Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.67.166

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google Problem Search Results Reports

     

Dr Greenthumb

5:00 pm on Jan 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I was wondering if anyone has had any luck filling out spam reports. For the past 2 months I have filled out plenty of forms all with blatant spam (redirects, hidden text, different cache pages, duplicate sites)and have seen nothing done by google. I understand they probably get a ton of these but I really feel like I am wasting my time.

HayMeadows

4:00 pm on Jan 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



GoogleGuy's main plea the past couple of months has been "Report Spam".

Reading into this, I think it is a safe bet that they have an automated process to alert them when there is a trend in new types of spam out there.

The more people that report spam, the better this process works.

IMHO - if you see spam and you want the internet to be a more pleasant experience for everyone, you should be reporting it.

figment88

4:31 pm on Jan 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



It seems to me some of the worst SPAM offenders are the travel site that divide up their main site among a bunch of city or regional sites.

For example:

main site with all destinations: figments-B&B.com

Hundreds of interlinked doorway sites:

london-B&B.com
europe-B&B.com
washington-B&B.com
etc.

Google Spam report uses a single site as the unit of analysis, how do you report the above situation.

percentages

4:43 pm on Jan 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



figment88, there are many cornerstones of the web that use the technique you described. If Google ever drops those sites for spamming everyone at WW gets a free beer on me ;)

HayMeadows wrote:
>Reading into this, I think it is a safe bet that they have an automated process to alert them when there is a trend in new types of spam out there.

If they have an automated system for trending spam reports and alerting them, then why not put a "spam blaster" face on the toolbar and make it very easy for people to flag a possible spammer? Maybe that's what the toolbar sad face :( will be used for in the future?

I would think something along those lines should be possible, then throw out the big offenders for human checking before any penalty is applied. One day maybe they can automate that process, but I wouldn't like to see it happen until it was 100% perfect :)

HayMeadows

1:23 am on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Wow....percentages has an awesome idea here? A spam button, not just a sad button.

Maybe even a drop down so you can select what type of spam it is.

Version 1.2 coming soon :)

europeforvisitors

2:04 am on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)



figment88 wrote:

It seems to me some of the worst SPAM offenders are the travel site that divide up their main site among a bunch of city or regional sites.

Many sites use subdomains for logical, practical, or branding reasons. (Remember when, in its early days, Expedia's URL was expedia.msn.com?) If a network of sites like Suite101.com or About.com has a site on widgets, is it spammy to name it widgets.suite101.com or widgets.about.com? No; it's just common sense. And does it really make any difference whether supercheapodiscounthotels.com's London listings are called london.supercheapodiscounthotels.com or supercheapodiscounthotels.com/london?

IMHO, spam is when supercheapodiscounthotels.com creates half a dozen mirror sites under different names and tries to get them all listed in Yahoo or DMOZ and crosslinks like crazy in the hope of flooding Google's SERPs with its own pages. But that's a whole different issue from using logical subdomains.

Side note: If there's any PageRank benefit from linking between subdomains (as opposed to linking to index pages in subdirectories), then maybe that's a weakness in the algorithm Google needs to fix--but a spam penalty for using subdomains would be unreasonable, unnecessary, and unhelpful to users.

figment88

3:24 am on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



sorry, my example wasn't too clear.

I was speaking about registering actual new domains not sub-domaining.

Most of the previous comments are still aprospro. The main difference is that there is no doubt that the sites in question is trying to do something sneaky.

tunayilmaz

10:38 am on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)



Hello,

I think spam report is working. I have 3-4 competitors, each of them have nearly 10 websites. they are making hidden text, link spam. during last 5 days google removed all of them.

One of them has websites like that:

abc.com
abc.net
abc.org

xyz.com
xyz.net
xyz.org

every website using hidden text.
i have reported abc.com, abc.net, abc.org and xyz.com
i didnt see other 2 domains when i was reporting the sites. xyz.net and xyz.org. so i didnt report the last 2 domains.

google dropped first 4 domains and the other 2 still there.

thats why i am thinking spam report is working. I mentioned googleguy and webmasterworld and i sent a report for every single domain.

Now i think it is working.

Thanks.

excell

3:03 pm on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



just on that virtual domain thing.. there is a difference between a legit usage i.e. subject.domain.com that contains the subject in that area and the usage of subject.domain.com
that within two pumped up key phrase spammed templated page clicks leads to the domain.com or domain.com/subject.

SlyOldDog

4:45 pm on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Yes, I think one very important option is missing from the spam report, and that is "manipulating pagerank"

Perhaps the reason why it's not included is because the technicians who examine spam reports would not be qulaified enough to decide if complaints were true or not. Perhaps it's because Google doesn't want their own staff learning how to subvert their algorithm? Perhaps it's just too time consuming to investigate?

