someone show me a vs white label example?

and yes, it's to prevent duplicate content penalties.

bump for you again

Although we strongly disagree with some of the allegations and insinuations some of you have made in this thread; thank you for bringing it up so we can address the issue publicly.

Back in 2010 a review of all VS properties, including the white label program, was undertaken by our SEO consultants. They found that the duplicate markup structure and on-page copy used in the white label program was not adhering to Google?s specific instructions on handling duplicate content, found here:

http://www.google.com/support/webmas...n&answer=66359

We added the rel=?canonical? tag to address this issue and comply with Google?s guidelines; not to steal links from people or any other trickery. We sent out an announcement when these changes were made. Some people in this thread think that we?re stupid about this sort of thing; hopefully the above post from Google will clear that up for them.

Many successful affiliates have built white label sites that DO rank well in the search engines. However, I think we?d all agree (our stats surely show it) that the success of a white label cam site is based on your branding and traffic from your other properties and not solely based on SEO.

We?d be happy to consider removing this tag for any affiliates that request it, just drop us an email. Bear in mind that the site will revert to being in non-compliance with Google?s guidelines regarding duplicate content, etc.

You relied on some 'seo consultant'.

We all know how reliable they are, not to mention being a dime a dozen and worth just as much.

At some point someone with a clue has to step in and say:

"Ok this is what the SEO told us, but we also have hundreds (thousands) of affiliates who won't like us telling Google and other engines that there site is not worth spidering or considering, and that they should consider us the only source of that content."

Where was that guy at this meeting?

Thanks for sharing I am in the design phase and just beginning to join programs. I will pass on White Label thanks for the heads up.

Also to add, adding canonical doesn't fix the issue of your white labels being duplicate, it's just a work around, the real fix is to build white labels that aren't duplicate content.

Canonical fixes the problem for YOU, and fucks it up 10 times worse for everyone else.

What other cam programs? I have only commented on CamSense. CamSense took affiliates money. Simple as that.

VideoSecrets always pays on time, every time. I have some members at VideoSecrets buying for 2 or 3 years now and no matter how much traffic i send or don't send, they always pay.

A meta tag in a WL, that is something that can be addressed. Contact the respective sponsor, ask them to remove it, if they remove it, ok, if not, ditch the sponsor.

I would have gladly worked with CamSense to find a solution for me to get my money, but that's a no, can't do.

Do you understand the difference?

Don't expect honey and milk in this business or in any other business, everybody will try to play you, even if we like it or not, agree to it or not, it all comes down to being smarter and being paid.

What he said...

The whole premise behind having a white label is that you can have your own cam site that you build up traffic to including getting it ranking high in the SEs for whatever keyword(s) you've picked out... By having the canonical tag in there, you completely remove the real advantages to even bothering with it.

While true that your the SEO guy gave you some "good" advice, it was given without any consideration for affiliates or the purpose of the white label.

Hello,

I tried to contact Videosecrets reps for days, could you please contact me on icq: 69585538 ?

Thank you.

Quote of the decade! :321GFY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word-of-mouth_marketing

See sig Oilboy

No I think you are mistaken - TheHand is correct. You should read what Google has to say about it and its intended purpose. Also I see nothing anywhere that says that this kind of thing affects page rank.

I emailed them this morning asking them to remove the link and got this reply back;

I will have this done for you shortly.
Thanks,
Tim

Will see if they do it.

The purpose is to say that the flirtforfree site has the "real" content and the white labels don't... In other words, telling google not to bother ranking or maybe even indexing the white label sites.. So it makes it worthless to those that want to try and have their white label rank high in the SERPs...

at first i was like...

but when i thought about it....thats kinda valid. flirt4free DOES have the 'real' content. especially if its a turnkey/plug & play whitelabel. all someone did is stick their logo on it and change the color scheme. F4F did all the SEO work.

not ideal for people who focus on SEO and have no big brand to push. but not as 'underhanded' as it seemed to me at first...

jdoughs, dont taze me... :party-smi

Aww, fuck that kind of shit.

lmao







......

Have the 3 zillion or so "omg video secrets scammed me" in some way or another over the years, why is anyone still doing business with them, seriously??!?!!

If the first 2000000000000 people warning you about them screwing you wasn't enough, then probably you deserve to be taken advantage of.

Seriously people, start taking the hint already! LOL

talk to thehand

See sig huh, what a streamate WL? LOL

lol whatever floats your boat :2 cents:

who in their right mind would spend time trying to rank and white label anyway. seriously.


canonical or not, there are obvious dupe content issues that make the attempt idiotic.

seo whitelabel ... lol man, if you know seo i dont know why the fuck you are wasting your time with doing seo for whitelabels and telling your knowhow to the program ... oh man, this is a fail ... :2 cents:

I know for a fact, that's not true. If anyone would like to see some examples, email me :winkwink:

check your mailbox...

what? who? where?

Gsx-R,

I would love to earn your business. Would you hit me up on ICQ?

I don't know about the others, but I did not receive any notice from VS about adding this tag.
Also, in my case, this tag caused the main page of my whitelabel to be deindexed by google and therefore I am pretty much out from the google search results. Obviously, virtually no more sales.
Anyway, the return rate for the VS whitelabel was very low and also the refund rate very high.

Please let me say that both you and Thehand are wrong. Jdoughs is right.
Adding this tag tell google only to consider the page that is written in the content of this tag and eventually to remove from the index the other one. This should be used to avoid duplicate content withing the same site. For example www vs non-www versions of the same page or pages that contains some GET parameters in the URL, the content being the same with or without those parameters.

I have affiliates who would beg to differ. But Im sure they are glad most people don't build white labels and rank them. Would be more competition against them.

Have a nice day!

Links pulled.

my vs refund rate is huge also, 90% of my sales got charged back...

Did you try to ask them for an explanation? I did , but without much success.