Forum Moderators: open
Here's the thread -
[webmasterworld.com...]
Now they are back in again - only 3 and a half months - if that's all it takes to get back in no wonder people ignore the rules - I was impressed with Google at the time - no so much now.
It's certainly worth the risk if you only get "banned' for a few months.
These people went to a lot of trouble to fool Google and almost got away with it - do you think a 3 month ban will discourage them? neither do I, and if they succeed then all their competitiors will have to follow.
I would like to hear from "GoogleGuy" about this.
The point is if it's only a 3 month ban for a very sophisticated spam technique where's the incentive not to do it?
Not much in my book and if that's the way it is then when the positions aren't good enough you may as well go for it.
Dodger... I certainly don't want to down-play your point, but I have several clients selling online between $250,000 and $500,000 a month. Three months would certainly hurt!
If you are dealing with that kind of money, there is a real incentive to always try to stay above board, and not do anything to get you in trouble in the first place.
Steve
rfgdxm1 - any easy way of checking out if they got in using spam again?
I would tend to think that most people (even working out of their garage) that are making a few thousand a month, would prefer to build a lasting business and be assured of that couple grand, rather than have it in jeopardy.
Unfortunately, there will always be the dodgy characters trying to make a fast buck. Most of these 'in-and-out' operators that you refer to, like common con artists, will generally not win in the longer term.
We can only hope that Google can - sooner rather than later - start handling the spam reports more expeditiously, and introduce better safeguards in their algo.
Steve
First offense get removed for 3 months after the site is cleaned up.
Second offense, get removed for good.
I think that would probably deter a lot of people who are on the fence about spamming.
All good things take time!
Eventually it will be a spam free world and we will all be in GoogleTopia!
I think once people realize spam may not be the way to go they go a different route in building content and really working up their site. the thought of getting banned right off the bat scares people and when your in that position it makes you see the light really quick to resolve the issues.
I dont think there should be a set amount of time, infact i think the idea of not knowing when you will be included back in again or even get a reply to makes people more worried. Its like if google was to offer a reinclusion fee for the people who spammed. Many people have tons of money for advertisement so they will pay up to have it fixed, if they can spam for a certain amount of time till they get cought and their spamming makes them a % higher than without spamming then it works the math.
Keep it on the down low, dont make penelty lengths of time, or use what your using now, I dont spam my own sites, and i clean up my cleints sites who do spam -- so thats my point of view. :D
If they can cheat and only get 3 months it's not a penalty at all.
I just posted elsewhere and suggested that banned sites once re - admitted should be flagged and monitored by using automated scripts to check if they are still ok - this should be a permanent fixture for the site once re-admitted - offend again and out for good.
But an initial 3 months is not good enough.
There's lots of messages here from frustrated site owners who contracted an SEO to increase their rankings only to find later they've been dumped because of spam techniques used by the SEO.
A three month ban is a fairly hefty price to live with, whatever amount of dollars you are making on the web, but short enough to encourage site owners to clean up their pages, fire their previous SEO, and get back to good clean content.
Twice bitten then you're stupid. Third time caught, gone for good.
We see how well that is working with criminals!
If somebody spams once and gets caught, they certainly know not to do it again and they better educate themselves.
Get caught again, and your gone for good!
I'm glad that this came up. What do people think are the right lengths of time in the "penalty box" when a site is spamming? Anyone want to propose suggestions?
Well, it needs to be serious enough that when people hear about it- they stop and go "Oh, we can't risk that."
At the same time if they are running more than 1 domain?
While 'how long enough is relative' I'd submit a solid year is good and harsh. I'd also liek some way of looking up whether a domain had/has a penelty attached to it. Folks may let the domain drop- then other's pick it up and are crippled for no reason.
If G kept a database available to the public about which domains where hit, it could be helpful.
Cheers,
AW
The first question is to what degree is it spam? A keyword stuffed doorway page that redirects to a quality page of the same subject may be useful spam - where as - a page stuffed with real estate terms that redirects to adult pages is misleading spam.
Should they both pay the same price?
If the search results lead to pages that don't relate to the original search - there should be a big price to pay.
If the seach results lead to pages that are on topic, google should be far more understanding.
Not all situations should be painted with the same brush.
I define spam as "any search result that leads me to anything other than what I'm looking for".
How exactly does Google define spam?
-s-
If Google want to try to keep control of the quality of their index and hence their reputation they had better make the penalties harsh - it takes luck and someone prepared to lodge a spam report to catch some of these guys and to let them off with 3 months is just not good enough.
Spam is spam - no if's or buts - it's the same for the redirect to an adult page as a real estate page - don't confuse the issue by overcomplicating it.
That's like saying a shoplifter deserves the death penalty. There are different degrees of spamming IMHO.
I would say that 3-6 months on, for example, hidden text would be suffice.
I think it would be good also to let the webmaster know that their site is being penalized and when they can be considered for re-inclusion.
One year. However, I wouldn't object to Google showing some mercy in the case of a non-commercial site where the evidence pointed to the webmaster perhaps getting "advice" from some clueless friend who knew just a little about search engines, or read some outdated SEO guide. I've actually run across a fair number of cases where amateur webmasters did this. In fact, I've seen huge blocks of *visible* keyword stuffed text at the bottom of amateur home pages. Proving the webmaster was clueless, and didn't realize he was begging to get nailed for SE spamming. Any commercial sites should be expected to do their homework, and know this is foul ball.
Non commercial sites could be an exception - but why would a non commercial site have hidden text?
For Google's sake and to give this any chance of happening it would have to be a blanket rule for all - there is no time to treat each site seperately when you have 3billion web pages to look after, let's be honest.
A big warning up front - those who don't take notice have no one to blame but themselves.
Even put the warning on the homepage as well - would achieve 2 things - would warn all submitters and notify everyone that Google is serious about having a non spammed site so the results will be better.
A good ad for Google.
I agree. But Google does accept reinclusion requests now.
>A big warning up front - those who don't take notice have no one to blame but themselves.
>Even put the warning on the homepage as well - would achieve 2 things - would warn all submitters and notify everyone that Google is serious about having a non spammed site so the results will be better.
THIS idea I like. "WEBMASTERS: Don't get you site banned by Google. Click here to find out more." This would at least inform the clueless.
I'm running my thoughts over 2 threads.
[webmasterworld.com...]
What about this idea -
I edit for DMOZ and I can tell you that as good as these ideas are they don't seem to ever get put into practice.
I think the best and simplest way is to make it clear to all that the spam days are over - clean up your site or it will be out for 12 months after which time you can resubmit.
The index won't suffer as there are plenty of good sites out there to take their place.
It would be great to have a "pay for" service where you can have your site checked by Google and it gets a "no spam" tick or you get advice on how to fix it.
Some mechanism would have to be in place to make sure that you stay "Google friendly" As long as the fee was reasonable I'd be in it tomorrow even just for the peace of mind.
Google could even sub contract this work out.
Commercial sites would be glad to pay and non commercial sites can just follow the guidlines - it's not rocket science especially for a small non commercial site.
How about a warning and an ad for Google -
ANNOUNCEMENT
Google has a no spam policy in place to give the public the best search experience possible.
In order to maintain the quality of our index all submitters are advised to take particular notice of our "Submission Guidlines" (linkthrough)
Any site found within Google in breach of these guidlines will be banned from our index.
Perhaps this job could be sub contracted to SEO's who prove they are up to it. Get a "Google Certification"
I think I deserve the service free because I thought of it :)
In order to maintain the quality of our index all submitters are advised to take particular notice of our "Submission Guidlines"
Yea, that would work great if we were still in 1996. No one submits. Google crawls.
