Talk:Spamdexing
Add topic | The content of Keyword stuffing was merged into Spamdexing on 20 August 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
Merge proposal for "Keyword Stuffing"
[edit]I have creaated a discussion here for merging the Keyword Stuffing page here. gilgongo (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Have you considered what to do with the sentence
? 184.146.170.127 (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)While a great deal of keyword stuffing was employed to aid in spamdexing, which is of little benefit to the user, keyword stuffing in certain circumstances was not intended to skew results in a deceptive manner
— Keyword_stuffing#History- No doubt the answer was 'yes'. Given that there are no objections,
Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- No doubt the answer was 'yes'. Given that there are no objections,
URL redirection
[edit]Temporary redirects (such as 302 status codes) can sometimes cause search engines to continue indexing the original URL rather than the destination. When the original page lacks meaningful content, external signals such as backlinks may disproportionately influence how the page is represented in search results. A notable example was documented in 2025, when spammy backlinks and a 302 redirect led Google to briefly display misleading titles for Disney’s login page, associating it with ‘black hat SEO services. M4344459 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)