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.
I have heard so many company webmasters who try to get betters SERPs and just try out what they heard some years ago (e.g. hidden text) or what they read from an article from a so called expert. Many companies are just starting to realise that they need more visitors from search engines. So they try out something they think could work.
That is why I think it would be the best to leave the penalty as long as the hidden text (or whatever the cause of the penalty was) is online. If people realise that they have better results after removing their hidden text... they will learn something from it. If the same domain is getting penalties again and again then it could make sense for longer penalties.
For example, are we talking about handchecks or is GG thinking about automatic checking and, in which case, what would the safeguards be? What is defined as "hidden text"? #fff text on #fff body? How about #fff on #fefefe? How about #fff text on #fff body (except the text is in a div with a #333 background)? How about #fff text on a body with a background image?
No, I don't agree with the principle of "hidden text" as you seem to be referring to it. But without handchecks I would be interested in how this is going to be implemented.
And, if Google are going to take the time to do handchecks on the thousands of sites using "hidden text" in the way it is referred to here, and the many thousands more which have been flagged for their dhtml menus (for example) then as a searcher I would prefer them to spend that time and energy elsewhere.
To be honest, I don't see this particular area as a major problem corrupting the search results. Maybe people blaming it as a reason for their sites not ranking higher should spend more time looking at their own site, rather than participating in the "smoke and mirrors" of Google's PR policy. (And if you don't agree with that description, GoogleGuy, then I challenge you to offer a realistic way in which this area could be controlled.)
Take away the "hidden text" and people will be complaining about the "spammy" way that a site in competition with theirs is using more mentions of a certain keyword in their site.
Site
Placed
Above
Mine
The pro spammer doesn't give a hoot on discussions like this.
Well if you haven't submitted then I guess you won't mind if you are banned.
You know more about this than me - you know what I'm getting at - how would you do it?
I second that. There are too much amateurs out there, you can't penalize them too long for their lack of knowledge. The same goes for a little 'natural meant but artificially crosslinking' and similar 'non-professional spam'. Just downrank the pages as long as the useless stuff is up.
Another case is professional spam. For example folks who use scripts to produce zillions of pages, flooding the index from tons of domains, should get banned for life. They know what they do.
Between these extremes there is much room for judging. I think long lasting penalties should be reserved for premeditation.
That's a scarry thought - and who defines spam with a policy like that.
Can I use a keywood 10 times - will 12 get me banned. If I have a directory of page that has moved and I redirect all of them via .js is that spam and is someone going to check to see if I'm a spammer or just a good web developer.
Google favors simple, HTML pages - does that mean pages using current technology are spam?
Again - spam is a clear attempt to "con, mislead, cheat, steal" a surfer from what they are searching for to another subject.
-s-
Exmaple, hidden text: As long as the hidden text is present, the domain should be banned. Once the offence is gone, there shouldn't be an issue.
For more serious offences, such as bot feeding, massive cross linking scams, stealing PR from expired domains, etc, there really should be much longer term penalties, up to and including banning the domain until it's expiry date.
People who are doing a little SEO and cross the line a bit shouldn't pay the same penalty as someone who is very obviously "going for broke".
Did you get my email, btw?
Alex
I'ts quite easy - just need to tighten up the guidlines a bit.
Then no more excuses.
"...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..."
This is not fair.
I purchased unknowingly a troubled domain. Why does my cleanly developed site have to be monitored? And why does still carry a PR0 with newly added links?
Also, there has to be room for webmasters making mistakes. I do this for a living (12+ hours a day) and our program has over 7000 webmasters. What if someone makes a silly mistake such as <a href=" "></a> with no text filling? This is such a common mistake when you work with 'find and replace' over hundreds of files... Will that site get banned for a ...mistake?
Mistakes are overcome by EDUCATING not punishing.
I see dozens of mistakes (mines included) throughout a single day of work from not more than the 10 webmasters at the office. When you run 5 pages only all can be under control but when you manage 1 million uniques a day over hundreds and hundreds of files, silly mistakes happen.
Google can penalize but educating will go a long way. Many months ago I made a silly mistake that costs us dearly. I only realized a problem had occured by chance (and fixed it). I would have appeciated a word from Google that my sites were offenfing their algo since all along, our intention was (and is ) to work along Google's TOS guidelines.
Not every website owner may be easily contacted, but I commonly leave an email on my pages just for that purpose. Google's algo is too quick to equally hit the bad guys and the innocent ones who are just making mistakes.
Educating too.
Interesting question, and in itself one which will inevitably give rise to different points of view.
However, I would bounce back the following question: does Google really want to get into the business of dishing out 'justice'?
Think about it, and the implications of it. I don't think you do. I don't think setting penalty times as a 'punishment' like that helps Google or anyone else.
If a site breaks boundaries... fair enough... out with it. If it doesn't, or particularly, if it subsequently resinds the breach, then call off the hounds. Maybe not instantly, but perhaps do a re-check of a site's status every 2 or 3 months (or whatever). A re-check.... still naughty leave it out... breach sorted, let it back in. Surely that can't be too hard to do? Is it not a reasonable approach?
An indefinite ban really is waaay over the top. Just take a look at a posting I did a few days ago: [webmasterworld.com...]
That sort of thing must be happening all the time and Google really must sort it out. There must be stacks of really good sites which are banned, and for which the owner has done nothing wrong and simply has no idea why Google won't index it properly.
Again, it doesn't help the owner, the surfer, or Google itself.
I think Google has a bit of work to do in this area. The fact that Mr GG is asking questions in this area is hopefully a good sign that it is at least looking at the task.
