Sci Forums question

[stryder]

In the process of trying to get this site more exposure for gaining members to keep this place interesting and worth coming back to. I've slowly but surely been looking at trying to get "backlinks" (Links from other websites that point back to this one) to increase the sites prevalence in search engines.

While doing so I have to look at the logs of both my server and a number of pieces of external software this site uses. (in fact it reminds me that I should put a disclaimation page in regards to the site related technologies used so members know what information might be collected and who by).

Currently I've got Google and Quantcast related webmaster tools applied. Google's webmaster tools allows me to see where any backlinks come in from. Some of those links are actually from Sciforums (yes everytime you mention the forum there as a URL, especially in any public profiles it gets seen as a backlink). the problem(?) is that those worm sites obviously serve those profile pages up as there own, so technically it means I've got more backlinks from multiple sites than just sciforums alone.

It would suggest that the robotically signed up members that often were banned as potential spammers over there actually are just signing up to enter a website url in their profile so that these worms can then increase the backlink potential of sites that they point to.

[Mr Doodlebug]

On SF, every comment made is almost immediately searchable on google.
Example:
On 9th April Youreyes made this comment " Is this a delayed lame April 1st fools joke?"

If you put that phrase into google, it is second on the results page.
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=...%20joke%3f

The link, to a site called challenge-yourself.com does not work.

If you put in the search " challenge-yourself.com sciforums"
It leads to more quotes. Again the links don't work.
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=...0sciforums

Some contain the reference chaussuredefoothybride
chaussure de foot hybride is a cross between a sock and a shoe.

Does this person's activities help or hinder SF's rating?

I've found a link that works. It goes here, to a shoe site:
http://www.cranpondefoots.com/

[stryder]

Does this person's activities help or hinder SF's rating?

In short, a bit of both.

If the sites in question that create these search engine backlinks (links pointing from other sites to that one) are nefarious and illicit (currently appears so, since they likely return a page about shoes) then they could actually undermine a future search engine position, since it makes the site look like it's trying to bolster it's backlinks artificially.

[Mr Doodlebug]

Photizo is using the Profile Post section for gloomy Biblical verses.

[krash661]

Well we could of probably had about 20-30 usernames exist as extra's, however I'm a stickler for getting rid of spammer accounts since while they might make it look like the forum has hundreds of members.

In short the current low number is a mixture of reasons ranging from a low reach (The forum software lacks some features that would of been rather useful to make posts easier to find elsewhere online), the absence of site specific content (content only found here) and the fact that it is relatively new compared to older sites.  (Although there was a short lived pre-cursor a some years back, it's not an evolution of that)  Sites that have been around a while get spidered well by search engines and they can take 2-3 months to update content in their records.

In any event I thank you all that post for not just your patience as this site grows but your additions as content and discussion material.  Any suggestions for boosting the site in any means (content/people/eclectic spaceships etc) I'm open to suggestions.

on one of those SF moderator whining topics, i stated for people to come here, i received a warning from kitt for advertising
(shrugs)

---

 I would just suggest to both of you of perhaps refraining from creating a soap opera out of dirty laundry that actually belongs on a different washing line altogether. 

i just wanted to reiterate this again, maybe it will be clear.

[cluelusshusbund]

 i stated for people to come here, i received a warning from kitt for advertising
(shrugs)

You can add the Scivillage link http://www.scivillage.com/index.php as you'r homepage at SF like i did.!!! 

[Mr Doodlebug]

I'll go and do that right now.

[Mr Doodlebug]

'Tis done.

Interesting remark made by Kitt in SF profile posts.
How is it that so many incredibly stupid people make it into management... what, is this a case of "if you can't do the job, oversee it"?

[Mr Doodlebug]

It would be nice to get some new members, but , to think positively.
There is one advantage in low visibility.
Less Spam.
SF has had the biggest concerted spam attack in its history.
see
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/getting...st-3300182

[stryder]

New members will come over time, either through word of mouth, on their own or as I adjust the technologies used. (It's a slow process since I don't want to just slam a bunch of cash on the table and have it mis-spent on the wrong technologies or the wrong type of advertisement.)

Sciforums has always had a spam problem, it however has got worse of the years. Originally behind the scenes I use to manually remove people during sign-up if they seemed spammer-like, it reduced the spam a fair bit however it was full-time. There was and is a number of ways to automate some of it, however I never had access to be able to do that and the administrators that do can sometimes take a little while deciding if it's going to work or break the forum as a whole.

They might eventually fix it, however they should realise that sciforums is targeted (someone is out there specifically targeting the forum for spam attacks and it's not with the intention of selling flaky merchandise, it's literally about undermining that specific forum for whatever their particular reason is)