Interesting spam: Wikipedia trackbacks
-
I've been getting some very interesting spam on my wordpress blogs lately: trackbacks on wikipedia articles that are obviously spammy. By that I mean that the comment on wikipedia are obviously spam and the link to my blogs are removed before I even arrive at the page or get the notification. The trackbacks are posted on valid wikipedia entries.
My concern is that this is a move by an unsavory competitor to try to get my sites in trouble. I can't really see how this would be effective though. All I can come up is that it might eventually get my domains banned from being linked to in wikipedia. I can't think of any problems this would cause in google or other SE's.
What could be the purpose behind such a spam campaign?
Any feedback?
-
This is by far the most likely explanation as far as I can see. Thanks for checking it out Takeshi!!
-
Hi Ryan,
I hope you are well.
I had the exact same thing yesterday, by the time I got to the page it had been edited. Well, I'm sceptical it was ever there actually because I could not find it in the edit history.
Funny thing is, is that it was that exact same wiki page! I just deleted it, perhaps Takeshi Young is right then
Someone must be experimenting with that page.
-
I did some research, and apparently trackbacks are really easy to fake (they just ping your blog with fake info). The comment "we arrived across a neat internet site that you could possibly like. Just take a look if you need..." sounds like there might have been a link there, that got cut out.
So basically spammers send these trackbacks that look like they're coming from legitimate sites hoping that they'll get approved so they can get their link posted on your site.
-
I looked at this page and others that have come in like it, and cannot find the links.
-
Weird, do you know when you received the trackback? You can see the edit history for the page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Dobbs_(North_Carolina)&action=history
-
Yes. A trackback as if its a link from Wikipedia. I can't find any record of the link being on wikipedia however. Its all very confusing.
Edit: Added a screenshot of the (temporarily) approved trackback. At the bottom the link "North Carolina" points to the wikipedia article mentioned above.
-
Ok, so a trackback is generated when someone links to your site from another site. This will show up on your site as a trackback.
Are you saying that you received a link from Wikipedia? Or that the trackback includes a link to Wikipedia? Or something else?
-
Example:
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Dobbs_(North_Carolina)
Comment: Awesome web sites...
we arrived across a neat internet site that you could possibly like. Just take a look if you need...
It looks like a comment, but when I approve it goes under trackbacks. I'm assuming wikipedia doesn't have an army of blackhat spammers hitting up blogs to increase their rankings
-
Do you have any examples? You should be able to see the edit history of the page to see who added the link to your page and in what context.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Site Footer Links Used for Keyword Spam
I was on the phone with a proposed web relaunch firm for one of my clients listening to them talk about their deep SEO knowledge. I cannot believe that this wouldn’t be considered black-hat or at least very Spammy in which case a client could be in trouble. On this vendor’s site I notice that they stack the footer site map with about 50 links that are basically keywords they are trying to rank for. But here’s the kicker shown by way of example from one of the themes in the footer: 9 footer links:
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RosemaryB
Top PR Firms
Best PR Firms
Leading PR Firms
CyberSecurity PR Firms
Cyber Security PR Firms
Technology PR Firms
PR Firm
Government PR Firms
Public Sector PR Firms Each link goes to a unique URL that is basically a knock-off of the homepage with a few words or at the most one sentences swapped out to include this footer link keyword phrase, sometimes there is a different title attribute but generally they are a close match to each other. The canonical for each page links back to itself. I simply can’t believe Google doesn’t consider this Spammy. Interested in your view.
Rosemary0 -
Potential spam issue - back links
Hi - we have a client whom we work with for SEO. During a review we noticed in Webmaster Tools, there was an IP address with over 30,000 links to our clients site. The IP address is 92.60.0.123. From looking up the IP address details, it looks like it is based in Europe - but we are unable to establish what it is, where the links are and who created it. We are concerned it could be a potential spammer trying to cause an issue with the SEO campaign. Is there any way of finding out any more details apart from the basic information about the location of the IP address? Also - if we submit a disavow via webmaster tools, we are unsure what issue it will have on the clients site if we do not know what it is and the type of links it is creating. Any ideas? Thanks for your help! Phil.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Globalgraphics0 -
Pages linked with Spam been 301 redirected to 404\. Is it ok
Pl suggest, some pages having some spam links pointed to those pages are been redirected to 404 error page (through 301 redirect) - as removing them manually was not possible due to part of core component of cms and many other coding issue, the only way as advised by developer was making 301 redirect to 404 page. Does by redirecting these pages to 404 page using 301 redirect, will nullify all negative or spam links pointing to them and eventually will remove the resulting spam impact on the site too. Many Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Modi0 -
Video & Image Spam?
