Forum Moderators: open
<added>if you find this popular lake keep in mind that while the first wto have several external backlinks each it weighs out when the next three have NONE. I'll go check av and msn and atw.</added>
What is Google's incentive to worry much about these travel spammers? As it has been pointed out, the other search engines have the same problem with these travel spammers.
They want to be the best.
They inspire to provide quality search results across the entire web.
They want me to make a lot of money from their efforts. ;)
What is Google's incentive to worry much about these travel spammers?
Staying #1, so they'll continue to have an audience that they can sell to advertisers (via AdWords) and search partners.
As it has been pointed out, the other search engines have the same problem with these travel spammers. Thus, people aren't going to switch using Google for other search engines if they have travel SERPs that are just as spammy.
That attitude sounds like U.S. automotive companies in the 1960s and '70s. Q. Why should have GM have worried about quality when Ford and Chrysler weren't any better? A.: Because Toyota, Honda, and other Japanese car companies were waiting in the wings. (Note: I don't think Google is going to make the same mistake.)
even to the extent Google does fight the spammers, it's just a game of Whack-A-Mole. Whack one spam site, and the spammer puts up 2 more.
Yes, and maybe Google will just have to start whacking harder until spammers get the message.
Those who wish to do well with Google in the travel biz perhaps should get used to paying for Adwords.
Some of us are ranking high and getting a lot of traffic from Google without spam techniques. How? By providing valuable content to our audiences instead of playing the moles in the Whack-a-Mole game. That's good for us, it's good for users, and it's also good for Google (which has never made any secret of its commitment to the idea that "content as king").
Some of us are ranking high and getting a lot of traffic from Google without spam techniques. How? By providing valuable content to our audiences instead of playing the moles in the Whack-a-Mole game. That's good for us, it's good for users, and it's also good for Google (which has never made any secret of its commitment to the idea that "content as king").
True, and the top sites provided in the original search to this thread provide quality content regardless of whether they are local or national directories (all directories). There are several very high quality directories that should definitely be there. Actually, I decided to break it down. Of course their will be some subjectivity but I will try to view it as a surfer.
1.BS local directory
2.local property mgmt. Good backlinks
3.good national lodging and vacation directory
4.top notch national directory
5.Hidden text at top of page, one link to not much content.
6.Good local directory
7.indented from above domain
8.local ski resort-this is what I would hope to find. tons of content
9.another national directory
10.local golf course with link to page called vacations that has a phone #
11.excellent local directory
12.local lodging directory
13.Home page to #4. Has one link to "lake popular"
14.Main frame of #1
15.news.htm of #10. Contains only opening dates of course, spring 2002
16.16 page site about one house.
17.another good local lodging directory
18.southwest air, very nice, lots of content
19.pr 0, content eh
20.another good local lodging directory
21.has six vacation rentals
22.coolvacations.
23.#19 again
24.from here on it turns into airline affilates (i.e. #18 and 22 and more) with very similar, often duplicate content.
I reported this via the dissatisfied with results form last month (only the duplicate content and the frameset-mainframe thing) to no avail.
Some of the airline sites should probably be higher, Im not sure why they are not. But then they get repeated and repeated.
Here's a typical search and what I see: search = CityName LodgingType
When I do this search, I expect to see a page with a list of one-to-many "LodgingTypes", in the particular "CityName" of my search. I don't expect to have to do additional searches throughout the site to finally get the results I originally requested from Google. ...right?
#1 = site with lots of backlinks and prominent "city name" phrases. But this site is constructed around two distinct and separate industries. Industry #1 (not travel related) has lots of inbound links from other (and self-owned) industry related websites trading reciprocal links. Site #1 has REALLY taken advantage of this. Industry #2 (travel-related) has few (mostly self-owned) related backlinks, is poorly written and not well SEO'ed for this industry. One must do additional searches to get to specific results that were enumerated in the original Google search.
#2 = Results from different area of site #1 (above) with more emphasis on travel-related content showing. Still required to do additional searches to obtain specific results.
#3 = Bridge page from "heavyweight" in "CityName LodgingType" industry. The "search-specific" pages from this site are buried waaaay down in the results. Again, additional searches must be accomplished to get to the results specified in the original Google search.
#4 = "travel-related" site with huge presence in DMOZ (over 50 links - I quit researching) of this website name and/or links from other domains it appears this company has acquired - many not in a "travel-related" industry. (What happened to the DMOZ directory "rule" of ONE entry [maybe two] per website?) Again, one additional search or more is required to get to the specific results specified in the original Google search.
This could go on and on but here's my point. Farther down in the Google results (depending on the amount of search competition) EXACT page results begin to show: that is, I click on a page and I see MY specified city with a list of MY specified "LodgingTypes". Yes, specific pages DO exist in Google for specific searches but they are not ranking well. I think search engines can (and do) provide good results for travel related searches. But not Google; at least, not right now. I think the flaw is evident in the results above showing:
1. Back links (results from position #1 and #2, above) can be easily obtained in some industries and a cleverly crafted site can take advantage of this to SPAM effortlessly.