In any case, the most effective Google spam is cross-linked domains, and this cannot be reported with the current spam report.

europeforvisitors

6:14 pm on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)



In any case, the most effective Google spam is cross-linked domains, and this cannot be reported with the current spam report.

Just click "Other" and use the comment box.

Total Paranoia

6:34 pm on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Follow GG's advice and report spam.

If you follow the advice given by espeed (msg #19) when reporting - In my experience, It does work but it can take two or three updates for the offender to be removed.

jk3210

6:45 pm on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



>>...why not put a "spam blaster" face on the toolbar and make it very easy for people to flag a possible spammer?<<

And hard-wire it directly into the SERPs so that when you hit the button it deletes their site; cancels their domain registration; terminates their ISP account; frys their hard drive; and shoots their dog...

gopi

6:55 pm on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Thats Funny jk3210 ... :)

nativenewyorker

7:21 pm on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



This spam blaster idea sounds like "Google Bombing" round II. We'll see Microsoft and AOL down to PR2 in no time given all the people out there that detest them.

Ted

Lots0

7:39 pm on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)



As I read through this thread I was amazed (again) at how most of the new posters seem to think that SPAM=Sites that are beating their site in the SERP.

Don’t concentrate on having Google get rid of the “Bad Guys” - Concentrate on making your own site better than your competition.

HayMeadows

8:36 pm on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



SPAM = What Google says is spam.

And I'm certain there are different penalties for different types of spam. Some spam they do their best to ignore automatically (hidden text, misleading or repeated words, etc.).

Other spam gets you penalized (doorway pages, deceptive redirects, etc.)

europeforvisitors

10:17 pm on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)



Don’t concentrate on having Google get rid of the “Bad Guys” - Concentrate on making your own site better than your competition.

We hear this propaganda again and again. It's based on faulty logic, for several reasons:

1) Most of us are Google users, not just Webmasters. We have an interest in spam-free SERPs whether we're searching for information on our topics or on other topics.

2) Improving own sites may help our own positions on Google SERPs, but it won't reduce the amount of spam in search results.

3) It takes only a minute or so to report spam via Google's e-form, so there's no "either/or" choice between reporting spam and improving our own sites.

Lots0

10:34 pm on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)



I think the system admins and mods on this board have made it very clear that they do not want discussions about turning in so called Spamers - Why do you same people persist?

europeforvisitors

10:59 pm on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)



I think the system admins and mods on this board have made it very clear that they do not want discussions about turning in so called Spamers - Why do you same people persist?

Please read the forum charter before making assumptions about what is or isn't permitted on this board.

Lots0

11:06 pm on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)



[webmasterworld.com...]

I think they make themselves very clear...

efv have you ever read the forum charter?
from the forum charter,

Off Topic:
SPAM reporting issues

mosley700

11:44 pm on Jan 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Google is the big boy on the block. It's not just the little twerps who are spamming Google. I know of a $29 million dollar dot com that has hundreds of cloaked pages. When companies have lots of money riding on the line, they will spam Google. It is not cost effictive, or even practical, for Google to go out and manually check each reported page. I don't think it's realistic to think that consumers will report all the spam, either. The result is Google getting filled up with spam in the index. Reporting spam does not work. It isn't practical, and it is not a real solution.
Now, if Google changed its spider IP periodically, it might make a difference. Other than that, I have no ideas. I've seen a lot of spam/ cloaked sites in Google these days, and the more popular Google gets, the worse the problem should get.

europeforvisitors

1:19 am on Jan 12, 2003 (gmt 0)



Lots0:

Apparently you didn't read the body text.

Off Topic:
SPAM reporting issues.

If you have spam to report, please report it to Google. We are not the Google spam reporting system or the place to "shop the competition" knowing that Google techs may read it. Posting someone elses url is no different than violating them by posting their name and address. That includes posting of Google search terms.

(etc.)

If even discussing the topic of spam reporting were a violation of the forum charter, this forum would be useless, and GoogleGuy would have been banned by now. :-)

BTW, advocating censorship (or even self-censorship) isn't the best way to deal with topics that make you uncomfortable or with people whose opinions you don't share. If, for example, you believe that reporting spam to Google is wrong or counterproductive, why not tell us why and use logic to support your position?

Lots0

2:45 am on Jan 12, 2003 (gmt 0)



BTW, advocating censorship (or even self-censorship) isn't the best way to deal with topics that make you uncomfortable or with people whose opinions you don't share. If, for example, you believe that reporting spam to Google is wrong or counterproductive, why not tell us why and use logic to support your position?

