homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.235.227.60
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 69 message thread spans 3 pages: 69 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
New Google or Not.
Search results are still shocking.
Wired Suzanne




msg:79741
 3:17 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

Under my keywords in the top ten:

- 'You are not authorized to view this page'

- 'We will be adding more information in due course.'

- Pages with 2 lines of content and 115 lines of keywords.

This really upsets me. Why making good websites?
Everyone is just working for the search engines now. And all those websites look like @#*! Sorry for my language. Yes. Those websites have cross links, a high keyword density, and all other things Google loves so much. But quality site? Not at all!I, and some other webmasters are writing real content, making readable pages, make every page different, no mirror-sites.

But do we have a chance? Who is going to stand up for us? Googleguy! Where are you?

 

GoogleGuy




msg:79742
 3:26 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

Have you done a spam report to mention this query?

steveb




msg:79743
 3:35 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

Google Guy, I'm going to be sending you another one. This time it will be about a "site" that is 50 pages of nearly identical text, with different keywords inserted (making the "sentences" gibberish)... which part of a group of about 20 keyword-1.com type domains. This group of sites has virtually no legitimate linking, but bootstraps itself up via keyword in domain, keyword in anchor text and keyword gibberish on pages.

The more I think about it the more benign selling pagerank looks. What is being rewarded now is pure non-content seo garabage: gibberish text, guestbook anchor text, doorway pages, keyword domains.

The negatives of PR selling are dwarfed in comparison.

Linking from decent PR sites is sooooooo much more accurate in terms of ferreting out these no-content, gibberish keywords sites. Some will, but not very many quality sites will link to gibberish pages.

Wired Suzanne




msg:79744
 3:40 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

Googleguy,

I have to ask: Which query do you want? I could send you loads of queries.

I was thinking about starting a few new domains and was just checking the competition. In my eyes, competition is lousy, because most sites are spammy. Users will not stay long on those sites.
However, would they ever be able to find mine?

Anyway, can you tell me where to send my report again?

And thanks for your fast reply.

Oaf357




msg:79745
 3:45 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

[google.com...]

digitalghost




msg:79746
 3:55 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>Have you done a spam report to mention this query?

All right, enough of this BS.

Have the Ph.Ds at Google done anything recently to filter out complete ****? Do webmasters need to tell the good doctors what to look for in every instance? Sure, we'll tell you exactly what to look for, you tell us exactly how to optimize a site.

Spam report, spam report, spam report. What about an algo that can detect ****?

If one webmaster can get a site to rank #1 for a term that doesn't even appear on the page surely a team of Ph.Ds can figure out how to prevent that from happening...

[edited by: WebGuerrilla at 4:33 pm (utc) on May 28, 2003]

metagod




msg:79747
 3:57 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

well for a free service i think they are doing a wonderfull job at google.com....

heads up boys!

Oaf357




msg:79748
 4:00 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

Wow, digitalghost. Calm down now. Spammers are like hackers, you can only do so much before they figure out another way in.

digitalghost




msg:79749
 4:04 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>Spammers are like hackers

Google needs to hire some hackers. ;)

Chris_D




msg:79750
 4:09 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

DigitalGhost,

Hire/ consult/ work with...

Basically my question For GG here:

[webmasterworld.com...]

grifter




msg:79751
 4:10 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

tell the good doctors what to look for in every instance?

Yes. They buy their Viagra from their Stanford M.D. pals. And they have no debt to consolidate.

Wired Suzanne




msg:79752
 4:11 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

I see that I am not the only angry webmaster.

The only happy ones are the ones that are misusing/abusing the Google algorithms. That are also the only ones that rank high.

But what can we do? We all depend on Google.

Cannot beat them? Join them!

BigDave




msg:79753
 4:18 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

The only happy ones are the ones that are misusing/abusing the Google algorithms.

No, they just aren't as vocal. There are in fact quite a few webmasters on this board that are quite happy with google and they stick with the basics.

digitalghost




msg:79754
 4:18 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>e only happy ones are the ones that are misusing/abusing the Google algorithms. That are also the only ones that rank high.

Not exactly. I manage to rank well, I'm just tired of the seeing constant requests for "spam" reports.

Here's a request for a more sophisticated "algo". Googleguy, where's the "our algo doesn't work well enough" URL? Or is that what you call the "spam report" URL?

PatrickDeese




msg:79755
 4:24 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

digitalghost -

please sticky me all spam techniques that continue to work month after month in google... I am, uhhh.... working on a spam detection algo for the next Google programming contest.... yeah. ;)

1milehgh80210




msg:79756
 4:26 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm sure whatever G is doing now, is in order to have improved results in the future. Or at least a return to the quality of past months. Its just the lack of a time frame that is maddening!
Of course, there's probably a .01% chance that THESE are the improved results! )

grifter




msg:79757
 4:35 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

Here's a request for a more sophisticated "algo". Googleguy, where's the "our algo doesn't work well enough" URL? Or is that what you call the "spam report" URL?

If I recall, GoogleGuy has asked for a variety of information from Webmasterworld members via the spam report form. I don't remember the exact threads but I was left with the impression that info will land on his/her desk sooner if you go via this channel, which goes above and beyond the call IMHO.

Oh, and by the way, the link you're asking for is at the bottom of *every page* on Google. It reads, "Dissatisfied with your search results? Help us improve."

steveb




msg:79758
 4:37 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

I just filed another report, like a good netizen, even though I'm po'ed too, and wow, taking another look... this is even worse than I thought.

I hunted down three other quality sites/pages that had been displaced from the top twenty results. They might not be perfect, but they are authority sites, linked to by other respected sites, with real content. They have been displaced by:

1) a keyword-a site that repeats itself on 20 domains, 50 pages per domain for each language, ten languages in all... 10,000 pages, all essentially the same page! Only keywords are replaced on the pages in the few paragraphs of text. The sentences don't even make sense.