2. Even good websites with good page content, on topic and good SEO, must create any number and manner of bridge pages just to compete with the spammers and "near spammers".
3. DMOZ is just about useless as a directory anymore because of the corruption. How Google can rely on this mess anymore goes beyond belief - and maybe to credibility and integrity.
Is this Google's intent - to have search engine results that get one to a website that will allow additional searches or link clicking to finally (hopefully) get one to the specific information requested from Google? I think not. And while these Google results do not exactly fit the definition of SPAM, they come so close as to place Google's reputation for meaningful results in jeopardy.
You appear not to be a happy bunny.
You don't like Google
bad quality SERPS. But I am seeing this for a variety of different reasons and I think it is predominant in all Google results - just magnified in travel industry searches because they are often so specific.
And you don't like DMOZ
DMOZ is just about useless as a directory anymore because of the corruption.
Cannot say I agree with you on either observation as a generality.
So what is your solution?
Google is already paying special attention to travel sites. Regional Googles travel SERPs are different on Google.de, google.co.uk etc. to google.com, even for non-local search.
You won't find any other searches which rank differently. I think this is because the 2 highest profit areas on the web are sex and travel, and merit special attention.
If I were a search engine, and I wanted to skim some of the profit off my results, I would certainly pay special attention to search areas where the surfers are ready to spend $$$. Unfortunately people looking for Britney Spears lyrics are not likely to shell out lots of money for them. Of course all areas should return good results, but big ticket items with high search volume are from Google's perspective, more important.
On the other hand, the top 10 results for "Paris tourist information" are nearly all on topic.
I assume this is because the search phrase "Paris travel" has been the focus of SEO efforts, while "Paris tourist information" hasn't received much attention on the SEO front.
How does Google deal with this kind of search-quality problem? The only solution I can think of is to exclude hotel-booking pages from searches that aren't specifically on terms such as "hotels," "accommodation," and "lodging." This wouldn't target reservations sites or affiliate sites specifically; it would also mean that, for example, the Hotel Meurice's Web site and a New York Times review of the Hotel Crillon also wouldn't come up in a search on a general term like "Parist travel." But those pages (as well as the booking-site pages) would come up if someone searched on "Paris hotels," "Hotel Meurice," or "Hotel Crillon."
My proposed solution wouldn't solve the problem of spam and duplication in the lodging categories, but it would at least keep lodging sites from cluttering up non-lodging search results.
Note: "Apartment rentals," "self-catering," "car rentals," etc. could also be put on the "keep out of general search results" list. The user who's searching on "Paris" or "Paris travel" probably isn't looking for information on a self-catering apartment or a car rental at that point in time--and, if he is, he can easily search on an appropriate phrase.
You guessed it; my bunny ears are pinned back...
I DO like Google and DMOZ but mostly from memories of what once was. Seems then the task was to provide searchers the best possible results. Now, I can't figure *what* DMOZ's purpose is, other than to provide pirates the opportunity to hijack the rankings at Google and others. Google - I don't know. Obviously there's a lot of talent and desire there but I can't ignore the SERPs.
Its not just from my great Google rankings from past years going down the tubes - I USE the Internet and search engines a lot; for news, pleasure, research and purchases, both business and personal. In the past, I used Google - a lot. But now I find that with many searches on Google I have to do more work to find what I desire than either Teoma or MSN. Both Teoma and MSN also seem to give me more pertinent choices for any given search. But as I stated, I don't like wading through a site when I gave Google the info necessary to get me directly to the info page I requested - that some SEO-person previously prepared for me - on that site in the first place. Google USED to do it right... or at least, better than anybody.
In short, Google no longer works well for me as a user or for SEO, and I think they need to drop back a rev or two on their current algo and start earning the praises of their many followers. Otherwise... can you say Infoseek or Alta Vista...?
I just searched MSN and Teoma on "Paris travel" (the example I used in my post above), and the results were no better than in Google. At least Google didn't serve me a pop-up the way MSN did. :-)
Google faces the same problem as Microsoft Outlook or Internet Explorer: Because it's the leader in its field, it gets targeted by everyone who's looking for a hole to exploit. And in Google's case, there's a real incentive to look for holes, because Google can deliver so much traffic to e-commerce sites.
Right now, there are two specific (and different) challenges facing Google:
(1) Keeping spam out of its SERPs. This requires identifying and penalizing unacceptable SEO tricks.
(2) Keeping irrelevant results (including results that aren't spam) out of its SERPs. This requires tweaking the algorithm so that certain types of results (e.g., lodging) don't take over search results for other topics such as destinations or general terms like "travel".
I'd like to see Google give more attention to (2), because that solution may be easier to implement than (1). It may not fix the spam problem in categories such as lodging, but it will at least reduce clutter in search results for destination and general travel keyphrases that have been hijacked by commercial sites in "SEO-intensive" product categories.
The only solution I can think of is to exclude hotel-booking pages from searches that aren't specifically on terms such as "hotels," "accommodation," and "lodging."