I have on several threads, Just like the one that I listed above, it's just that logic does not convince people who's minds are already made up, like yours.

Some people have decided that the way to success for their one and only site is to turn in your competitors for spam, spam being anything they don't understand or like, and of course any site that is beating theirs in the SERP must be spaming.

I personally think that is wrong, but then I am sure you would not approve of the way I get sites in the travel industry top 5 placement. ;-)

The topic of spam does not make me uncomfortable - I used to be (on another well known SEO forum) a crusader against "Spam", until I figured out that trying to fight "Spam" was an exercise in futility and fighting “Spam” was helping a company (Google) that would like to see all the people in my profession working at McDonalds.

People want to succeed and make money, they don’t care what a Search Engine’s policies are. Note I said a Search Engine’s POLICIES, not law, not regulations, just some companies policy. A policy that I might add that is not very well concieved.

Let me ask you this - If for under $2000.00 someone can get a domain and a working site then place that site in the top 5 for a competitive key word where they were making an average of (low end) $300.00 a day and it took a minium 5 or 6 months (usually much longer) for Google (or any Spam fighter) to ban this domain - would that $2000.00 be worth it? Of course it would, and this happens everyday, all day. How you gonna fight this? And please don't start spouting "I fight Spam for truth, justice and the American way" - cuz you don't. You do it so your site will be #1.

[edited by: Lots0 at 3:30 am (utc) on Jan. 12, 2003]

GoogleGuy

3:28 am on Jan 12, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



Let's see. Tony_Perry, I went back and found your report. Complaints are anonymous, so I lucked out because your nick is your name, and you included your name in your report :). Looks like you did a complaint on Dec. 20th, and the site you mentioned is already scheduled to be removed early this coming week. So you just needed to be a little more patient. :) Thanks for providing that feedback--we took action on it, but we're also using it to improve our algorithms.

tunayilmaz, glad you had a spot-on experience.

And mosley700, if you're willing, fill out a spam report on that $29 million dotcom--make sure you include evidence with specific urls or queries that demonstrate cloaking. We'll check it out.

mosley700

3:32 am on Jan 12, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Wow, GG, impressive.

Lots0

3:38 am on Jan 12, 2003 (gmt 0)



Wow, GG, impressive.

It's meant to be... Google PR at work PR=Public Relations.

europeforvisitors

3:44 am on Jan 12, 2003 (gmt 0)



The topic of spam does not make me uncomfortable - I used to be (on another well known SEO forum) a crusader against "Spam", until I figured out that trying to fight "Spam" was an exercise in futility and fighting “Spam” was helping a company (Google) that would like to see all the people in my profession working at McDonalds.

People want to succeed and make money, they don’t care what a Search Engine’s policies are. Note I said a Search Engine’s POLICIES, not law, not regulations, just some companies policy. A policy that I might add that is not very well concieved.

You sound suspiciously like a guy who used to post here. No matter: I have no desire to rehash the issue of whether helping private companies maintain the accuracy of their search results is a communistic contribution to corporate greed. :-)

The original post in this thread asked: "I was wondering if anyone has had any luck filling out spam reports." GoogleGuy's latest post suggests that the answer is "Yes." As a longtime Web surfer who uses Google as a search engine (and not just as a promotional tool), I consider that good news, but I won't question your right to have a different opinion.

Lots0

3:49 am on Jan 12, 2003 (gmt 0)



You sound suspiciously like a guy who used to post here
Nope not me. <added>But he sounds like a great guy - Lots0 is the only "handle" I have ever had here</added>

Funny efv you asked for logical arguments - when I give them to you , you just ignore them.

And GG I know of a large .com that is using IP redirection (cloaking) Should I turn them in? Oh never mind, you work for them...

europeforvisitors

4:02 am on Jan 12, 2003 (gmt 0)



Funny efv you asked for logical arguments - when I give them to you , you just ignore them.

What logical arguments? Statements like "Some people have decided that the way to success for their one and only site is to turn in your competitors for spam, spam being anything they don't understand or like, and of course any site that is beating theirs in the SERP must be spaming"? That horse is already dead; it doesn't need to be beaten again. :-)

Lots0

4:05 am on Jan 12, 2003 (gmt 0)



If for under $2000.00 someone can get a domain and a working site then place that site in the top 5 for a competitive key word where they were making an average of (low end) $300.00 a day and it took a minium 5 or 6 months (usually much longer) for Google (or any Spam fighter) to ban this domain - would that $2000.00 be worth it?

well efv how about this?
This 61 message thread spans 3 pages: 61
 

Featured Threads

Hot Threads This Week

Hot Threads This Month