We have 50 product videos and 100 product images to distribute. For the sake of increasing nofollow Linking Root Domains, my manager wants to distribute them in the following manner: 10 Company profiles on 10 video sites, each with 5 videos. The sites to be used are sites like YouTube, Vimeo, DailyMotion, MetaCafe, etc. 10 Company profiles on 10 image sites, each with 10 images. The sites to be used are sites like Photobucket, Flickr, imageshack, Imgur, etc. My thoughts are that we should stick to one service for video (YouTube) and one service for images (Flickr). We can increase nofollow LRD's by doing some quality blog commenting. Keep in mind that the product images look great, but the videos are amateur and consist of someone holding the product and discussing it's features. Each vid is around one minute in length. What do you think of the two approaches and which do you prefer? Do you think creating many profiles will come off too spammy? We are also weathering a Panda penalty and submitting a Reinclusion Request to Google within the next two weeks. Your thoughts are very welcomed and appreciated. Thanks 🙂
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Choice0 -
How is this different than Go Daddy Spam?
Out of boredom, I googled up "SEO Company". #1 result is qualifiedimpressions.com. Taking a look at their link profile it seems they are utilizing anchor text on all their clients' websites. Moreover, it appears they have multiple sites for each of their phrases (which they cross link). Qualified Impressions - SEO Company WeBuildRankings.com - SEO Service VisibilitySquad - SEO Companies Some of their clients are rocking multiple anchor text links. How is this not any different than what Go Daddy did recently?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ErikDster1 -
How is this achieved - SPAM
Hello everyone. Here's my problem: I just searched for "link inside iframe counts for backlinking?" and on #5 there's a site that caught my attention because of it's Description Snippet. http://www.freelancer.com/job-search/iframe-links-count-backlinks/ This page is totally irrelevant to my query if you take time and read what's on it, however it ranks well. It's clever because the page contains all the required elements: one h1 with keyword in it, some short paragraph under it, similar links (totally irrelevant though), a selection of people who are supposed to be relevant to my question but they are not, all the good stuff. I looked in the source code and i found this: link href="[http://www.freelancer.com/rss/search.xml?keyword=iframe+links+count+backlinks](view-source:http://www.freelancer.com/rss/search.xml?keyword=iframe+links+count+backlinks)" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Latest projects" Please take the time and look at this feed and you'll see something totally wrong here. Could someone please explain how this works? I'ts a total spam however they managed to trick the system... Looking forward to hearing your answers. Alex
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | pwpaneuro0 -
Has anyone seen this kind of google cache spam before?
Has anyone seen this kind of 'hack'? When looking at a site recently I found the Google cache version (from 28 Oct) strewn with mentions of all sorts of dodgy looking pharma products but the site itself looked fine. The site itself is www.istc.org.uk Looking in the source of the pages you can see the home pages contains: Browsing as googlebot showed me an empty page (though msnbot etc. returned a 'normal' non-pharma page). As a mildly amusing aside - when I tried to tell the istc about this, the person answering the phone clearly didn't believe me and couldn't get me off the line fast enough! Needless to say they haven't fixed it a week after being told.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | JaspalX0 -
Interesting Case Study. Website with 70 PA and 73 DA but PR 0?
http://www.jewelry.hyper-info.com/ This website has no backlinks reported on google, but loads of backlinks across the web. It also doesn't even rank top 50 on its topic keyword [Jewelry Tips]. I would be very wary of building a link on a site like this, but thats my opinion. How would you rate this websites link based on this data?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | 13375auc30