Forum Moderators: open
Mikkel - You've not stopped amazing me yet. I'm very pleased indeed that you are here making this effort. I do understand that it is in your best interest to do this, but I don't see other SEs actually participating. Hopefully they will at least benefit from your proactive approach. But, because you're the one doing all the hard work here, I hope you benefit the most on the SE end.
WebGuerrilla - Glad to hear that you have had recent dialog with AV. As far as the separate form for cloaking submission........I'm listening, for now.
All - I happen to agree with PeteU in that I'm remaining skeptical that anything will become of all of this. Although I do like the fact that we're talking about it, I just think that in the end, it will all still be the cat and mouse game that the cheaters play now and the rest of us suffer for it, because the cheaters will always try to find away around the system, and the rest of us will all be trying to get our relevant content to rank better than our client's competitors. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to eliminate this process.
So until we get a real workable solution, I'm listening, I'll contribute in a positive manner, but I'll remain skepticle. Maybe I'll be as pleasantly surprised when I'm proven wrong, as I am pleased that Mikkel is devoting time and effort here.
Lizzy - if they're relevant then its not spam. We were all newbie's at one stage.
Air suggested: "What I suggest is to use an existing standard. The robots exclusion standard, an agreed upon entry in the robots.txt file by anyone cloaking that would allow the engine to identify the pages about to be spidered as cloaked". I like this idea..
The thing that has a sour taste for me in this thread is the "pay to play" idea.. i think this is a bad idea too as not only will it knock out the smaller SEO specialists but whats to stop SE from then going on too the next pay for listing (like Littleman pointed out).. its not only the end of SE as it is today but it'll be the end of SEO.
Also Mikkel - IMO there definitely has to be an appeal process but its gotta have a "dont **** around again or else you get banned" clause. This will prevent spammers from spamming and then appealing over and over .
the other thing is that there are one or two posts that take a sceptical stance.. NOW i understand your very justified opinions but i think if we cant keep a +ve mind set .. then how can we really expect this issue to be sorted out.
Okay, that's my little motivational speech lets keep it going.. oh you Masters of the Web!
From MASTER Bates himself!
:)
---------------
Ultimately, I think that is where we will end up. Whether we like it or not, I think most se's have come to realize that the road to profibility is hidden in their search results. However, I think it will move in that direction in smaller steps. Charging to spidering rather than charging for position seems like a logical first step.
In AV's case, I doubt that there will be any kind of "certified cloaking" program real soon, but they are planning to introduce some form of "pay for consideration" program in the very near future. If they are going to start pushing for-fee services, I would prefer that they are related to spidering activity. If that doesn't pan out I think they will have to go the route of MSN and exploit LookSmart to the fullest extent.
AV is one of the last engines that still features spider content over human content. I would hat to see that change.
The database management costs will eventually go down, I was just reading of a MySQL application that is scalable and takes advantage of multiple servers (as an alternative to an Oracle database)- perhaps some enterprising person will take advantage of such a system and figure out how to build an SE that's cost do not break
the bank.
It is also very important to me to fully seprate any kind of paid services from the normal search or else we will cheat our users. In GoTo.com all users know that the listings are paid for and that's fine but a combination of paid links/submissions etc and the free search engines that most people know today is tricky. You probably all remember AV's mistake on this last year ... I will not redo that mistake ;)
I have to respectfully disagree with you on one point. The people I talk to are suprisingly very unaware of what's involved in our business. I talk to clients, friends, even people I work with, who haven't a clue about how SEs work. How could they be expected to know who updates on a regular basis?
I think it's easy for us to get insulated in our business, like any other professional. My mechanic has looked at me like I've lost my marbles more than once. ;-) If you were to start asking people on the street to name five Search Engines, most wouldn't be able to name more than two correctly.
The fact is, most people don't want to know how things work, they just want the light to come on when they throw the switch. So, I don't think the paid for listings is so much of a stretch, until someone wants to throw several million into an awareness campaign to educate the idiots in front of their boob-tubes.
It's true even for web professionals. I'm constantly amazed at the lack of comprehension, even among pros who've been doing site design for years.
That's what wonders me the most. [Pennsylania Dutch idiom]
Who would create anything on a professional level without having a good understanding how the message gets to its destination? If you create a print or broadcast campaign you study demographics like a madman to make sure you're going to reach your target audience.
The lights are very slow to come on about search engines -- but they are coming on, little by little. Right now there's just enough awareness to make some very fertile ground for the sharks and snake oil salesmen.
About the future road to be taken by SE.. i think that pay for listing/spidering wont last and that rankings will probably be rated according to popularity (click thru's of a site at a SE).
What do you think of this agreement (details are kinda sketchy) between intkomi and MediaDNA where Ink has supposidly endorsed MDNA's cloaking technology? There is a press release from mdna about it, but we've not been able to get anyone at Inktomi to talk about it. There was also a story on Internet.com.
press release [hoovershbn.hoovers.com]
internet news story [internetnews.com]
As to defining spam, Redzone offered this suggestion in another thread and I think it's an excellent start.
1. The content is targeted to the optimized keyword phrase
2. One listing per SE per keyword phrase
As to your position on cloaking, you've been VERY clear. AV for example has a detailed help area with extensive info on submission policies and preferences and I'd like to see EVERY SE provide something similar. If SEs would tell us what's acceptable, we'd be happy to comply. So far, it's been mostly a trial and error process for SEOs.
>There will be no penalty for cloaking (2) - only for spam
Agreed, my mistake, poor choice of words...
> If you mean how we would secure that all sites get penalized equally then I can't guarantee that
I think your 3% or less goal is excellent. Also, there are several very large SEOs firm that have dedicated servers to present cloaked pages, and there are rumors of SEO firms partnering with SEs to present content from behind firewalls for indexing while maintaining security. These "Big Guys" should not get preferential treatment.
>Offcouse there should be some kind of appeal process available. I am not sure though, if I think it is fair that we have to cover the costs of manually reopen a case and evaluate the site again. I think we would need to charge for the time it will take us but I am not sure yet.
My suggestion is the first time a submitter is found spamming, an email warning shoud be sent directing them to a page with your policies. After that, penalize them as necessary, banning their site or burying their listing. If they choose to appeal, a "fine" is appropriate to cover your costs of reviewing.
Just for the record, I think it was Simple Enigma that suggested the idea of submitting cloaked pages to a different URL then non-cloaked pages, perhaps in the SEF forums, but I'll take credit for it! :)
Another point to note. While this is the first public disclosure of an Inktomi deal with a company that uses cloaking, it isn't the only one. I spoke recently with somomone from another cloaking company that said they have been actively contacting SE's and showing them what they do. Inktomi was one of the engines that they said gave them a basic stamp of approval.
Inktomi has expressed in the past that they consider 90% of URL's submitted to them as spam. If this is true (it seems a bit high to me) then implementing an add url spam penalty [webmasterworld.com] would certainly be the most cost effective (from their perspective) short term solution. Not only does it put the bad sites far down the list, It makes the remaining 10% so frustrated that they will jump at a chance to pay some money to have their sites not subjected to such abuse.
I know that regardless of my personal opinion of their approach, I am one of the ones that would pay for stability. Their reach combined with client demands make it impossible for me to simply boycott them because I don't agree with their business decisions.
If enough people "bite the bullet" and pay, similar programs will be quickly implemented (IMHO)at several other engines.
This would cover most of the pages in search engines,
meaning they think almost everything on the internet is worthless garbage.
Most of that 90% they consider worthless is of value
to someone somewhere. The adult sites, the doorway pages
to affiliate programs, all the things that look like junk, actually have value in the marketplace. The great thing about the internet is that all the junk has always been available to anyone who cares to see it. I have a problem with anyone who wants to tell me which pages are worth seeing and which ones are being banned from my sight because someone has decided it has no value. Put it all out there and let ME be the judge.
Would you want SEs to include:
Multiple domains for the same pages?
Unfinished pages?
Multiple keword stuffed spam-doorways?
Cloaked pages that are pure spam?
I don't think indexing such things would improve the users experience :)
These people have been spaming for long time. You can also check the rest of the 200,000 pages and see "how" relavent is the information.
It's completely contraproductive and it's hurting everyone.
The SE, the clients and the good sites.
Well maybe one person may be happy. :)
You see what I mean?
Actually I think it boils down to special, specific regional SE & directories.
It's the way to go!
I checked your search out at AV. The Costa Rica Internet Directory a spammer? Maybe I'm a little dense. I think they were a relevant return. They provide the ability to look for real estate in Costa Rica. They do provide other information, but they do provide the information that the searcher is looking for if they use your search.
Like I said, maybe I'm missing something. Want to explain?