Isn't it easy for the punter to do that for themselves by adding "-hotels" or whatever to the search to eliminate spurious (for that particular search) results
A brief foray into Paris serps showed that the results were "better" in the terms of a user not wanting that information.
And on that happy note, I am off to France on a night ferry. From here there is a strong gale blowing and it looks like a choppy crossing
Au Revoir :)
Isn't it easy for the punter to do that for themselves by adding "-hotels" or whatever to the search to eliminate spurious (for that particular search) results?
Trouble is, most searchers don't do that. And Google's success depends on being a useful tool for a mass audience, not just for people who know how to perform advanced searches.
BTW, I'm often amazed by how many people find my site with one- and two-word searches--even for terms where they must have waded through several pages of search results before finding my site.
I just searched MSN and Teoma on "Paris travel" (the example I used in my post above), and the results were no better than in Google.
You are probably right, but Google is SUPPOSED to be much better. And it used to be.
I agree that Google is a target - it's certainly one of mine because of its potential to provide traffic for my interests. However, to continue its success, it must deal with spammers and much more. From what I've seen the last few months or more, Google doesn't appear up to the task.
I agree regarding "clutter" in results. I think this clutter comes from Google trying to find a way to render spammers and "heavily" SEO'ed pages impotent. Some of these SEO'ed pages I would call "highly optimized" pages and I think they are great for "highly targeted" searches (which I think we see a lot in the TRAVEL areas). However, highly optimized pages are not doing well on Google and consequently, highly targeted searches aren't either. I think cleaning up this clutter alone would greatly help. But "one man's trash is another's treasure."
And how does it benefits Google's profits if the SERPs offer up better than the Adwords? Google makes zero money if the searcher clicks on one of the sites that come up in the SERPs. It makes sense to me for Google to optimize more for the far more common Britney Spears type searches to get regular users, and let the Adwords substitute for poor quality commercial SERPs.
It makes sense to me for Google to optimize more for the far more common Britney Spears type searches to get regular users, and let the Adwords substitute for poor quality commercial SERPs.
Trouble is, Google is also delivering poor-quality results for non-commercial searches if those searches are on keywords and phrases that e-commerce sites optimize for. (E.g., "Elbonia travel guide," which may yield a page of hotel affiliate sites.)
This could be seen as acceptable collateral damage. I almost always do non-commercial searches on Google, and haven't seen commercial spammers appearing in the top SERPs to a material degree. For Google, it is a tradeoff. It isn't worth it for Google to combat spammers if the monetary costs outweigh the benefits of increased user satisfaction. I would tend to think this would be the case for searches that tend to be heavily spammed, as the whack-a-mole game for Google costs a lot of money. The fact that other search engines are also failing to stop these spammers also lowers the incentive for Google to care much.
The fact that other search engines are also failing to stop these spammers also lowers the incentive for Google to care much.
Yes but I've heard round these parts that the folks at the 'plex is smart book learnin' types. Mix that with a little professional pride and an ego or two and there may be an answer.:)
[slovakspectator.sk...]
I left i well paid job 3 years ago to build my own travel site with revenue been generated through affillate sytems. I did this for no other reason than to spend more time at home with my family, i have a daughter of 12 who has cerbal palsy who i want to spend more time with.
my site generated no money in year 1
A small amount of revenue in year 2
This year i have seen a steady increase in revenue with a increadible July, which if i am honest i thought i had made it, but in August it was a disaster, Sept and October improved slightly due mainly to me reading the forums and putting links on to my travel site, but it seems to have gone again in November.
I keep reading people talking about spam, as if it is some sort of crimanal offensive. i am not sure if i am a spammer, i simply try to make my site work. I have just under 10,000 pages on google with 88 links and a PR of 5. I generate some were in the region of 50 bookings a day, my worry is reading what you guys say i may be
A/ Using spam
B/ Using information readily available on the net
C/ Have no future as Google will eventually ban all affilates.
Put simply i dont want to ave a bad effect on any one eles business or annoy people with my site, do you guys think there is afuture with my site or should given what other say in there posts start to look for other employment.
Having just read my post it does seem to be from of a selfish point of view (all about whats best for me). I am sorry for this and i hope i can contribuite more positevely to the benefit of all in the future.
I don't think the outlook for pure affiliate sites is very promising, but affiliate sites that offer value-added content may do better in the future than they do now (simply because the pure affiliate sites are likely to get knocked down in the rankings by Google).
Also, there's a right way and a wrong way to add content. I see a lot of booking sites adding "destination guides" with boilerplate content from other sources. That doesn't strike me as being a very effective way to use content. A booking site with a dozen pages of Venice travel information, for example, is competing with editorial sites like mine that may have 500 pages of Venice content. Instead of trying to fool Google (and users) into thinking it's a travel-planning by having a dozen pages of blurbs on gondola rides, the Grand Canal, the Piazza San Marco, etc., a booking site might be better off creating unique selling pages for the hotels that it lists. In other words, instead of trying to be a second-rate travel guide, it should try to be a first-rate hotel guide.
