Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
If you read how the Internet actually came about you'll understand this methodology which Google still applies. I see more and more sites which have historically relied on link exchanges actually going down the serps.
My main site got badly hit with jagger and is still nowhere to be seen. Google accounted for 70% of my traffic. However, as soon as this happened I came up with some creative methods of generating traffic. Traffic to my main site is now at the same level before jagger hit (still no Google traffic by the way).
Who needs Google anyway? There are SO many ways of generating traffic....you have to think out of the box.
Now imagine trying to reasearch if a site has hidden text, sneaky CSS, belongs to the same owner, all belong to some crazy site farm etc....
Now pile onto that all those topics and niches that your are not familiar with or care about like porn, warez and imagine what the spam reports would look like then.>>
My point was that once Google has checked a site (or group of sites) and has established trust in it's webmasters it will not need to be checked again. At least not checked very often.
This will take up less manpower in the long-run than constant filter/algo modifications and constant checking on serps because it is does not need to be repeated all the time.
Once a site has trust (trustrank anyone?), Google could automatically check a site by looking at the html and flagging when a percentage amount of change is reached. Only then would that site by re-verified by a person.
Also, by asking for spam reports the process is sped up since the hunting is not done by Google. Google just does the killing.
And, finally, Google has 1 Billion Quadrillion Pounds. It can hire enough people.
[edited by: thecityofgold2005 at 1:35 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]
How can you be "famous" if in the first place no-one can find you on the internet?
Can someone tell me when results are supposed to be spread out from Jagger2 on all DC's?
Jagger3 should hopefully start about that time.
It achieves quite a bit. It is a great cross check to see what their spam filters miss. Who knows spam techniques better than webmasters? Who better to report them? Besides, if you are a competitor, you can bet google is checking the other results nearby.
I have seen sites removed within 18 hours of spam reports this week. I have also seen webmasters cleanup their own sites before reporting others. Google kills two birds with one webmaster's stone.
lost me there. He's giving advice on how to survive G updates and then he has a "link manager".
Maybe I'm not clear on what a link farm is, but the website I reported has 5 websites interlinking. Google shows over 6,000 links and most of them are from these websites. They are ranked #1 for all the related keywords. Is this or isn't this a link farm?
You are assuming that this "reporting" will be a result of some sort of philanthropic desire to "cleanse" the serps, rather than resulting from any sort of vested interest in the outcome....
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that there are plenty of well meaning webmasters out there, but this could be heavily abused by those seeking to gain an advantage. Leave it to the algos, we give some feedback, they either listen or they don't..
