperlinks?

    1. As far as your question goes, I’d say slim to no effect at all. I mean, that’s a pretty long list there; I don’t think a lot of people would go out of their way to copy-and-paste each of them on the URL field — I know I didn’t.

  32. Rhys says:

    Interesting. Google’s algorithm will change again, and again when sites like take off.

  33. WOw! That’s a whole lot of domains. The guys must have a lot of money to be able to do such a thing. Now, I think this is what you can call a “Black Hat SEO” ๐Ÿ˜€

  34. UberDan says:

    Your targeted AdSense is working well, it’s picked up that readers may be interested in Metal Buildings :mrgreen:

  35. He must have lost of money laying around to be able to buy all those domains.

  36. wat an awesome idea

    he has done a great job

  37. johnblowchow says:

    John Blow Chow only gets attention by tearing working people down. Why don’t you contribute something instead of ratting on people p1ssant?

  38. mao says:

    One thing I’ve learned from this post. Never post more than 100 links or you will annoy your readers..
    Next time you should have create a downloadable list or something on another page..

    1. Amanda says:

      Definitely I saw the list and said oh lord what did john do now

  39. Zummie M says:

    I think it is unfair to consider this blackhat SEO.

    So what if it has the same content in thousands of different domain names?

    How about articles that are copied everywhere on the net? Isn’t it the same?

    I don’t think it is against Google’s terms of service to have many domain names with the same content. It’s just that your content is so duplicated, that it would not be unique enough during queries.

  40. James says:

    It is not really that big a deal. Right now, those sites take a dup penalty. All they have to do is update the sites with new and different content and they lose the penalty.
    Not much different than parking domains. There are those that invest in domains for sale at a much later date.

  41. Ya ya ya for me once i used duplicate my second page go down for 1 report, i bet G wait only for report ๐Ÿ™‚

  42. Aaron says:

    This post is STUPID and whoever posted it is the fool, not Google!

    First off if you check the Name Server records for these sites you will notice they are ALL the same




    So what this guy is guilty of is buying a bunch of domains from Godaddy and customizing the default parked page. Is that blackhat? He isnโ€™t even paying for hosting.

    What he is doing is no more spammy than when you buy a domain and the registrar like Godaddy puts up the same โ€œComing Soonโ€ page full of ads and links for THEIR site, products and services.


    If this guy is guilty of anything it is buying a bunch of domain names in 2005 and NEVER DOING ANYTHING WITH THEM! As far as I can tell none of those domains except for his main one rank for any terms.


    What makes anyone think that the reason is ranked well on Google has anything to do with these other domains that are showing up as backlinks on Yahoo? Check his backlinks in Google. You donโ€™t see ANY of these domains being counted as back links. Yes I know Google doesnโ€™t display ALL of your backlinks but you would think at LEAST 1 of the thousand domains would show up IF they were a major factor in his positioning. What this guy did is NOT SPAM! It was a WAIST OF MONEY! Google doesnโ€™t look like a fool here, itโ€™s the person who posted it that does . . .

  43. WilliamC says:

    Nice post and it gives one pause to think a bit.

    Aaron, while I agree with you that these are parked pages, they are still showing up as thousands of indexed duplicate pages. That is still spam cluttering up the engines indexes.

    When I first saw this story I did a little checking too. They dont actually beat the other sites in the top 5 except for this huge influx of links. Not for anything without them. According to their allins without including these links they should not even be on the front page really.

    Are all these duplicated pages links counting?

    Definately to some degree, IMO.

    1. Aaron says:

      Parked Domains Dont get banned people!

      The guy did nothing wrong

      1. WilliamC says:

        I expect the domains will not get banned. I do however expect that their links value should have been discounted. Those links sure seem to be the only thing holding that sites rankings and overall link popularity in all 3 engines at the moment.

        Regardless of what you think he did or did not do wrong, those sites are all nothing but duplicate content, and should not hold any links weight at all.

        You want to see a mess? Wait a few weeks of google doing nothing about this now that it hit john chow, and see how many blackhats are doing the exact same thing. Why? Because they know it works.

      2. WilliamC says:

        Aaron, do you work for godaddy?

  44. Google will catch this eventually. BTW, how do we know that a competitor didn’t do this to get this site banned?

  45. They should have invested in CHEAP BULK content, it’s not expensive at all and you have peace of mind that your site won’t get banned plus your sites will get better SERPS

  46. myhotpeeps says:


  47. Thomas Czaszynski says:


    First of all what Aaron Adams says is 100% truth, he’s one of the top SEO’s I know.

    It seems like no one else understands that parked pages are not blackhat. I can’t believe how mis-informed everyone is getting oh well.

    1. WilliamC says:

      If he is one of the top SEO’s around, then I would know him. Going from his profile, he works at GoDaddy and is hence saying that duplicate content is not bad to search engines to help his company not lose a lot of sales.

  48. Aaron says:

    I dont work for, I work for myself.


    But its ok, so was everyone else. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Google didnโ€™t miss a thing. WE DID!! Its not duplicate content. He has hidden text on all his pages except his main domain

    Check it out for yourself.
    Look at the source code of his index page and you will find he has hidden H1 H2 and P tags along with links to other pages within that domain.

    So the domains are not parked and the network of sites are not duplicate content.

    So we can now call him Blackhat or whatever other names we want to call him!

  49. Aaron says:

    I dont work for, I work for myself.
    Ok, EVERYONE I WAS TOTALLY WRONG!!!! But its ok, so was everyone else.

    Google didnโ€™t miss a thing. WE DID!! Its not duplicate content. He has hidden text on all his pages except his main domain

    Check it out for yourself.

    Look at the source code and you will find he has hidden H1 H2 and P tags along with links to other pages on that domain.

    Easiest way to see it is copy his source code and paste it into your favorite html editor.

  50. WilliamC says:

    Aaron, good to hear you dont shill for them.

    As to the hidden text, thats done dynamicly. The pages are still duplicated replicated content. The only things that chage are a few aspects so the page can rank for particular keywords in the url and be worth something in its links passed along to the main site.

    These sites were setup as pure spamdexing, and this method was in its heyday in 1999. I am rather surprised it still works, and this article seems to have opened some peoples eyes.

  51. You had me at hello… no really, that post totally lost me ๐Ÿ˜ฅ

  52. Wow, nothing gets past John Chow’s staff!

  53. SEO says:

    What is this? A f*cking public spam report? Actually, I don’t even consider it spam but clearly you want to mess with this guy’s livelihood and you KNOW that Google pulls sites manually for no good reason all the time.

    Yeah, you’re real helpful.

  54. Wahlau.NET says:

    that is one freaking long list…6000 x USD8.95/domain = $$$$$

    I guess google didn’t expect someone that dumb would do that

  55. ๐Ÿ™„ ๐Ÿ˜› ๐Ÿ’ก ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ™‚ ๐Ÿ˜ฏ โžก ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ :mrgreen: โ“ ๐Ÿ™ ๐Ÿ˜ก ๐Ÿ˜† ๐Ÿ˜ฎ ๐Ÿ˜ฅ ๐Ÿ˜‰ ๐Ÿ™„ ๐Ÿ˜› ๐Ÿ˜ณ ๐Ÿ’ก ๐Ÿ˜€ John Chow, You are ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ‘ฟ ๐Ÿ˜Ž ๐Ÿ˜• ๐Ÿ™‚ ๐Ÿ˜ฏ โžก ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ :mrgreen:

Comments are closed.