homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.68.109
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Website
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 ( [1] 2 > >     
Does google care about problem results?
Are the poor results reports even read?
onionrep




msg:111512
 5:40 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

I found a site in the serps the other day full of the old spammy hidden text, I laughed and thought hmmm..Shouldnt google's filters pick this up.

I thought some more and decided to check on a few sites Id reported a while back, you know the type, shhneaky javascript redirects, doorway pages, meta refreshes with kw spam filled links etc.

Guess what! everyone of them are still in the serps.

I dont know how many spam reports google receives, probably a google of them!

Has anyone, (with the exception of those who perhaps have GG's ear )seen any positive action on their spam reports?

Id like to think that google actually read those reports but am beginning to think that they dont place as high a priority on spam as perhaps they should.

Im not google bashing here, I think its an excellent resource, but get a little p***** when the serps contain spam that beats the legitimate and ethical use of html.

 

pageoneresults




msg:111513
 5:48 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hello onionrep! I'll assume you are a representive for an onion farmer somewhere? ;)

Actually, Google does periodically impose penalties on those reported for spam. Based on what I've read here, its only the severe abusers who are penalized.

What Google will normally do is cull the spam reports and then tweak the algo to filter the problem across the board, if it can be done that way. There are some spam tactics that require manual penalties.

I've seen lots of discussion on this and the general consensus is that Google would prefer to let the algo take care of the spam and then manually impose penalties on those who are severely abusing the system and get past the existing spam filters.

I've also seen GoogleGuy chime in and tell people to use the spam report and make sure to mention that you came from WebmasterWorld. Hmmm, not so sure if that one will do the trick. ;)

Be careful when reporting spam, what goes around comes around. You better be squeaky clean. There are many out there that spend a good portion of their time trying to get their competitors out of the top spots because they feel they are spamming. It could end up backfiring. Also, think about Karma!

onionrep




msg:111514
 5:54 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Karma! lol no way man, hey listen up :)

People who cheat and spam and deceive deserve to be outed plain and simple as that.

They are nothing but cheaters, plain and simple.

Granted some people may not be fully aware of the impact of their actions, but many are fully aware of what they are doing by virtue of the used devices.

Its a pet hate of mine.

Anyway..I gotta go see my farmers ;)

<added>P1R Please define serious abusers</added>

[edited by: onionrep at 5:58 pm (utc) on Nov. 21, 2002]

subway




msg:111515
 5:56 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hey Onion Rep, not one of the sites I have reported has been removed. I'm justing going to wait until the next update, and if they are still there I'll just build a few sites using the same dirty tricks and cash in short term. Why not?

onionrep




msg:111516
 5:59 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hey Onion Rep, not one of the sites I have reported has been removed. I'm justing going to wait until the next update, and if they are still there I'll just build a few sites using the same dirty tricks and cash in short term. Why not?

and herein lies the problem, if its not tackled people will lose faith, google will decline.

Brett_Tabke




msg:111517
 6:20 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

I thought some more and decided to check on a few sites Id reported a while back, you know the type, shhneaky javascript redirects, doorway pages, meta refreshes with kw spam filled links etc.

Why do you think Google considers that stuff spam?

(I don't think they entirely do).

onionrep




msg:111518
 6:30 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

So you think this stuff is ok? Redirect to our hearts content? Is that really your view?

My understanding of Googles view on redirects and doorways is that it doesnt want them.

I think there dos and donts cover it

Do not

Cloak.
Write text or create links that can be seen by search engines but not by visitors to your site.
Participate in link exchanges for the sole purpose of increasing your ranking in search engines.
Send automated queries to Google in an attempt to monitor your site's ranking.
Use programs that generate lots of generic doorway pages.

Perhaps you have information that would say otherwise Id love to hear it.

Brett_Tabke




msg:111519
 6:33 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

PR is the antispam gatekeeper. If a site is ranked highly, it's not necc because of any thing else. It could also be a very legitimate part of another search engine program or for some other purpose than Google.

digitalghost




msg:111520
 6:36 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Where in that list of dont's do you see the creation of good doorway pages mentioned? Or the taboo on redirects?

There seems to be quite a bit that people don't like, but Google lets quite a bit of what people don't like slide. The admonishment on cloaking is ludicrous. Google CLOAKS. And Redirects! Ahh, but they consider it a service, to aid in the surfer's experience. White Hat cloaking. Yep...

ciml




msg:111521
 6:36 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Google probably expend more effort on spam fighting than we realise, but there are more spammers than Google staff.

The dos and don'ts are a little vague. They have to be, else people could evade them too easily. Google themselves use IP delivery, giving different content to people in different countries (sometimes even redirecting them).

<added>digitalghost beat me to it</added>

msgraph




msg:111522
 6:44 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Even one of Google's tech advisors has grey super microtext on the bottom of a page to help grab all the misspelling surfers out there on his name. If that is ok by Google, then I should be able to add super small shaded text to pull in all the related keyword searches as well. Right? ;)

onionrep




msg:111523
 6:46 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

By your logic pages that build up lots of links to other sites using mutliple IPs ultimately owned by the same individual could have the game sown up?

Sites that have good relevant content and lack the financial wherewithall to compete fall to the basement.

I cant accept that PR is the antispam measure that you propose it is.PR is just a factor, a construct that is used as an assist in the determination of relevancy.

Lets face it, the game is up, people have tumbled what PR is, its value is being eroded as more and more people seek to exploit its inherent weaknesses.

Its fine for google to give off the page factors more importantance in terms of ranking etc, but whats the point, if a substantial number of the sites that do well because of it, are full of link farm rubbish and disagreeable practice.

Ethical business practice is whats needed. It applies in the world of bricks and mortor businesses and should apply online too.

onionrep




msg:111524
 7:00 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Where in that list of dont's do you see the creation of good doorway pages mentioned? Or the taboo on redirects?
There seems to be quite a bit that people don't like, but Google lets quite a bit of what people don't like slide. The admonishment on cloaking is ludicrous. Google CLOAKS. And Redirects! Ahh, but they consider it a service, to aid in the surfer's experience. White Hat cloaking. Yep...

What google does with its website is its business.

If people want to be in *their* index they should play by *their* rules.

If you dont like it, fine, but you shouldnt expect to ride roughshod over its stated dos and donts and continue to do well.

I dont think cloaking or redirects are necessary, I think google is a good index and I try to do well within their index playing by their rules.

What do you suggest I do? Join the if you cant beat them join them brigade! - No - I say Google should root it out,and take firm measures with those they catch.

digitalghost




msg:111525
 7:07 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

ROFL

YOU were the one that brought up the TOS. All I asked were a few questions that you ignored.

>>If you dont like it, fine, but you shouldnt expect to ride roughshod over its stated dos and donts and continue to do well.

I'm quite happy with just doing well. I didn't mention "riding roughshod over their rules".

>>Ethical business practice is whats needed. It applies in the world of bricks and mortor businesses and should apply online too.

It is considered quite ethical in the bricks and mortar world to own many franchises. Don't compare apples and oranges.

>>Sites that have good relevant content and lack the financial wherewithall to compete fall to the basement.

Same thing happens in the bricks and mortar world every day. Businesses that don't have the financial "wherewithal" fail. Google won't change that truism.

onionrep




msg:111526
 7:28 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

LOL so selective deconstruction of posts is the order of the day eh?

>>YOU were the one that brought up the TOS. All I asked were a few questions that you ignored.

You may have also noted that I was responding to a question from another poster, besides What questions did I ignore?

>>I'm quite happy with just doing well. I didn't mention "riding roughshod over their rules".

Ah, but the subtext of your post was that you saw no reason why you should not.

>>It is considered quite ethical in the bricks and mortar world to own many franchises. Don't compare apples and oranges.

What do franchises have to do with ethics?

>>Same thing happens in the bricks and mortar world every day. Businesses that don't have the financial "wherewithal" fail. Google won't change that truism.

So its not relevancy that matters really, its money, right?

pageoneresults




msg:111527
 7:41 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

> Google should root it out, and take firm measures with those they catch.

Eek, there are over 3 billion pages in their index. I believe the current staff at Google is just over 300 (guessing). It won't happen.

Google's stance is that they will let the algo take care of the common stuff and then possibly do manual reviews on severe abusers. You asked me what was severe? From my own perspective, these are some issues that may be considered severe...

1. Duplicate content. Multiple domains housing the same content.

2. Hidden links. Typically a list of hidden links that lead to other non-relevant (or relevant) properties for the sole purpose of influencing PR. This is one that is discussed quite frequently around here.

Those are the two main ones from my perspective. There are more but I don't think Google spends as much time sniffing those out. If they can address the common practices with the algo, they will do so.

digitalghost




msg:111528
 7:51 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>So its not relevancy that matters really, its money, right?

First, yeah, it is mostly about money. Deep pockets can hire professional copywriters, professional designers that generate 30 sites with great, spider friendly design, hire professional SEOs and OWN a category. it's really that simple.

You mentioned relevancy, and unless those sites that are beating you have totally irrelevant content then you will have to compete with at some level. Complaining to Google that your one site is getting beat or will get beat by the big bad Deep Pocket boys won't work. They have just as much right to be on page one as you do.

There is nothing in the Google TOS that states that people can't own multiple websites, or use multiple websites to sell similar products.

I used franchises as an example because I thought the connection was pretty clear. Like McDonalds putting restaurants on every busy corner. Pretty similar to the guys building sites and owning the top ten results.

Now for the last bit of this, if those sites have irrelvant content, what are you worried about? People won't find what they want at those sites, and then they'll find your site...

onionrep




msg:111529
 7:54 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Eek, there are over 3 billion pages in their index. I believe the current staff at Google is just over 300 (guessing). It won't happen.

Hey, its not as if I dont recognise that its a big problem, I just feel that the least they could do would be to divert some resources to monitoring the most abused sectors.

Going back to my first post, it just seems to me that they dont pay as much attention to the issue as they perhaps should.

pageoneresults




msg:111530
 8:06 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

> Going back to my first post, it just seems to me that they dont pay as much attention to the issue as they perhaps should.

Oh, but they do, they do onionrep. You may not have seen it yet in the industry you are viewing, but you can be assured they are taking steps. Stick around here for update time and watch as the complaints come rolling in! ;)

You mention the most abused sectors. I can only guess what they are. I can also say that they are the most difficult to control. Its an ongoing battle for the real spammers and I'm sure you'll see the SERP's fluctuating greatly as the updates come and go.

onionrep




msg:111531
 9:05 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

will certainly be watching thats for sure :)

steveb




msg:111532
 1:27 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

The spam reporting form works, especially if you use it right. I may be a broken record on this but spam reporting should be at the top of every webmasters 'to do" list right after good content. Cheaters are stealing from search rank from non-cheaters. People who say not to report spam are saying you shouldn't report your car as stolen. It's ludicrous.

But use the spam report page right. Don't cram too much info on it. Eyes eventually glaze over at endless lists of pages. Report one page, and THE SEARCH RESULT WHERE THE PAGE APPEARS. List the exact problems and examples of each, including html code. Mention webmasterworld and googleguy. Wait for the next crawl and update, repeat if necessary.

This is a matter of karma although certainly not how suggested above. You let people steal from you (and others) and cheat you (and others) it will happen again, because you have de facto said it is okay.

Digimon




msg:111533
 1:53 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

The use of the spam report works. It's not an instant messenger software (as some of you would like) but it works. I reported several times a few months ago and after two updates I asked here about the efficacy of the reports. Some veterans told me wait after the third update. Fifteen days after -bum- the sites had dissapeared.
"the patience is the key of the wisdom" said the old man

Chris_R




msg:111534
 2:43 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

What google does with its website is its business.

If people want to be in *their* index they should play by *their* rules.

Just because people are in google does not mean they submitted to google. If google decides to include a page, then fine.

But as long as they crawl sites - they can't force anyone to abide by their "rules". I fail to see how someone who doesn't submit to google is REQUIRED to do what they say. Any site that scores well in the index google will find on its own. If they don't follow "their rules" they can be removed from "their index".

The google spam reporting form might as well be entitled the rat out your competitors form - as that is what it is 99% of the time.

Invisible text?

Users don't see that - it is invisible.

Google is more concerned with what USERS see - not what WEBMASTERS see.

They apparently use the info to help design better algos.

There will always be people who leverage the search engines to get traffic. No matter how much google does - they can't get rid of everyone who uses some technique to score better than someone else.

If you get rid of them - someone else will find another way around.

Invisible text is kindergarten SEO. I would LOVE to have those as my competitors.

Be careful what you wish for. They might be back without the invisible text next time.

Rick_M




msg:111535
 3:48 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Just to add my experience: I have filled out the spam report twice. The first time was after the major update in september - for one common search phrase, the first result was completely unrelated. That was gone within 48 hours. The other report was for a probably uncommon three word phrase after this past update where most of the first 50 results were from the same 3 sites with different subdomains and they redirected to commercial sites through affiliate links. Those sites are still showing at this time. In both reports I mentioned webmasterworld.

For those who think that because people are learning how to take advantage of pagerank means that the results of google will decline - you are only partially correct. You have to realize that the developers of google figured out one amazing technique to evaluate relevance of sites on the web (page rank) - that doesn't mean they can't figure out other methods of evaluating relevance. As long as google is ahead of the others, they will continue to have the most relevant results overall.

FredZeppelin




msg:111536
 4:31 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hello folks,
Where on Google is the SPAM report located?
Regarding "hidden text as kindergarten SEO" I've found sites with 100's upon 100's of UNRELATED keywords on the page bottoms, with no attempts to hide anything.
Sites like that are amazing when some of us invest so much time and effort into optimization.
They're not SEO'd , they're STO'd (short-term optimized).
;) LOL

powerstar




msg:111537
 4:49 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Google is the only free submitting search engine left out there.

Commercial listings are mostly spam on Google.

I'll argue that Google is the biggest spammed search engine out there but also the biggest one out there and because it is still free it is heavily targeted by SEO. In my opinion SEO job on Google usually mean spam. That's the only way to get some kind of real results ranking wise on Google.

GoogleGuy




msg:111538
 7:41 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Yup, we do read the spam reports. However, we put most of our effort into using that data to stop new spam from root causes. In fact, we're always testing out new technology, and I'd like if people would report any spam in other languages (German, French, Japanese).

steveb in message#21 really hit all the right points. Make sure that you fill the form out correctly, and it's better to mention one site per report. And it never hurts to mention webmasterworld, of course. onionrep, did you do that in your reports? :)

onionrep




msg:111539
 10:09 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

No, I didnt mention webmasterworld, But I may do so in future, especially if it raises the status of the report. :)

Im particularly please to hear your endorsement regarding cheats.

Your feedback is appreciated
- Thanks -

makemetop




msg:111540
 10:23 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Who you may view a 'cheat' may view you likewise for trying to manipulate results by removing other sites. There are only two real judges - the SE and the user. Webmasters are hardly ever impartial ;)

jackofalltrades




msg:111541
 10:44 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

>Webmasters are hardly ever impartial

Thats true, but at least we're all working in a broad range of areas....it helps develop consistently across the board.

If we all help keep our own markets clean, then surely its gotta make a difference!

:)

JOAT

This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 ( [1] 2 > >
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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved