Forum Moderators: open
These particular sites were (and are) bigtime linkspammers/PR-buyers. I'm not sure if they were reported or if the algo caught them, but I would guess it was the former rather than the latter, since these sites had consistently strong positions for several months and one had a fairly clever linking strategy.
I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from this phenomenon. Each of these sites that I've checked are still at it with the spammy strategy that presumably got them banned in the first place. Hopefully, google penalties wouldn't expire if the offense is still occurring. That leaves me to conclude that either the algorithmic filter that caught these sites is out to lunch, or the manually-applied penalty data isn't being taken into account.
Clearly this isn't sending the right message to these folks or to those who would use similarly questionable tactics. If you can do well for a few months before being caught, and then rise from the dead in post-penalty confusion, why wouldn't you keep spamming? Where's the deterrent to spam and the incentive to stay clean? It doesn't exactly speak to the effectiveness of the almightly spam report, either.
I can attest to this phenomenon in my industry, but are other people seeing this as well? What are your observations?
Geez, why not just give them a few grand worth of adwords clicks while you're at it, google?
I know of a site where I told GoogleGuy I would be reporting it on the spam report. It was removed within minutes of the report. Now it's back and it's still using the same hidden links that got it banned in the first place.
I also reported a couple of other sites that were using this exact same technique over a month ago and it seems my spam report was ignored.
In all cases, these sites are using images as links that match the background color. This is clearly a ploy to manipulate search results.
So now, not only are my spam reports being ignored, but now Google has reintroduced a banned site that is still using hidden links. My only hope is this is a temporary index before the pending monthly update. Otherwise, I'm of the opinion the Google Spam Report is useless.
What about the opposite case. I know a spammer site that I know is banned, not currently indexed, but has PR(6) and shows all of their backlinks. Is this normal for a banned site?
I don't think that's normal...in the past both PR and backlinks would disappear as well. At least its effectively dealt with, though. PR and backlinks are worthless without indexing.
I know of a site where I told GoogleGuy I would be reporting it on the spam report. It was removed within minutes of the report. Now it's back and it's still using the same hidden links that got it banned in the first place.
Which brings up an excellent question for Googleguy or just points out the obovious? Filters and new algos were "going to be applied etc." over time. I have seen some nice moves on Googles part as of the last week, but why, if Google is working correctly should Googleguy have to be asked to check on a certain site. I've seen him mention over and over again to please send a spam report, and most times from what I've read they have been dealt with swiftly. That would seem to indicate the spam filters are not working at 100%, but then again I don't think any SEO would want them set to high. It must be a "threshold" issue with the algos and some sites are just slipping under the radar.
I would be shocked to hear that they have.
Especially the ones that detect Javascript spammers (you know, the sites that use javascript to redirect a real user to a real site URL, and present lame machine generated optimised code to the search engine).
Currently - Google is still ranking that sort of amatuer crap on the front page across all 9 datacentres.
I hope the real spam filters get implemented soon...
It seems like we're just going back in time with the index. Esmerelda went from bad to good to bad (several cycles of that for some folks) in a month, and now its looking more like Demonic Dominic.
[edited by: Dolemite at 10:52 pm (utc) on July 14, 2003]
I never reported these sites, though they were definitely penalized for the past few weeks. So I can't say what mechanism was used to penalize them, whether automatic or manual, but at least one was employing a somewhat intelligent linking scheme that I believe would be reasonably difficult to algorithmically detect.
Anyway, I'll send in a spam report when I get the chance, probably sometime tomorrow.
I'd like to get these particular sites taken care of in a less transient way, but the topic of this thread is really relating to a bigger problem, IMO. It really looks like you guys dropped the ball a bit and threw in a bunch of penalized sites across the board, not just on keywords that affect me. I'd say this happened early last week, though I've taken your advice and stopped watching SERPs so closely. The ex datacenter was looking especially spam-free for several weeks.
I hate playing spam-cop...I'd really love to have some level of confidence in the integrity of the SERPs so I could focus on other things, but when spam bumps you out of position in a big way, its hard to ignore.
So, expect my spam report in the near future...and if you happen to have a big, red "Spam Killer" button, I say go for it.
I submitted one about 10 days ago, a series of cleverly linked sites, almost identical, just different towns/cities took virtualy the first 20 pages in the serps.
I'm quite new to SEO and it sometimes makes me wonder if its worth playing by the rules. These people are not bending the rules slightly, they are showing a total disregard for them.
There was a posting by a new member Adwords/something-or-other from Mountain View, CA here yesterday + one from GoogleGuy + one more.
All 3 have disappeared?
Not even an (edit) or a (snip) remains - nothing?
Moderators licence to delete I presume
Just a bit strange I thought.
Maybe this will vanish too
;-)
EW
Anyways...back to the topic...
There is definitely a reappearance of previously penalized sites. Is it possible, they have reappeared but with ranking penalties? Or could this be an old index they are using before they bring over the updated index?
If that is the case, then I guess it is only fair that all sites are treated equally. It would be unfair to have one group of sites treated according to one standard and a second group treated according to another.
Google’s algorithm will eventually be able to ignore a lot of spammy tactics, which will become a waste of time for spammers. Conversely, webmasters and Google staff do not have to waste time monitoring the spam sites.
Maybe the sites in question have rectified whatever it was that got them banned.
This is far from entirely true.
You should be getting my report later on today. I think you will be interested, especially if you haven't seen these sites before. One has bought itself into a PR8 quite handily.
Maybe the sites in question have rectified whatever it was that got them banned.
The sites I'm watching are definitely still at it.
If that is the case, then I guess it is only fair that all sites are treated equally. It would be unfair to have one group of sites treated according to one standard and a second group treated according to another.
In principle, I agree with you, but in practice there are too many variations of spamming to always be caught by even an evolving set of algoritms. Also, reported spam seems to be a good set of data on which to develop and test new algorithms, from what we've heard from GoogleGuy.
I always thought outbound links drained pageRank.
I submitted a report last week to google about sites using overflow: hidden; visibility: hidden; in div tags combined with other techniques such as sneaky redirects and cloaking, I've seen this technique working well on G for about 6 months and have been very tempted to use it but I figured that it would have a short lifespan and resisted, I could be wrong though.
I didn't expect instant results with my spam report and the sites are still up there but I'm sure that G will find a way to filter them out eventually.
Manually banning sites seems pretty trivial, unless the site is completely unrelated to the search. If the technique is working, many more sites will pop up doing the exact same thing.
I suspect, and hope that Google looks at the larger picture, rather than wasting their time on individual sites.
I guess if they find a page with hidden links they may as well just go ahead and penalize it, but the case of "buying PR" or manipulating links seems a lot less "cut and dry".
How can google filter an image that is a link that is the same color as the background? I see no way this can be done without human intervention. These are the sites that I am seeing back in the SERPS.
It's a MAJOR problem that will be difficult to solve with an algorithm.
What would you suggest? Should they manually check all 3 billion pages?
Anyway, if you are getting beat by pages that have invisible links, and this is the only reason for your failure, that shouldn't be very hard to overcome.
Anyway, if you are getting beat by pages that have invisible links, and this is the only reason for your failure, that shouldn't be very hard to overcome.
Actually, I do outrank these sites in many cases, but let me explain a little further...
The interlinked pages are all spam. What the webmaster does is write some text like this:
<H1>Insert keyword</h1>Looking for the widest selection of cars anywhere? Our website sells more <insert keyword that is a hyperlink> than anybody else. For selection and price on <insert keyword that is a hyperlink>, nobody beats us.
Every hyperlinked keyword takes you to the homepage of the site. Every "keyword" page contains images that interlink all the other keyword pages together.
OK, now the cat is out of the bag...where is Batman when you need him?
Google, as well as webmasters is much better off in the long term using the algo to fight spam.
Manually banning sites seems pretty trivial, unless the site is completely unrelated to the search. If the technique is working, many more sites will pop up doing the exact same thing.
The thing is, you will always be able to fool algorithms by stopping just short of the threshold or doing something new. People are harder to fool, since they can adapt, learn, and spot new techniques. Both mechanisms are needed to effectively reduce spam.
I guess if they find a page with hidden links they may as well just go ahead and penalize it, but the case of "buying PR" or manipulating links seems a lot less "cut and dry".
There are gray areas...I find myself wondering what I can legitimately do with my own domains, things that I normally wouldn't worry about. They'd pass a human review, but its the automatic filters that concern me. I think Google needs to provide some clarification about what's OK and what's not. With their algorithm so dependent on links and linking, its got to be hard for them to figure out what links to ignore or penalize for. I'd say its even harder for webmasters to determine what's OK when you have to compete against people who will stop at nothing.
The best thing is to make questionable tactics just plain not work. No penalties, no benefits, just neutrality. More of that and we could all get back to putting out the best content and most useful designs.
I have had repeated email conversations with Google tech support and they continually tell me different (and conflicting) stories on what the gray and white bars mean.
The end result of all those conversations was that we cannot reliably use the gray/white bar to tell if a site has a penalty applied.
The best thing is to make questionable tactics just plain not work. No penalties, no benefits, just neutrality. More of that and we could all get back to putting out the best content and most useful designs.
I agree. That would be the most efficient way to deal with the problem.
GRAY Bar.... I wouldn't read too much into the gray bar/white bar on the Google toolbar.I have had repeated email conversations with Google tech support and they continually tell me different (and conflicting) stories on what the gray and white bars mean.
The end result of all those conversations was that we cannot reliably use the gray/white bar to tell if a site has a penalty applied.
I'm confident in what happened here, anyway.
Spam + gray bar + missing in SERPs = penalty.
I'd say gray bars are even more likely to indicate penalties now that new pages consistently show white PR0 bars.
One I watch closely has actually gone up a position or two.
Is this the message Google wants to send? If so, I'm buying stock in Hormel. No sense cooking a steak when spam tastes this good.
