Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
This quote is from Matt Cutts blog:
I’m about blogged out for the day, and there are better places to discuss this stuff (WebmasterWorld, Search Engine Watch Forums, etc.). The best way to get people to process your feedback is to use the spam report form or the dissatisfied link, make sure that you include the keyword “bigdaddy” and try to be as specific and clear as you can.... I’d be delighted to get webspam feedback, but I’m most interested in hearing feedback about canonicalization, redirects, duplicate urls, www vs. non-www, and similar issues. Before you send in a report, please read my previous posts on url canonicalization, the inurl operator, and 302 redirects.
[mattcutts.com...]
[edited by: tedster at 11:45 pm (utc) on Jan. 4, 2006]
[edit reason] shorter quote - add link [/edit]
Reseller,
Thanks for the food of thought in your post this morning. I don't believe it but it is an interesting thought. I think it is easier for Google to collect SEO terms by data mining the adwords databases then using a honeypot though.
I don't want my advertisements on thin affiliates and spamsites as well but some more (and not less) good informational travel related sites with Adwords high in the SERPS would be nice.
I was using Google this week to look for good travel related information sites in the top 10 of search results to put CPM Adwords advertisements on them. However I could hardly find any for one word terms.
Maybe you're using the wrong one-word terms, or maybe you should emulate users by using multi-word terms (such as "widgetville travel" or "widgetville tourist information" instead of just "widgetville"). Generic searches on "travel" or "hotels" probably wouldn't do you much good even if Google excluded made-for-AdSense scraper sites, thin affiliate sites, etc. from search results.