2) a keyword-1 page consisting of one paragraph of texxt and links to other family sites, with the keywords hyperlinked of course.

3) a keyword123 site part of another family with some keywords but generic ads found on the family sites.

( #4 would be a one page link page consisting of no content except hypelinks to other sites... and #5 would be my "buddy" the uk.co domain that still hasn't been filtered out)

Ugh.

Wired Suzanne




msg:79759
 4:38 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

Patrick,

* What about a site with only keywords. No readable text. Well, at least not for human beings. Googlebot can read it very well...

*What about those dynamic pages, with the same text on every page. Vague and horoscope-like. And throw in the keyword at some points.
"Nice and cheap ... ... is most popular. Buy .... now! When you buy from us, ... is cheaper than anywhere."
A whole page like that. Fill in whatever you are selling. And create a 1000 pages in a day.

Or just create a lot of product pages with prices. Have your keywords in the sideline and write: 'Sorry, we have only prices at the moment. We will be adding more information soon'.

I just wonder... how long do users stay on pages like this?

digitalghost




msg:79760
 4:42 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>sticky me all spam techniques that continue

I don't have to sticky them to you. The techniques haven't ceased working yet.

1. Cloak the site and serve up whatever you want to Google.
2. Build a domain farm and create your own PR "importance".
3. Screen scrape forums and extract keyword rich content that just happens to end up on one of your domains, then link that domain to your target site.
4. Buy every high PR link you can find.
5. Build 500 shadow domains. Link as needed.
6. Set up as many blogs as you can on your own domains, rack up PR7 links in about 60 days. Use the links as you see fit.
7. Write an article about how not to optimize and watch Google ensure that it stays in the top ten for over a year.
8. Add useless content daily to get the freshbot to keep coming around.
9. Spam high PR logs.
10. Trusted feed. ;)

digitalghost




msg:79761
 4:56 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>Oh, and by the way, the link you're asking for is at the bottom of *every page* on Google

Yep. My spam filter must have wiped it out, it's in tiny text at the bottom of the page...

It certainly can't be important to Google or you'd think they'd make it more noticeable. Maybe just a little bolder than say the search results...

metagod




msg:79762
 5:04 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

Spam high PR logs?

as in spam their tracking program so you get a link back from that useless page?

twilight47




msg:79763
 5:15 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

"I don't have to sticky them to you. The techniques haven't ceased working yet."

LMAO :)

digitalghost




msg:79764
 5:16 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>back from that useless page?

Yep, that's what we want, links from useless pages.

metagod




msg:79765
 5:26 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

is that sarcasm i smell?

NovaW




msg:79766
 6:02 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

Google will truly have solved the puzzle when spammers have to make good sites to "spam" google. Google impacts the web to such a degree that it can only be chasing it's own tail to try and algorize (if that is a word) out manipulation - especially when google itself is the No.1 criminal in handing out the tools to allow such abuse to prosper. Why not keep it simple, kick out the obvious spam, take away the tools & catalog the web instead of distorting it.

Not sure if this is a new google - my opinion is it's either a technical roll out of something new or it was a screw up. Time will tell. The recent fiasco has put Google results on the same level of other engines, but not worse.

percentages




msg:79767
 6:05 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

I don't remember a single month where everyone was pleased with the update results. The best result I seem to remember is "It is a non-update, everything looks the same!".

The problems of the last update are indeed not new! Most of these manipulation techniques have existed for a long time. Common sense dictates that they are not likely to all be fixed within the next 4 weeks, if they haven't been fixed in the last 3 years why assume the next 4 to 8 weeks will be any different?

Those that say "things have become worse", might have a point. But there is also the other side of the coin that says things can always become worse....progress is not always a one way street, set backs occur.

So you have a choice. Live with the fact that Google is not going to solve all of the World's problems anytime in the near future or play the same game that these "spammers", "manipulators", "sludge of the Earth" sites are playing.

I am not for a single second suggesting you do this with your ultra clean, solidly built websites. But what stops anyone from registering a few "extra" domains to play the probability percentages with?

If you are a perfectionist that expects utopia to be delivered on a plate tomorrow morning, I think you are going to be disappointed. Maybe one day Google will get it right, but in the meantime invest in a few "alternative" strategies that work in today's, and most likely tomorrow's, environment.

By playing both sides of the fence at the same time you will increase your chances of coming out a winner whichever way Google, or any other engine, attempts to change its search algo.

digitalghost




msg:79768
 6:13 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>I don't remember a single month where everyone was pleased with the update results

4Q everyone, I'm talking about honesty. Yep, I have squeaky clean sites ranking in the top 3, and I have big, fat, spammy, hidden text sites ranking in the top 3, and I have cloaked sites ranking in the top 3, and I have domain farms ranking in the top 3, and I have sites ranking in the top 3 in which the keyphrases don't even appear on the page.

I have honest squeaky clean sites earning 15k a month and I have spammed out keyword-keyword domain farms making 15k a week.

Pleased?

Damn straight. Google doesn't know the difference.

percentages




msg:79769
 6:21 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Damn straight. Google doesn't know the difference.

digitalghost, yup 100% agreed, and if you really have all those other options covered my hat is off to you, because that is the strategy to play!

NovaW




msg:79770
 6:22 am on May 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just to get back to Wired Suzanne's original post. It does take a lot of time to create a site which is truly valuable to consumers. It doesn't take hardly any time at all to make a 1 page site that fools consumers. Yes, dissapointing - but 1 month does not mean the sky is falling down. 1 step back - 2 steps forward.

This 69 message thread spans 3 pages: 69 ( [1] 2 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved