percentages - 9:54 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

>It might not be that relevant for most people searching for 'Britney Spears', but it's extremely relevant for anyone who happens to be searching for any of the 593 'alternative' spellings listed on that page.

Google shows that over 30,000 people per month are searching for Britney using an incorrect spelling on that very page. Do you actually think people are deliberately doing this? No chance, they are people who are making errors, and Google is getting them as visitors because of this spam page.

>It's a page about the misspelling of Britney Spears, for goodness sake! How can it not mention the misspellings? The correct spelling is only mentioned twice on the page.

Yup, mentioned twice on a site that is not about Britney, but still ranks on the first page! No Britney theme, no real Britney content, no Britney information, just a bunch of common keywords.....is that not the definition of spam?

It could simply state that Britney Spears is mis-spelt over 500 times per month by 30,000+ searchers.....the fact it chooses to show the keywords is an interesting anomaly!

If a site is allowed to post totally irrelevant content in the guise of being about mis-spellings of common search terms, then can we all do the same without fear of penalty?

I concede most of us don't want untargeted traffic, but as we all know adult sites target everything. When they do, they get penalized for spamming.....is Google any different? I'm sure there are lots of sites that would like 30,000+ visitors per month for untargeted traffic in some hope of making an impulse sale.....or just for exposure.

One final thought from the Google guideline at [google.com...]

"Don't load pages with irrelevant words."....well Google explain this one away please!