Education is fine but Google wouldn't be so lame as to let spammers use the "I'm sorry I made a mistake" excuse - you must be joking - this is a business.
I'm sorry my site is full of hidden text and IP redirects from pages stuffed with keywords but it was "a mistake" ROFL
I don't think protecting their reputation and the qualty of their index could be called "dishing out justice"
Google has got this far adhering to certain solid principles - they will stay ahead of the pack only by continuing and improving and reinforcing their adherence to those principles.
[edited by: dodger at 10:14 pm (utc) on April 19, 2003]
as for your remarks of "this is business", this is correct. Some are within this side of things while others have crossed the line, for different reasons. I personally think most webmasters are trying to play fair and Google should concentrate on this before punishing wide and wild.
I would never consider anyone at Google being lame. They seem to be aware of webmasters who misuse their TOS guidelines. I would only wish that they act responsibly in seeing beyond the little world of individual webmasters whose only resort is to report 'spam', as oppose to building content.
The "little world" as you put it, of individual webmasters who report spam is vitally important to the quality of the index.
Would you suggest that no one reports spam and just concentrates on their own site?
That would be very cosy for all the spammers now wouldn't it.
That's exactly what they want.
You wouldn't want that now would you?
Except Google may change the definition of spam without warning. Today you might be fine tomorrow any of us could be transgressing some unwritten, unpublished and unannounced new Google rule.
Or be linked to somebody who is.
>>That sort of thing must be happening all the time and Google really must sort it out. There must be stacks of really good sites which are banned, and for which the owner has done nothing wrong and simply has no idea why Google won't index it properly.
Napoleon, this is very profound. There really are stacks of good sites being banned. Banning good sites that are blameless ultimately degrades the Google index. It is a bit like firing employees - at some point you start damaging the company if you fire too many.
Hehe. If I were Google's competitors I would start looking for these really good sites that have been banned and using them in my advertising. (Just like the Visa vs. America E*press commercials.) "But you better use Teoma to find Super Widgets, because you won't find this award winning site in Google."
Bans, punishments, and SERP delisting should be in scaled to the crime - most importantly to not allow re-entry into the index until those crimes are removed from the site. I also thing that, just like the expired domains not profitting from past links, I think a domain that has been in the penalty box for more than a few months should have all of it's previous back links ignored.
I also think Google would do itself a big favor to hire a few more humans to review popular / common SERPs to spot and remove spam as it occurs. While playing with the algo is good to try to get rid of the tricks used to get listed, I think that humans can better spot the abusers and take immediate action to remove those results from the SERPs. Humans also can do a better job at tracking down the relationships that made these SERPs appear to begin with, and start to take away the fuel that makes these things happen. Too many of the algo solutions in the last while appear resolve symptoms but not the problems, which is why they re-occur.
Tracking and banning the big abusers from the SERPs and PR ratings will go a long way to helping make the results the surfers see way more relevant, way more useful, and extend the lifespan of google as the net's best search engine.
Alex
Although I say most, because some spam is extraordinarily mean spirited and even unlawful in other public mediums which may deserve a harsher penalty.
I really think a scale of infraction severity and punishment will be required... we have simple keyword stuffing to mass stealing of content to attempts of wrongful banning.
We the people of the internet in order to form a more perfect union... Yes the Google Bill of Rights and a Constitution of Laws.
Also, it is likely that spam got the offender into a high serp position and once the spam is removed and they reenter the index, they will likely be in their rightful place... out of sight!
"...Would you suggest that no one reports spam and just concentrates on their own site?
That would be very cosy for all the spammers now wouldn't it.
That's exactly what they want.
You wouldn't want that now would you?..."
I don't care one way or the other.
But personally, filling out a report spam with all the emotionally-charged sentiment it creates (which may take days to unwind) takes me away from developing my own content, a VERY labor intensive task. So this is how I have chosen to spend my time -and I am beating spammers in quite a few searches-
Regardless of how useful reporting spam is, there seems to be 2 basic ways of handling the problem: punishing negative behaviour or rewarding positive one.
How many times on this board has been discussed Google potentially rewarding correct use of TOS guidelines?
<<If spammers realize they won't last more than a few weeks before de listing, more will have to conform>> are you kidding? If Google could achieve that the problem would be solved.
Could a SE collapse under the weight?
Alex
i.e what should the penalty for hidden text be, what should the penalty for cloaking,etc. etc. I don't see creating different "levels" of spam violations. To me a site is either conforming or non conforming. All spam should be penalized equally.
I think a "pay for" service where your site could be looked at or re checked would be a great help, as long as the charge was reasonable.
You missed my point entirely Dodger.
Brad's on the button.
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?
Probably wading in a bit late here, but aren't you all being a bit harsh? I agree with Brad here (on the fact that many good sites can be banned). In fact I personally managed to get a site penalised by naively putting in a hidden link to our own site - no dark motives, just wanted people who knew enough to click the "View Source" button to know who had coded the site.
I was under the impression that Google just ignores anything in HTML comment tags (rightly so) - can it not just do the same for hidden text? Obviously there would have to be a penalty for text that is hidden in complex ways (CSS, background images etc.) and I think 1-3 months would be fair depending on the amount of text involved.
Also agree 100% with the fee-based tell-me-why-I'm-penalised service.
Ok Napoleon and Brad get your cheque books out because if you want the "touchy feely" personal touch then you had better be prepared to pay for it.
IMHO.
Go go go ........... there are no free lunches - Google needs revenue to keep up the good work and webmasters need advice they can rely on - please do it!
Missed again... that's not what I was suggesting at all. Far from it.
